Can the government compel the creation of original tools and IP outside the typical operations of a business? If so should they be required to compensate the business? Does the business then own the IP or the government? What happens when compelling a company to create IP or perform process outside of its typical operations is a net loss regardless of compensation? Should it be required to notify stockholders? Is it legal to make investments based on this PARTICULAR kind of inside government information? What if the entire company's operation may be plausibly undermined by the operation?
I think a more relevant example here would be whether the government could compel a bank or financial company to create or alter its financial reporting tools to falsify data or misreport to the subject of an investigation.
That's essentially what I view to be the case here. In theory the procedure may be perfectly "lawful" but in practice is clearly overreach. We need case law around this. I believe this is as clear a case of overreach as Apple could wish for. Finally, I believe it should be legal precedent set in public for once.
I was only responding to the gp, in that it would be billable, but the real "cost" may be incalculable... not to mention the damage to near term and long term security, and future incursions into privacy built upon yielding here.
* I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are no ways to "trivially" access their personal information. Even for Apple to do so would be a breach of that trust. See: "Uber God Mode"
If the only reason they can't get at your data is because they haven't compiled some code yet that's ALMOST NO PROTECTION AT ALL! Anyone making a buying decision based on Apple's failure to compile a simple piece of code is nuts!
Like, if you gave me a private document while I had my eyes closed and I said "Trust me, I can't see your data, I have my eyes closed. And I'm not going to open them." that would be crazy right? Building GovOS is the equivalent of opening my eyes.
And even if that's true (which I really don't think it is) it's not a good enough reason.
Say I started a bank and marketed my bank as an especially secure one. "Even the FBI will never be able to see your bank records. I won't let them!" I bet some customers might be interested in that. Just because I had marketed my bank that way doesn't mean my bank would gain some special legal protection against warrants.
If the government wants to pass a law requiring phone makers like Apple to include a back door, then that's what they should do.
For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption.
Its easy to see why DOD originally classified it as a munition. Video games have become a powerful tool for storytelling, education, performance art, and immersive experiences for a long time but they started out as artillery simulators and a means to practice war games. That mentality pervades and we still see Jump, Shoot, and Run as the primary dynamic by which we function in these amazing experiences. You're fighting against human instinct and hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Against Dunbar's number, the core mechanic of trust and social engagement for millenia. I hope you're right, but I don't think it will be the sea-change you're expecting. Look at the adoption of bitcoin and remember that law enforcement is a retro-grade function of society. Underfunded and always behind the zeitgeist.
We don't ask the secret service to build the president's merchandising website, and we shouldn't expect the FBI to be able to articulate or comprehend the, "triviality" of undermining strong encryption.
I think it's great that you name specific parts of the government because not all parts of the government think strong encryption is a problem.
4PM in Chicago. I'm out of here.
That's an absurd point of view because the phone in question doesn't have strong encryption(1). If it did, there would be no way for Apple to trivially bypass it.
(1) Well it kind of does but by encouraging the use of an incredibly weak password it defeats the purpose of having any encryption at all really. If the San Bernardino shooters had used a real password we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The chance of there being anything valuable on that phone is pretty slim. Especially when you consider how much the government is willing to spend on it. I was just watching CNN and Apple has apparently detailed what it would take before they would consider writing the compromised version of the OS. The reporter claims it would cost about $50 million and the government has apparently said "no problem, we can pay that". Ugh.
Well, for Apple to develop this software, they would insist on it being developed in a locked down facility that doesn't currently exist (what Apple has is in use). I think they have said it's only about $100,000 of developer time (so maybe 2-3 months of work), but the infrastructure that would be necessary for the work to be done in a way that doesn't risk any leaks is expensive.
Apple has made the claim that code-is-speech. From that article:
> Wayne Giampietro, a Chicago-based lawyer and longtime member of the First Amendment Lawyer's Association, said that Apple is absolutely on solid ground with its argument.
I see your code is speech point. I'm skeptical about it, because usually code is just code. It's meant to do something, not to express an idea. But I think there is some merit to the idea that code signing combines doing something (enabling code to be loaded) and communicating an idea (that the signer trusts the code). It's an interesting argument, certainly.