Apple Policy : WARNING Contents could be viewed as political

IF you opinion is the same as Tim Cooks

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition

If not, just ignore this, and don’t spark an unproductive conversation, I understand this topic is volitatile, and arguments most likely non-productive,

My Opinion. I agree with Spock

The Needs of the Many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one…

I do appreciate Tim Cook fighting for civil liberties, but opinions are largely irrelevant in this matter. It is no longer a matter of opinion, but rather, of legal battle. We shall see what the outcome is. I am afraid, however, the iron pot always wins.

I agree with Tim Cook as well to some degree, the difference in this case though is that they are wanting access to a work phone and not his personal phone. It is owned by his workplace. For instance, if you use your work computer for personal stuff, you should never expect total privacy, there will always be an IT guy with Admin privilege that can access your computer and see what you’ve been doing…same should go for a work phone.

Dave, I’m not sure that’s the best argument since a credible case can be made for either side that it best serves the needs of the many.

I saw an interesting opinion that this has become a “thing” now only because of Scalia’s passing. With a more liberal Supreme Court, at the moment, the Obama administration may see this as a way of codifying the right to privacy via encryption, so both Apple and the DOJ are actually on the same side. I don’t think I agree, but it did offer food for thought.

Good point but then the company should have taken provisions to secure continued access to the data in case the employee is unable (!). After all, an iPhone is just another computer, and I see no reason why the IT makes sure desktop computers are administered, and phones would not be.

Actually, I find this much more interesting. How can the iT keep his company information safe in an employee’s corporate phone. This can be crucial if the said device is able to access confidential information. This include being able to recover access to the device when the employee is not around, as well as the ability to brick it if it gets stolen or lost. I bet an immense majority of corporate phones are extremely insecure, and absolutely not administered.

Again, the purpose of this was to inform people of a place to register their option if they agreed with Apple, not to spark a political debate. But you are right, there is no perfect answer, there is just the answer which you personally feel most strongly about.

But I loath to see the day when the government forces me to change my identity to RDS1138

@Michel Bujardet We have become such a connected society that the line between work and personal has blurred so much that there should be no expectation of privacy. :slight_smile:

The other issue I see as well is that Apple has helped the government get access to phones before about 70 or so times. So it is only now that they are saying no. I think it is part privacy and part PR. This case is so highly covered in the media that the outcome can be hindrance to Apple’s brand. It is much more difficult to get access in the new iOS but still if you did it before without any fanfare, what changed now? Anyway, as Dave said we can go on and on about this. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.

I did not comment at all on privacy. Just the fact that a company should ensure that corporate devices should have an administration policy, which is apparently not the case in this instance.

If the company that owns the iPhone had an administration policy, the master password and the PUK would have been recorded some place by the IT so asking Apple would not be necessary.

Now, privacy up until brainless millennials decided to post their journal and entire life on Facebook, was a respectable concept, worth protecting. Let alone in countries where literally one’s life depends on it.

[quote=248409:@Michel Bujardet]Actually, I find this much more interesting. How can the iT keep his company information safe in an employee’s corporate phone.[/quote]I believe the only smartphones that offer remote administration in this way are BB10s and BlackBerry are now swapping to Android, they seem to believe downgrading their OS is the solution to their poor sales.

Maybe it will possible for Ubuntu phones to be remotely administered using Landscape but they haven’t really hit the market yet.

Well, seems the employer did try to regain control of the phone but they were not so clever :
http://gizmodo.com/the-san-bernardino-terrorists-icloud-password-was-accid-1760158613

The whole thing shows there is a lot of possible improvements around phones. Would that be real administration of corporate phone with the notion of administrator privileges and user privileges.

Right now indeed, phones are designed as personal tools and while used widely in corporate environment, any IT manager would get up in arms if desktop computers were designed the same way.

[quote=248431:@Steve Wilson]I believe the only smartphones that offer remote administration in this way are BB10s and BlackBerry are now swapping to Android, they seem to believe downgrading their OS is the solution to their poor sales.

Maybe it will possible for Ubuntu phones to be remotely administered using Landscape but they haven’t really hit the market yet.[/quote]

His employer did use remote administration with the iPhone in question, they tried a password reset about 24 hours after the FBI got the iPhone and screwed it up.

The difference is that those phones weren’t encrypted.

http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/

Possession is 9/10th of the law.

I wonder if the FBI already has the data and this is just posturing by Apple before some evidence is revealed. Perhaps it’s just a marketing strategy to take advantage of the situation. I doubt it however given Apple is already winning.

Unless Apple gets a huge fine or someone is arrested there is nothing to see here. It’s clear we have a responsibility to address the role of government in our inbox. Some have already made their feelings known by operating their own email servers. While it’s easy to justify that as dishonest, greedy, or otherwise; The most likely scenario was out of pure Government incompetence. You think Xojo is behind on supporting a Windows widget or iOS library… You should see the systems that manage our society.

[quote=248436:@Robert Schofield]His employer did use remote administration with the iPhone in question, they tried a password reset about 24 hours after the FBI got the iPhone and screwed it up.[/quote]So the device was backed up to an iCloud account and they changed the password for accessing that?

Does the iPhone give enterprise fine grain control over their devices like these features of BB10:

Control whether the user can use device features like nfc, wifi, camera, usb tethering, hdmi, bluetooth (including fine grain control over what BT functionality is available if they don’t want to shut it off completely), etc…
Retrieve a detailed log of device usage
Force all network data to pass through their corporate network
Control whether or not the user can install apps
Prevent the device connecting to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc…
Control whether or not the user can set up third-party email services
Remotely lock/wipe the device

Going back awhile I read a blog post by a city trader that stated BB10 were the only devices approved for their use. I don’t know if that’s still the case.

I think this is the level of control a government department should have over any mobile devices it’s going to lend to employees, not only for security but to make the device worthless if the employee tries to pocket it.

BB did assist the authorities after the London riots though. I don’t know whether it’s related but BB was hugely popular with teenagers before that (mainly because of BBM) but the popularity dropped off a cliff afterwards. Of course it might just have been the rise of WhatsApp that did for BB & BBM and the timing was coincidence.

.

[quote=248496:@Phillip Zedalis]I wonder if the FBI already has the data and this is just posturing by Apple before some evidence is revealed. Perhaps it’s just a marketing strategy to take advantage of the situation.[/quote]One of the documents released by Snowden did state Apple, Microsoft and Google were all ‘willing participants’ in the Prism program.

[quote=248511:@Steve Wilson]So the device was backed up to an iCloud account and they changed the password for accessing that?

Does the iPhone give enterprise fine grain control over their devices like these features of BB10:

Control whether the user can use device features like nfc, wifi, camera, usb tethering, hdmi, bluetooth (including fine grain control over what BT functionality is available if they don’t want to shut it off completely), etc…
Retrieve a detailed log of device usage
Force all network data to pass through their corporate network
Control whether or not the user can install apps
Prevent the device connecting to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc…
Control whether or not the user can set up third-party email services
Remotely lock/wipe the device

Going back awhile I read a blog post by a city trader that stated BB10 were the only devices approved for their use. I don’t know if that’s still the case.

I think this is the level of control a government department should have over any mobile devices it’s going to lend to employees, not only for security but to make the device worthless if the employee tries to pocket it.

BB did assist the authorities after the London riots though. I don’t know whether it’s related but BB was hugely popular with teenagers before that (mainly because of BBM) but the popularity dropped off a cliff afterwards. Of course it might just have been the rise of WhatsApp that did for BB & BBM and the timing was coincidence.

.

One of the documents released by Snowden did state Apple, Microsoft and Google were all ‘willing participants’ in the Prism program.[/quote]

Yes it gives the same control as you would get with a BB10, Apple and other companies offer this software.

Mobile Device Management for Business (Apple.com)

BB10 is a dead OS though at this point, Blackberries latest phones use a custom version of Android.

Somebody really blew it when they did a password change on the phone. I’m not entirely sure that what the government is asking for is even possible to be installed on this current phone. Can even Apple force an iOS update to a phone where they don’t know the pin code? If it’s set to automatically install updates then it’s possible I suppose.

The governments insistence that this is just for this one phone though is silly. Once Apple demonstrates that they can do this, they will have to hire an entire division of people to do this for the thousands of requests that will then come in.

I’m interested in how other industries would respond to such a request for a back door. Hey! That safe you make is too strong, we need you to use softer steel. Hey! That steel door you make it too strong for us to break down when we need to bust into a drug dealers apartment, we need you to use hinges that break easier. I’m fairly certain that nobody would support the government in those requests, so why this one?

San Bernardino County was paying for but didn’t install MDM software for their mobile phones.

San Bernardino County Left Software Uninstalled That Could Unlock Shooter’s iPhone

while in some respects that is a great analogy, remember cracking a “physical container” just requires a bigger hammer, unlike a software encryption…

The analogy, and possible precedent, if any, is a company that manufactures a safe that is designed to destroy its contents if opened improperly. Can such a manufacturer be compelled to open that safe?

Just requires more computing power… I have a colleague (who sadly passed away last year), he saw the other rather large computing department that the Chinese government have, an entire warehouse of hardware dedicated to decryption. It was designed to decrypt e-mails, no matter what encryption method was used. He claimed it would simply brute force attack the encryption until it found words that it recognized.