If Apple can do something that will unencrypt the phone, then obviously the vulnerability is already present. How about Apple hacks the phone, then fixes the vulnerability so they can't do it again in the future?
e.g. Apple has already fixed the holes in the 6/6S; the concern here is the use of all writs to compel them to unlock the 5C, and the Pandora's box that doing so would open up.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160218/10371233643/yes-b...
Sounds like Apple needs to update Secure Enclave so that updating wipes the keys.
What if the NSA/CIA/whoever can already decrypt that phone if they want? What if they're very publicly showing limitations of their abilities that aren't real, so that bad guys use it as a manual ("follow these steps and the NSA can't spy on us", except they actually can)? What if they're doing this so that bad guys (as defined by them) continue to use and trust vulnerable systems, rather than looking for secure alternatives?
If that scenario is right, if all this is just theater, then Apple will eventually win this fight, and along the way, there will be pretty clear guidelines established about what the NSA currently can and cannot break. Only you can't trust that what gets revealed is accurate...
I'm always surprised by people's ability to assume "the Government isn't corrupt this time!" after time and time and time and time (and time and time)... and time... and time... and time again, the Government was "that corrupt that time". While it should never be assumed that they for certain are, it should always remain a possibility until reasonably argued against.
Of course, one can't prove a negative - so the line of where it has been "reasonably argued against" is a very gray area. It's easy to cross the line into "full-blown looney conspiracist".
Which, going along the COINTEL mindset, is exactly what a Government would want: The general population dismissing anyone critical of the government as being a looney nutcase...because the Government couldn't possibly be corrupt.
As someone who has read too much into COINTEL operations and literature (and at one point wanted to right a book about various COINTEL tactics) - it's really hard to dismiss ideas like the one you bring up - even on grounds of "there's no evidence for that".
Why is this a problem? As long as the government has the legal right to search the phone, isn't it good that they can now search it?
Remember this would only apply to phones the government has physical control over and in cases where Apple is compelled by a court.
I'm curious how we can be certain of that. Granted, this is the 'slippery slope' argument.
A lot of people, myself included, don't think the government is interested in ONLY decrypting phones in this class. They want to decrypt ALL of them, en masse, at will.
The hell of it is, as I typed the above, I think of how I would have felt reading those words typed by someone else, 15 years ago. I'd assume they were some kind of conspiracy nut.
The President has the legal right to order an assassination, so all assassinations ordered are good, and even more are better? I don't follow your reasoning at all.
First, there is a huge difference in consequences. If you search a phone and nothing is there then the person isn't significantly harmed. Killing someone is a huge consequence and it's irreparable.
Second, the court proceedings insure we are only searching people who deserve it. You leave that out in your assassination hypo. The standards for deserving a search are lower than deserving to get killed, at least they should be. So you can't compare the two. But assuming the president ordered the assassinations of people we knew deserved it--known terrorists, spies, genociders, etc--I'd still say "what's the problem"
Finally, you are substituting in something that most people consider inherently immoral. I think it's pretty clear a search of a phone to recover evidence is not inherently immoral. But many would say that there is never a reason to assassinate someone.
We've seen the court abuse that whole 'probably cause' to the point of being meaningless.
>First, there is a huge difference in consequences. If you search a phone and nothing is there then the person isn't significantly harmed. Killing someone is a huge consequence and it's irreparable.
So because the harm isn't as immediate, certain human rights don't matter as much?
>Second, the court proceedings insure we are only searching people who deserve it.
Because the court says so... which is as good as the President saying the target deserved the assassination. The court is still part of the government that can't be trusted.
>So you can't compare the two.
You can always compare different things. In fact, any comparison of real life topics is being made of two different things.
>But assuming the president ordered the assassinations of people we knew deserved it
Who deserved it according to the President, who we don't trust because they are a member of a government which we are talking about not having trust in.
>I'd still say "what's the problem"
Those pesky human rights...
>Finally, you are substituting in something that most people consider inherently immoral.
I'm only using an example that is an easier violation of human rights to understand. It is far easier to explain to people why violating the right to life is wrong than it is why violating the right to be secure against searches and seizures.
>I think it's pretty clear a search of a phone to recover evidence is not inherently immoral.
If your morality is one that allows an abusive government to violate human rights then that isn't a morality we share.
(1) Government has legal powers, not rights, but more importantly,
(2) No, just because a legal power of government exists does not mean that it is better for it to be exercised in every case where it might be.