InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC
This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
@DavidG047 You make some excellent points, but we also have to remember Apple does not want to lose the trust of their user base either.
Apple has touted the security of these phones since Jobs, and we can only imagine how much business they might lose if a post Jobs turn in policy were ever carried out.
"...I find it humorous Bill Gates decided to weigh in on this. His product never had this problem, it enabled the malware infested world we live in. Who needs a court order, a 10 year old with an internet connection and a laptop can get whatever they want out of his products."
@TerryB I find it humorous as well. Who knew he had so much time on his hands especially with all the humanitarian work he is supposed to be doing.
Hey, Bill got news for you, humanity can still use some help. Focus.
@nasimson That is a great point. Are we to believe that criminals and terrorist only use iPhones ? I would like to know what Google's stance is on this as well - I have an uneasy feeling that they have a much more relaxed position towards Government petitions for data.
I really hope I am wrong though.
The State of Cloud Computing - Fall 2020
Download this report to compare how cloud usage and spending patterns have changed in 2020, and how respondents think they'll evolve over the next two years.
2021 Top Enterprise IT TrendsWe've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you.
Tweet This
User Rank: Apprentice
3/1/2016 | 2:28:01 PM
If Apple was simply saying "no" out of some misguided attempt at protecting the individual terrorist, then your example might more closely apply. But that is not what is going on here - they are being asked to create NEW technology to allow the FBI to attempt a brute-force attack on their security measures.
Therefore, your point is missing Apple's "place" or role in this scenario. In your example of paper writings from the terrorist, Apple would have been a super-micro Cross-Cut paper shedder manufacturer that was used by the terrorist right before he died. Then the FBI found the tiny shreds of paper, and handed them to Apple, and got a court order that said, "You must go create a machine to un-shred these papers so we can read them."
If somehow they COULD even pull of this miracle, no one would ever buy an Apple shredder again because they would not feel they were safely protecting their data from the bad guys.
Apple is an innocent, non-party in this case. They should not be compelled to weaken and possibly destroy their own product, and they should definitely not have to do it as "forced labor without pay".