What do you think of Apple being forced to hack an iPhone?

Apple restores iDevices that have been messed with on a "don't ask don't tell" basis:
http://lifehacker.com/5848640/how-do-i-fix-my-bricked-iphone-ipad-or-ipod-touch

Causes of bricking:
http://www.howtogeek.com/126665/htg-explains-what-does-bricking-a-device-mean/

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with those articles.

Here's an article that provides a little more information  on the Apple/FBI battle. I believe it confirms my concerns about the feds wanting to set a precedent and not caring that much about the phone in question. I hope Apple sticks to their guns on this.

_Howard wrote:

I posted a link to an article about Error 53. The bricking of phones when the home button has been replaced by someone other than Apple.

Yes, and your article indicates when "bricking" happens -- when installing a new version of the OS, which during the course of installation verifies that all the hardware it expects to find is in fact there.

Quote :

If a non-Apple repairer replaced the button on a damaged iPhone or iPad, a subsequent update of the operating system detected a non-standard component and shut down the device. There was no way to restart it.

If it finds an unauthorized security device (the thumbprint reader, either missing or replaced) the installation does not go forward.  

Leaving the phone without a valid OS.  Bricked.

There is no back door, there is no team of nefarious Apple engineers shutting down suspicious phones, there is no plot to ensure compliance with Apple standards.

Just an OS that expects to find working components, and a failure if they're not found.

So you're claiming that Apple is innocent of any wrong doing, and is just trying to keep their customers safe.

Do you think that Apple knew that the phones would be inoperable after the failed install?

If they did know, then the phone's subsequent inoperable condition was intentional.
If they did not know, then the installer software is a piece of shit and the designers should be fired.

Apple has never denied that they have intentionally rendered some phones inoperable. They have even gone to court to claim their right to do so. Look it up.

Oh I don't doubt it.

Under the circumstances of jailbreaking and/or installing unauthorized/unapproved hardware.

In which case Apple would be liable for items they have no control over, or Apple's OS would be asked to support something it wasn't designed to support. See, Apple's products are designed to work in unison, with limited and very well-defined sunsetting of old apps & hardware. Unlike any other manufacturer, Apple is a SYSTEM in which an iPad, iPhone, Apple TV and Apple computer are designed to all work in concert.

If you allow any camel into that tent, it's impossible to guarantee results.

How error 53 bricks a phone and why:

Quote :

While rare, the error is significant because of its severe consequences. Error 53 is typically triggered by a disruption of the link between the Touch ID fingerprint reader and the Secure Enclave within the phone, which often causes the phone to brick completely. Many users who took those phones to nearby Apple stores were told the phones were effectively unrecoverable.

That won't be true after the latest iOS update, although it doesn't mean Error 53 is gone for good. The new update will restore phones bricked by the phone, but it won't restore function to the fingerprint reader. Allowing that connection to be broken and then restored could open the door for a malicious program to steal a user's fingerprint as it travels from the reader to the Enclave, an attack that has been demonstrated in the past on Android phones without similar protections.

Apple wrote:

“We take customer security very seriously and Error 53 is the result of security checks designed to protect our customers,” Apple explained a little more than a week ago. “iOS checks that the Touch ID sensor in your iPhone or iPad correctly matches your device’s other components. If iOS finds a mismatch, the check fails and Touch ID, including for Apple Pay use, is disabled. This security measure is necessary to protect your device and prevent a fraudulent Touch ID sensor from being used.”

NoCoPilot wrote:

Apple is a SYSTEM in which an iPad, iPhone, Apple TV and Apple computer are designed to all work in concert.

Funny. We have five Apple devices in the house and they never have anything to do with one another. They each have a single purpose. Now my computers (not Apples) communicate with each other and with my BluRay player and my television (not Apples). Gee. I have a system! Whoopee!

When I buy an iPhone, or an iPad, or an iPod, or an iWhatever, the fucking thing belongs to me. Apple has no right to disable it, no matter what I have done to it. They certainly have the right to deny me updates to the OS, or to not install any of their programs, or to not work on the thing under warranty or even out of warranty. But they do not, under any circumstances, have the right to render my device unworkable. I don't need the dickheads in Cupertino telling me what I can and cannot do with a piece  of equipment which I own. Hard as it may be for some to believe, Apple may not always know what is best for me. I am not in need of their protection.

{heavy sigh.} Whatever. {shrugs}

Yeah. I'm really being unreasonable.
{sigh} {belch} {fart} Ahhhh.

_Howard wrote:

Funny. We have five Apple devices in the house and they never have anything to do with one another. They each have a single purpose.

That somewhat explains your low opinion of them.

I have not expressed a low opinion of Apple hardware. Only of the company's business practices.
Apple makes some really clever gadgets and some excellent computers. I've said that before. What else do you want?

_Howard wrote:

Funny. We have five Apple devices in the house...

That was an error. We have six Apple devices.

The peeler doesn't count.

Oops. I forgot the peeler.
Seven.

This is a fairly coherent summary.

Apple and FBI testify in hearing on locked iPhone: What we learned

That's a good article, but I really do wish that editors would catch a few things. Consider this statement" "Without these limitations, the FBI could brute force the passcode in 26 minutes, Comey said." That's a ludicrous remark, as they do not know what passcode the guy was using. If it's four digits, then that's probably correct. If it's longer and contains non-numeric characters, it could potentially take several years to crack.

And once again, this: "Apple says creating the code is 'too dangerous' because it creates a backdoor..." (We'll ignore the fact that back door is two words.) What Apple means is that it creates another back door - one which will be known to others.

This case may get to the Supremes. Let's hope that we have a full court if and when it does.

_Howard wrote:

What Apple means is that it creates another back door

You say.

Still waiting for evidence on that.

Although I am sure you will reject it, this article about back doors (not specifically about the Apple/FBI case) describes what I mean, even including this sentence:

Quote :

So when Apple says the FBI is trying to "force us to build a backdoor into our products," what they are really saying is that the FBI is trying to force them to use a backdoor which already exists in their products

BS. Operating system upgrades have to be initiated by the user, so this is a FRONT door.

Your evidence for uninvited upgrades is still lacking.

_Howard wrote:

Although I am sure you will reject it,

Well, I was right about one thing: You rejected the findings of the article. As I am sure you would reject any article which is in opposition to your preferred view of reality.

I'm evidence based. Show me the money.

It's really quite simple.

Consider the Apple/FBI matter.

Apple has never said that what the FBI wants cannot be done.

In order for the requested action to be done, there must be an existing back door.

Do you disagree with any of the above, and if so, why?

NoCoPilot wrote:

BS.  Operating system upgrades have to be initiated by the user, so this is a FRONT door.

If the user believes he is installing an authentic upgrade but is actually presented with malware, is that front or back? I think your distinction is without a difference.

richard09 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

BS.  Operating system upgrades have to be initiated by the user, so this is a FRONT door.

If the user believes he is installing an authentic upgrade but is actually presented with malware, is that front or back? I think your distinction is without a difference.

It's still a front door. The user has to open it.

NoCoPilot wrote:

It's still a front door.  The user has to open it.

Not for all systems. Perhaps Apple doesn't update automatically, but quite a bit of software does.