Return to Answer

One could argue there is an ethical reason for not circumventing security measures on a phone, and that privacy is more important than all other concerns, even if that phone belonged to now dead terrorists, and the information on it could contain intelligence that could prevent further terrorist attacks.

One could argue there is an ethical reason for not circumventing security measures on a phone, and that privacy is more important than all other concerns, even if that phone has been lawfully seized by by a federal bureau charged with invading people's privacy to investigate crime, and that phone belonged to now dead terrorists, and the phone could contain intelligence that could prevent further terrorist attacks. I'll be waiting for Schlage to release a similar public letter the next time a law enforcement agency wants to enter someone's home.

Maybe the courts will sort it out, maybe not. Probably we'll never know.

One could argue there is an ethical reason for not circumventing security measures on a phone, and that privacy is more important than all other concerns, even if that phone belonged to now dead terrorists, and the information on it could contain intelligence that could prevent further terrorist attacks.

One could also argue that relying on what is probably a 4-digit numeric key to encrypt data is hardly secure, and whether Apple helps or not, the FBI will get in that phone. They may just need to perform some more difficult physical attacks. Breaking a pathologically weak key by brute force is hardly a backdoor. It's the front door.

Maybe the courts will sort it out, maybe not. Probably we'll never know.

Furthermore, Apple's argument against breaking this particular phone seems to be that they think such an action would compromise all phones. The actual FBI order seems to acknowledge this concern, and address it. Here's the relevant section of the order, with interesting parts highlighted:

The FBI is also willing to give Apple the phone so the firmware never even needs to be in the FBI's possession. That would seem to address the concern that the firmware would "fall into the wrong hands". Not that it would be a huge problem if it did, given the previous provision.

It's also possible that Apple thinks this is good PR. "Stick it to the man! iPhones are unhackable! Yeah!"

Furthermore, Apple's argument against breaking this particular phone seems to be that they think such an action would compromise all phones. Despite the popularity of this belief, which is grounded on suspicion more than fact, The actual FBI order asks for a firmware which:

• is limited to just the device in question
• does not need to leave Apple's facility

Specifically, the FBI does not ask for:

• an exploit that could be applied to any phone
• access to the exploitable firmware
• unsupervised access to the exploited phone
• access to Apple's code signing key

IANAL, but I bet such things are unlawful. Even if you want to believe the FBI is a malicious organization, they won't ask for such things in a court order. 

Here's the relevant section of the order, with interesting parts highlighted:

The FBI is also willing to give Apple the phone so the firmware never even needs to be in the FBI's possession. That would seem to address the concern that the firmware would "fall into the wrong hands". Even if it did, it wouldn't be exploitable given the previous provision.

It's also possible that Apple thinks this is good PR. Apple certainly has a financial interest in making the iPhone appear "unhackable even by the FBI". Apple may also be trying to leverage anti-government sentiment.