Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
If Apple is capable of compromising security on its devices (by using its root key to sign a custom version of iOS, or through some other method), then I see no way that they will avoid eventually being subject to a court order in some jurisdiction that compels this action. If that's true, then device security is <i>already</i> compromised and Apple knows this. Let's say the facts of the case were slightly different, that the FBI "knows" a terrorist attack is about to occur, and Jack Bauer-style demands that Apple assist in compromising a specific device that has the top seekrit plans on it. In that instance, do you think Apple would comply with a warrantless request for cooperation? Hm...<p>Reading Tim Cook's announcement in light of this thought experiment, methinks he doth protest too much! Apple does not have any objection to compromising user security at the root level, and in fact has already done so by creating a device that has some limited vulnerability to malicious action by the manufacturer signed with its root key. (By the way, no doubt every other manufacturer has done worse, so this is not to deprecate Apple vs. any other big company.)<p>I would speculate that Tim Cook's goals with this announcement are largely PR-based, and that the goal of Apple's legal strategy is not to avoid cooperation but rather to retain the ability to decide <i>whether</i> to cooperate, and/or to impose a higher perceived cost on the government for such requests. No doubt Apple is correct to say that once a precedent is established, then it will be widely used by law enforcement even in routine cases.<p>At the end of the day, I am not optimistic that we can avoid a world in which large device manufacturers are compelled (legally and practically) to build security flaws into their devices. Perhaps not the flaw of a back-doored crypto implementation, but other flaws such as those that have been identified in current iOS devices that allow the government (with commitment of sufficient resources) to chip away at some of the more superficial protections.