Talk:Apple–FBI encryption dispute

Title

I started this article by copying a section on the dispute from San Bernardino attack. Many commentators have indicated that the issues in the case are far reaching and go beyond the attack and Apple's interests, so an independent article is warranted. The current title FBI v. Apple is not the apparent legal title at the moment, which is "In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant on a black Lexus IS300, California License Plate...", which I think is too long and likely to change. FBI v. Apple will still be a useful redirect if and when a more succinct legal title becomes know.--agr (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good so far.BlueStove (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the article title "FBI v. Apple" misrepresents the present status of the matter. There is not presently any source, document, or reliable news outlet that indicates a legal case exists in which FBI is opposing Apple. Our article, case citation, explains:

"Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported."

• The FBI's official statement, FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter, refers to this as the "San Bernardino Matter."
• The official statement by Apple related to this matter, A Message to Our Customers, refers to this as the "San Bernardino Case."
• Documents published by the United States District Court, Central District of California, available through a 3rd-party publisher and also (published by the Mercury News), refer to this using the lengthy terminology, "Order compelling Apple, Inc. to assist agents in search."
• The San Jose Mercury News uses the terminology, "In the matter of unlocking the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone"....

Absent any evidence that this matter has ever actually been cited using "FBI v. Apple" notation, I recommend we change the encyclopedia article's title.

At present, there is no court case "FBI v. Apple"; nor can I find any reliable source that even suggests there will be any such court-case in which these two parties are the participants (plaintiff and defendant). In the spirit of correctly and encyclopedically reporting the pedantic details, this is actually a federal investigation; it is not yet a federal court case; the subject of the investigation is not actually even Apple. It is therefore disingenuous and unencyclopedic to title the article as "FBI v. Apple."

The FBI publishes this website to provide a brief description of the Federal criminal justice process. It is unusual to see FBI listed as a plaintiff in any court case; FBI's job is to investigate, not to prosecute, federal crimes. If the matter does ever reach court, it will very probably be listed as United States v. (somebody) - FBI will probably not actually be named in the case title. Have a look through the archives of, for example, FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin; or look at some of the important Supreme Court Cases (2012), (2013), ... even if this matter rises to the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that it will actually be named "FBI v. Apple."

For lack of a better title, I recommend using: "Order compelling Apple, Inc. to assist agents in search." This is derived from the court document, and it is the most official representation that summarizes the matter. Perhaps it is not as succinct; but it is more correct and more encyclopedic. Wikipedia's role is not to sensationalize current events: it is to present encyclopedic content.

Nimur (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Long or technical titles are nothing new to us. For example, we have In re Sealed Case No. 02-001, In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, and In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. We should probably use the official name (In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203) or an obvious short form of it. Does anyone object to In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone? Neutrality^talk 04:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I favor changing to the article title to In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone from its present value. Nimur (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone is too general. Coverage of the case is explicitly referring to it as FBI v Apple (or vice versa).BlueStove (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree on the ambiguity problem: we have United States v. Wilson, even though there have been dozens of published appellate cases and thousands of district court and unpublished appellate cases by that same name.  Rebbing  talk  16:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Does

The title may be a case of WP:Recentism, but a number of publications explicitly refer to the case as FBI vs Apple:

• • Here’s Apple’s long-awaited legal response to the FBI, BGR
  • Apple vs. FBI is the big story no one's touching at Mobile World Congress, CNET
  • The Apple-FBI Fight Isn’t About Privacy vs. Security. Don’t Be Misled, WIRED
  • Apple vs. the FBI: Who said what — and which side are they on?, USA Today
  • Apple vs. the FBI: James Comey Chimes In, The Atlantic

BlueStove (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Cracking Farook's iPhone sounds about right to me for a title. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I support changing the title to In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone, but I think anything would be better than FBI v. Apple. The articles using that or similar terms appear to be discussing the conflict between Apple and the FBI surrounding this case rather than the case itself, as we are. Even if this case is known as FBI v. Apple in some circles, in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, not a zany news site, I think the a formal title ought to be used.  Rebbing  talk  16:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How would you propose to separate the case from the controversy surrounding it? The current title is broader and more reflective of the contents. BlueStove (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Our policy Wikipedia:Article titles prefers concise, commonly used names to long formal names. And the "conflict between Apple and the FBI surrounding this case" is very much part of this article. Broader issues, when properly sourced, are generally discussed in Wikipedia articles about important legal cases. Perhaps a better title will suggest itself as this story unfolds. Please note that the procedure for formally requesting a change in article title is found at Wikipedia:Requested moves.--agr (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the fact that the legal case has broader implications is no reason to give the page a fictional title. Consider, for instance Obergefell v. Hodges: in my observation, most Americans are aware of the case—many passionately support or oppose the decision—but very few know it by that difficult-to-pronounce name. Similarly, Citizens United v. FEC is commonly known as Citizens United, yet the article uses the longer, conventional title.

If we must call it this, can we at least change it to something that doesn't make a pretense at being a legal case name? perhaps FBI vs. Apple or FBI–Apple dispute or (I like this best) San Bernardino iPhone decryption controversy.

Further undermining the appropriateness of calling this case FBI v. Apple is that the New York case could similarly be described by the same made-up title.  Rebbing  talk  20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with FBI vs. Apple or FBI–Apple dispute or maybe FBI–Apple encryption dispute. The article is likely to evolve beyond the San Bernadino situation.--agr (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Either way would be fine. You're right that the current title wrongly suggests this is a case's legal name. I'd be in favor of FBI–Apple encryption dispute.BlueStove (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Should a section describing suggested bypass mechanisms be included?

Should a section describing suggested bypass mechanisms be included? There are a number of RS covering them.BlueStove (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ACLU blog post

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-fraudulent --Jeremyb (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FBI–Apple encryption dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160224120439/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/basic-software-held-key-shooters-iphone-unused-37106947 to http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/basic-software-held-key-shooters-iphone-unused-37106947

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Technical analysis of the case

I'm inclined to reduce this section to a single sentence or just remove it. It's based on a single source which is a commercial site's blog and it is somewhat obsolete in light of recent developments. Any objections?--agr (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the section should remain, but reducing it to a single sentence seems fine. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FBI–Apple encryption dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310183553/http://hosted.ap.org:80/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_APPLE_IPHONE_PATHOGEN?SITE=TXWIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_APPLE_IPHONE_PATHOGEN?SITE=TXWIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6310911/Apple-CEO-backs-privacy-laws-warns-data-weaponization.html

http://results.dogpile.com/search/web?q=apple+refuses+to+unlock+terrorist+phone&ql=&topSearchSubmit=Go+Fetch!&qlnk=True&fcoid=114&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&om_nextpage=True

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-17/apple-expects-38-billion-tax-bill-on-overseas-repatriated-cash

That “deferral” provision led companies to stockpile an estimated $3.1 trillion offshore

Liquidity and Capital Resources The following table presents selected financial information and statistics as of and for the years ended September 30, 2017 , September 24, 2016 and September 26, 2015 (in millions): 2017 2016 2015 Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities $ 268,895 $ 237,585 $ 205,666 Property, plant and equipment, net $ 33,783 $ 27,010 $ 22,471 Commercial paper $ 11,977 $ 8,105 $ 8,499 Total term debt $ 103,703 $ 78,927 $ 55,829 Working capital $ 27,831 $ 27,863 $ 8,768 Cash generated by operating activities $ 63,598 $ 65,824 $ 81,266 Cash used in investing activities $ (46,446) $ (45,977) $ (56,274) Cash used in financing activities $ (17,347) $ (20,483) $ (17,716) The Company believes its existing balances of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to satisfy its working capital needs, capital asset purchases, outstanding commitments and other liquidity requirements associated with its existing operations over the next 12 months. The Company currently anticipates the cash used for future dividends, the share repurchase program and debt repayments will come from its current domestic cash, cash generated from ongoing U.S. operating activities and from borrowings. As of September 30, 2017 and September 24, 2016 , the Company’s cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities held by foreign subsidiaries were $252.3 billion and $216.0 billion

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000320193/ca6735cd-5ab7-4bb9-abf8-564739c3506b.pdf

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/09/26/apple-stock-buy-at-the-high.aspx

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/05/26/ask-a-fool-why-doesnt-apple-do-something-with-its.aspx

The problem is where Apple's cash is. The vast majority of Apple's cash stockpile -- 94% at the end of 2016 -- is held overseas. If it were to bring the cash back to the U.S. to put to work, it would need to pay hefty repatriation taxes on the money. The corporate tax rate is currently 35%, so we're talking about over $80 billion in taxes just to bring the company's money home

---

EVER WALKED THROUGH AN APPLE STORE?

ITS LIKE A DESERTED FASHION BOUTIQUE OR HIGH ART STORE

SO OLD HAT!

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/376402481330756891/

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/national-intelligence-machinery

86.145.188.131 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

how ironic

I just think it's ironic that the FBI will yell about Apple not cracking open their device when in fact, when apple does in fact commit crimes later, no action is taken.

To be honest with you, had the FBI not been an official governmental institution, had they been a private firm in charge of prosecuting mass crimes, they would have been taken out by the U.S. troops a long time ago for their corruption and absolute failure to prosecute anything.

Apple incorporated is a criminal syndicate, and a terrorist organization.

Aplpeharmedme.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:2498:B400:5867:176D:C2E2:249D (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

a Failed citation?

I read the citation but don not find the source:

The new application stated that the company could install the software on the phone in its own premises, and after the FBI had hacked the phone via remote connection, Apple could remove and destroy the software. [36] https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/02/19/57752/san-bernardino-justice-department-files-new-motion/

Thank u! Mahengrui1 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Azimuth Security

The Washington Post is reporting details of the crack, including that it was an Australian company named Azimuth Security ([1]) (then a subsidiary of L3 Technologies; now part of L3Harris Technologies), the hack being at least initially engineered by David Wang (seems to be the same DW; but should be confirmed before wikilinking) who performed the crack. Gizmodo is also reporting (based on the WaPo report, it seems).

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the underlying case, but I drop this here in case anyone wants to weave it into the article. TJRC (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Citations with evidence needed

This article needs better researchers than I to find and cite sources with evidence, if it exists, that the government’s claims that they gained access to the data store of the phone are true. If the FBI did in fact crack the phone, this article needs citations that lead to verifiable evidence. So far it’s not even a citation ring, but just repeating a dubious claim as fact. Somehow it just keeps getting repeated and no one seems to notice there was never any evidence for it in the first place.

This article several times asserted as fact the unsubstantiated claims of the FBI and government attorneys. (I recently revised several of those assertions to what the cited sources support, notwithstanding the Los Angeles Times’ repetition of unsubstantiated claims as fact, adding appropriate, and accurate, qualifiers such as in “the FBI claimed that [something unlikely happened]” instead of “[something unlikely happened]”.) Wikipedia articles are not supposed to repeat unsubstantiated claims as fact—especially those claims made by parties with a clear motive to lie and a lack of credibility. I have not been able to find in the cited sources, or anywhere else in over eight years of trying, any evidence that the FBI gained access to phone’s data. Government attorneys made that claim in court without evidence, and the FBI made the same claim speaking to the press, also without evidence.

It was clear at the time that the FBI had cherry-picked a sympathetic case hoping to establish precedent in their favor, and they conveniently dropped it when it looked too likely that they would lose and establish the opposite of the precedent they wanted. That in itself is ample reason for dropping the suit whether they had cracked the phone or not. In many years of looking at this case I have never found evidence that they had any other reason to drop the suit.

If such evidence exists, it needs to be cited in this article; otherwise, the article needs to not repeat evidence-free claims as fact. That’s not what Wikipedia is. Stephan Leeds (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the Azimuth Security sources above are sufficient, but I have been unable to put together a coherent, credible story that fits the government’s claims. Stephan Leeds (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)