It appears that the company brought its own reality distortion field to court when it told a US judge that accessing data stored on a locked iPhone would be “impossible” with devices using its latest operating system.
Since the Titanic, manufacturers have been very careful about using the impossible word. This is mostly because all technology can be hacked when someone applies themselves to do it. The OS has been jailbroken so someone must have hacked it.
The case is over whether Apple can assist police hack into a phone to help them in their inquiries. Apple said it had the “technical ability” to help law enforcement unlock older phones, which in theory means that criminals should update their phones immediately.
Apple’s position was laid out in a brief filed late Monday, after a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn, New York, sought its input as he weighed a US Justice Department request to force the company to help authorities access a seized iPhone during an investigation.
In court papers, Apple said that for the 90 percent of its devices running iOS 8 or higher, granting the Justice Department’s request “would be impossible to perform” after it strengthened encryption methods.
Those devices include a feature that prevents anyone without the device’s passcode from accessing its data, including Apple itself. So Apple is telling the world that its iPhone is unhackable because it uses radical technology called a “password”.
The feature was adopted in 2014 amid heightened privacy concerns following leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about NSA surveillance programs.
Apple told US Magistrate Judge James Orenstein it could access the 10 percent of its devices that continue to use older systems, including the one at issue in the case. But it urged the judge to not require it to comply with the Justice Department’s request.
“Forcing Apple to extract data in this case, absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand,” Apple’s lawyers wrote.
Orenstein does not think it is possible to require Apple to disable security on the iPhone, but deferred ruling until Apple had a chance to say if it was “technically feasible and, if so, whether compliance with the proposed order would be unduly burdensome.”