This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Apple鈥揊BI encryption dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If聽 consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from Apple鈥揊BI encryption dispute appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 March聽2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2015 San Bernardino attack was copied or moved into FBI v. Apple on 25 February 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
Does
{{u|
Checkingfax}}聽{
Talk}
05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)FBI vs. Appleor
FBI鈥揂pple disputeor (I like this best)
San Bernardino iPhone decryption controversy.
References
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)
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-fraudulent -- Jeremyb ( talk) 17:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
FBI鈥揂pple 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on FBI鈥揂pple 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That 鈥渄eferral鈥 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鈥檚 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)
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 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:2498:B400:5867:176D:C2E2:249D ( talk) 08:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
The Washington Post is reporting details of the crack, [1] 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 [2] (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
This article needs better researchers than I to find and cite sources with evidence, if it exists, that the government鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥 repetition of unsubstantiated claims as fact, adding appropriate, and accurate, qualifiers such as in 鈥渢he FBI claimed that [something unlikely happened]鈥 instead of 鈥淸something unlikely happened]鈥.) Wikipedia articles are not supposed to repeat unsubstantiated claims as fact鈥攅specially 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 not what Wikipedia is. Stephan Leeds ( talk) 07:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Apple鈥揊BI encryption dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If聽 consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from Apple鈥揊BI encryption dispute appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 March聽2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2015 San Bernardino attack was copied or moved into FBI v. Apple on 25 February 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
Does
{{u|
Checkingfax}}聽{
Talk}
05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)FBI vs. Appleor
FBI鈥揂pple disputeor (I like this best)
San Bernardino iPhone decryption controversy.
References
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)
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-fraudulent -- Jeremyb ( talk) 17:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
FBI鈥揂pple 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on FBI鈥揂pple 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That 鈥渄eferral鈥 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鈥檚 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)
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 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:2498:B400:5867:176D:C2E2:249D ( talk) 08:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
The Washington Post is reporting details of the crack, [1] 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 [2] (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
This article needs better researchers than I to find and cite sources with evidence, if it exists, that the government鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥 repetition of unsubstantiated claims as fact, adding appropriate, and accurate, qualifiers such as in 鈥渢he FBI claimed that [something unlikely happened]鈥 instead of 鈥淸something unlikely happened]鈥.) Wikipedia articles are not supposed to repeat unsubstantiated claims as fact鈥攅specially 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 not what Wikipedia is. Stephan Leeds ( talk) 07:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)