We don't know if they did the right thing here. With a previous case it seemed (to me) like Apple might have pushed an update to give access ... they presumably could do that, remotely copy all the data, then return the device to the former state. One can't know, and this sort of thing seems entirely tenable.

FBI don't have to tell anyone they accessed the device. That maintains Apples outward appearance of security; FBI just use parallel construction later if needed.

Something like {but an actually robust system} a hashed log, using an enclave, where the log entries are signed using your biometric, so that events such a network access where any data is exchanged are recorded and can only be removed using biometrics. Nothing against wrench-based attacks, of course.

> Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner.

Both goals actually are possible to implement at the same time: Secure/Verified Boot together with actually audited, preferably open-source, as-small-as-possible code in the boot and crypto chain, for the user, the ability to unlock the bootloader in the EFI firmware and for those concerned about supply chain integrity, a debug port muxed directly (!) to the TPM so it can be queried for its set of whitelisted public keys.

I'd love to hear what you think that has to do with this?

"Don't secure your phone it might mess up JavaScript" is not something I had on my 2026 bingo card.

You can choose to exclude Safari from these protections[0]. Honestly, looking at the list of "limitations" you'll have while running Lockdown mode, I'm surprised most of them aren't the system default.

[0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 - under "How to exclude apps or websites from Lockdown Mode"

I do have it enabled and webbrowsing is still fine, the things I use are or websites or simple web apps that aren't javascript heavy anyway...

when I want to do something for longer I will pickup my MacBook anyway.

you can enable it for certain trusted websites

The better rational counter argument is that "privacy is a human right enshrined in international law". Society has zero business knowing anyone's private communications, whether or not that person is a terrorist. There is nothing natural about being unable to talk to people privately without your speech being recorded for millions of people to view forever. Moreover, giving society absolute access to private communications is a short road to absolute dystopia as government uses it to completely wipe out all dissent, execute all the Jews or whatever arbitrary enemy of the state they decide on, etc.

You do not get to dispense with human rights because terrorists use them too. Terrorists use knives, cars, computers, phones, clothes... where will we be if we take away everything because we have a vested interested in denying anything a terrorist might take advantage of?

This means there are no valid concerns.

There are just things some people want and the reasons they want them.

So the question that you are so annoyed by remains unanswered (by you anyway), and so, valid, to all of us adults.

@hypfer gives a valid concern, but it's based on a different facet of lockdown. The concern is not that the rest of us should be able to break into your phone for our safety, it's the opposite, that you are not the final authority of your own property, and must simply trust Apple and the entire rest of society via our ability to compel Apple, not to break into your phone or it's backup.

At the risk of being kind of ass, which I've been trying to be better about lately, I'm going to offer some advice. If you can't even respond to a question about secure computing without bringing American presidential politics into things, perhaps you need to take a break from the news for a few weeks.

The reason I asked that question is because I don't think it's complicated. I should be able to lock down my device such that no other human being on the planet can see or access anything on it. It's mine. I own it. I can do with it whatever I please, and any government that says otherwise is diametrically opposed to my rights as a human being.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning while holding two winning lottery tickets from different lotteries than you are to be killed by an act of terrorism today. This is pearl-clutching, authoritarian nonsense. To echo the sibling comment, society does not get to destroy my civil rights because some inbred religious fanatics in a cave somewhere want to blow up a train.

Edit: And asking for someone to says "there are concerns!" to proffer even a single one is not a Socratic line of questioning, it's basic inquiry.

> I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious.

Yeah after seeing the additional comments, my gut also says "sea lion".

Truly a shame

> ...the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation...

One would have to hold a fairly uninformed view of history to think the norms around that designation are anything but invasive. The list since FDR is utterly extensive.

Let's assume for the sake of argument you're making a valid point. What does that have to do with my question?

The leaders of US government certainly do. Much too fondly.