Let's Talk Apple And The US Government

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:20 am

So, Apple has been ordered to provide back door access to the San Bernardino terrorist's phone.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/n...-iphone-magistrate-order/80478844/

Apple's response, via a letter to its customers:

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

First thing first: I know nothing about encryption, computer programming and operating systems, except at the most basic level. The last thing I programmed was a stick figure that climbed onto a helicopter and flew away...in Basic...on a Commodore 64. Soon thereafter, I discovered my special purpose and found that employing my special purpose was wholly incompatible with computer programming, Zork and AD&D.

But, I digress.

Now, I'm a law and order, constitutionalist, libertarian type of person. I'm a firm believer in the rule of law and due process.

But, I'm siding with Apple on this. It would be one thing if the "back door" already existed and a court order required them to provide access, it is wholly a different thing to compel Apple to develop a "back door" against its will.

Hell, I don't have a problem if the FBI/NSA/CIA, or any of the government alphabet groups that are responsible our "safety and security", develop a back door, so long as the normal judicial safeguards are provided and observed.

But, I just can't get behind the government forcing a private entity to produce a "product" that goes contrary to its culture and can be used to harm its customers. Not to mention the potential for illicit or unethical use.

photopilot · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:31 am

While I'm not an Apple user it also brings up a novel issue. What if Apple says to the US Gov't that it Can't do as requested because it's technologically impossible? Would Apple somehow have to prove that it's not possible? How do you prove a negative ability?
Personally I hope Apple doesn't comply with this request. Tell the US Gov't to simply piss-off.

Mir · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:40 am

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
Not to mention the potential for illicit or unethical use.

That's the problem here as far as I see it. I don't really have an issue with the government being able to hack into a phone that they physically have in their possession (I am VERY opposed to letting them do so over the internet, wi-fi, Bluetooth, or any other wireless method, and the court order does require Apple to let them do so), but if a backdoor is created, then it could be exploited by non-government actors, and that's a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.

I know very little about these things as well, but I still believe that a compromise can and will be found.

-Mir

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:40 am

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
While I'm not an Apple user it also brings up a novel issue.

I'm sure this has implications beyond Apple. Like I wrote, I've no real clue about encryption, etc., but I suspect Google, Blackberry, Microsoft, et al. share similar exposure to this court ruling.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
Would Apple somehow have to prove that it's not possible? How do you prove a negative ability?

That's a good question and a technical one.

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
but if a backdoor is created, then it could be exploited by non-government actors, and that's a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.

The "unethical" part was an allusion to government use of the "back door", outside the parameters established by The Congress or the courts.

[Edited 2016-02-17 17:44:17]

WarRI1 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:45 am

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
But, I just can't get behind the government forcing a private entity to produce a "product" that goes contrary to its culture and can be used to harm its customers. Not to mention the potential for illicit or unethical use.

I agree with Apple also. Is this case worth the ramifications of this system being forced to be revealed? It will not be a secret long. Remember the A bomb and many others secrets stolen.

[Edited 2016-02-17 17:50:25]

Aesma · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:46 am

I could be a game Apple and the government are both playing, while the backdoor was there from the start and Apple complied years ago.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:50 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
I could be a game Apple and the government are both playing, while the backdoor was there from the start and Apple complied years ago.

There is that. Quite possible. I wouldn't put it past the any of the actors. I have a healthy, skeptical view of government...any government.

But, if it were discovered that Apple was complicit in such a ruse...and it would be discovered, it would do irreparable damage to the brand.

[Edited 2016-02-17 17:51:30]

Adipasquale · Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:58 am

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
While I'm not an Apple user it also brings up a novel issue

The government could also request the same "un-encription" tools from Android and Windows developers as well.

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
But, I'm siding with Apple on this. It would be one thing if the "back door" already existed and a court order required them to provide access, it is wholly a different thing to compel Apple to develop a "back door" against its will.

The sticky issue from what I understand is that the US government wants to compel Apple to essentially develop a tool to unencrypt its own products. This could be used to unencrypt a lot more than just a terrorist's phone, leading to phone users' information being less secure. I also understand that the statute the government is using to try and compel Apple to unencrypt the phone is the All Writs Act of 1789 (it has been used before for this very same purpose), which allows the government to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law," meaning Apple would be compelled to create unencryption software. However, the All Writs Act can only compel a company to do something if it is not an undue burden. Apple is of course arguing quite convincingly that creating this software is an undue burden, and therefore, Apple cannot be compelled to create it.

rfields5421 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:07 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
I'm sure this has implications beyond Apple. Like I wrote, I've no real clue about encryption, etc., but I suspect Google, Blackberry, Microsoft, et al. share similar exposure to this court ruling.

Every developer, hardware producer, software producer who protects their data would likely required to provide a similar 'back door' eventually.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):
I have a healthy, skeptical view of government...any government.

I also have a healthy, skeptical view of large corporations. I don't doubt for a minute that Apple has the ability to do what the federal government wants. They don't need to develop a backdoor - they already have one, but just don't want anyone to know it.

I don't like the scope of the order, because it doesn't take a realistic look at the technical issues.

If the NSA can't get into the phone, it should be taken to Apple's technical center under proper chain of custody supervision, and the 'hack' done in the Apple lab, without revealing the methodology/ technology used to hack the phone to the feds.

LittleFokker · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:10 am

If the USSC is going to continue with the "corporations are people" gag, then wouldn't Apple be protected under the 4th Amendment here? I think most people would reasonably conclude that asking Apple to write a program to corrupt the security of its own product is "unreasonable."

BMI727 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:11 am

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
But, I'm siding with Apple on this.

Apple is entirely correct in their stance.

Honestly, my stance on the whole surveillance thing is that if I were President the policy would be that warrantless monitoring is very bad, highly illegal and we mustn't do it so don't get caught.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
What if Apple says to the US Gov't that it Can't do as requested because it's technologically impossible?

That's the ultimate solution here. Makers of hardware and software will just have to make it impossible for them to crack the systems.

lewis · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:13 am

The government did not even ask Apple to help them access the phone in a specific case. They basically asked them to remove the security functionality where your phone auto-wipes itself after a few failed attempts with the wrong password. This would give the government (or anyone) the ability to bombard the phone either directly or remotely with an endless array of codes until it unlocks. No, thanks!

Airstud · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:16 am

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
What if Apple says to the US Gov't that it Can't do as requested because it's technologically impossible?

Apple hasn't said that; they've effectively already said to the contrary.

I think it is, in an elliptical way, a Fourth Amendment issue; even without arguing that the Apple corporation is "people" and thus entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. Apple is, after, all, arguing that the government is trying to compel them to create something whose explicit purpose is the violation of privacy.

[Edited 2016-02-17 18:24:33]

Tugger · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:21 am

The government is not asking for an "unencryption" tool, it is seeking to have them disable the "10 tries then it deletes all data" function. Then the government, with this specific cell phone in hand, will work to brute force break into the phone. The software can be differentiated between the phone hardware and what is online so it cannot be used remotely, the phone is needed to be available.

In general I think Apple should comply as it will not endanger other phones unless they are physically obtained. However I also understand the concerns regarding privacy. As much as terrorists can use encryption to hide their machinations, so can people trying to fight such things. The ability to hide your information is important.

However again, in this case I do hope Apple is compelled to create the tool (whether the writ is the proper or valid legal procedure is for someone else to decide). And tech companies will simply create new code which avoids this tool from being able to be employed, just as they have done to get to this point. It is a cat and mouse game. Everyone is always looking for how to circumvent the security of someone else. You build a higher wall, someone will bring a taller ladder. Criminals are already looking for ways to employ this tactic. So ultimately I don't really care as it doesn't matter. The security will be broken, and it will then be rebuilt by Apple.

The big reason Apple does not want to have this is because they do not want to deal with the constant requests from various nation-state authorities to access their citizens data.

Tugg

BMI727 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:25 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):

The government is not asking for an "unencryption" tool, it is seeking to have them disable the "10 tries then it deletes all data" function.

The government is asking them to disable security features that will allow the government to access the phone. The distinction between unlocking it and disabling the auto-wipe is basically just the government saying that they only need you to hand them the key, they can turn it themselves.

Ken777 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:25 am

I have no doubt that Apple will deliver if ordered by the Court.

At the same time I can see Apple developing the backdoor on a Mac instead of the actual phone. That would allow Apple to "sync" the phone and decrypt the email and messages on that Mad. Most important Apple could require that the decrypting be done in their home office, with the government only getting those emails and messages as specified by the court order.

Aaron747 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:32 am

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 7):
The sticky issue from what I understand is that the US government wants to compel Apple to essentially develop a tool to unencrypt its own products. This could be used to unencrypt a lot more than just a terrorist's phone, leading to phone users' information being less secure.

Apple has a duty to maintain the standards and safeguards in the products they have delivered to their individual and corporate clients, naturally.

From what I've read it seems their AES256 integration is pretty deep. Implementing the backdoor changes the FBI is asking for would require a complete re-tooling of their software/hardware integration architecture. You can find out a bit more here:

http://searchmobilecomputing.techtar...ncryption-and-data-protection-work

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:35 am

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 9):
If the USSC is going to continue with the "corporations are people" gag, then wouldn't Apple be protected under the 4th Amendment here? I think most people would reasonably conclude that asking Apple to write a program to corrupt the security of its own product is "unreasonable."

Corporations were protected by The Fourth Amendment long before the Citizens United opinion.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
The government is not asking for an "unencryption" tool, it is seeking to have them disable the "10 tries then it deletes all data" function.

Really, it's the same thing. They are asking Apple to remove a layer of protection. Which, would allow the government to "brute force' the phone. Same result.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
I also have a healthy, skeptical view of large corporations.

Same here, but Apple doesn't have the ability to deny me life, liberty or property.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
I don't doubt for a minute that Apple has the ability to do what the federal government wants.

Again, a technical question that I am wholly unsuited to answer...or even really intelligently speculate on.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 12):
Apple hasn't said that; they've effectively already said to the contrary.

Really? Where?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
In general I think Apple should comply as it will not endanger other phones unless they are physically obtained.

I completely disagree. How difficult is it to gain remote access to a device? Is it technically possible to access the phone without physical possession? I can find any iPhone and make it do things using Find iPhone. Who's to say some developer can't do more?

Airstud · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:42 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Really? Where?

Their message to customers discusses why they believe it would be wrong to create the iOS backdoor; at no point do they say that it's not technologically doable.

That it's not technologically doable is a pretty easy and gleamingly legal thing to come out and say, if it is true.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:51 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 18):
Their message to customers discusses why they believe it would be wrong to create the iOS backdoor; at no point do they say that it's not technologically doable.

So, an admission by omission? Again, I've no clue what's technically possible in this circumstance. Regardless, it's not a tool I would want to give a government.

[Edited 2016-02-17 18:52:19]

Aaron747 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:52 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
I have no doubt that Apple will deliver if ordered by the Court.

Don't underestimate the resolve of multinational titans in the crazy liberal Bay Area.

Okie · Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:01 am

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
But, I just can't get behind the government forcing a private entity to produce a "product" that goes contrary to its culture and can be used to harm its customers. Not to mention the potential for illicit or unethical use.

I caught one of the news networks indicating that there are over a 150 instances of requests by government agencies to Apple to "backdoor" the phones in other use the phones as evidence in other criminal proceedings.
I do not know the actual number but I remember this scenario coming up beforehand.

Quite frankly that indicates to me that this instance is grandstanding because of the nature of this crime.

I really have trouble with the thought of the government having back door access since it taking on the appearance that the oversight would be the rats guarding the cheese.

At this juncture I would be prefer siding with Apple.

Okie

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:11 am

Quoting Okie (Reply 21):
Quite frankly that indicates to me that this instance is grandstanding because of the nature of this crime.

Or, it's the first time a court has ruled on it.

L-188 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:31 am

Quoting Okie (Reply 21):

Quite frankly that indicates to me that this instance is grandstanding because of the nature of this crime.

I agree, the feds don't have a really good reputation in this world. This is just them trying to showboat by pretending they have a legitimate case that is being held up.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
Or, it's the first time a court has ruled on it.

But several stories I have read have stated that Apple was not allowed to participate in this "court" hearing. It was only the federal agents presenting to a federal judge. Hardly an environment that doesn't favor the feds.

Aaron747 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:54 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
But several stories I have read have stated that Apple was not allowed to participate in this "court" hearing. It was only the federal agents presenting to a federal judge. Hardly an environment that doesn't favor the feds.

Maybe you wanna share that with the Foxies then? My FB feed is lighting up with people going apeshit about Apple thumbing their nose at safety and security CUZ TERRORISM!

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:03 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24):
My FB feed is lighting up with people going apeshit about Apple thumbing their nose at safety and security CUZ TERRORISM!

Funny, my feed is is comprised of folks who are in complete agreement with Apple (and me). I suspect I have a bunch more "Foxies" as "friends" then you do...but, maybe not.

Aaron747 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:21 am

^
I have relatives in Texas and Ohio and that's enough to bring plenty of intrigue to my feed.

MaverickM11 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:24 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24):
Maybe you wanna share that with the Foxies then? My FB feed is lighting up with people going apeshit about Apple thumbing their nose at safety and security CUZ TERRORISM!

Only in America do we arm the terrorists cuz terrorism and we have to protect ourselves against the government infringing on our rights, only to drop our panties and bend over for the government to...infringe on our rights. Have they tried shooting the phone with a gun? Seems to solve everything else

FlyBoy747 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:25 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24):
Maybe you wanna share that with the Foxies then? My FB feed is lighting up with people going apeshit about Apple thumbing their nose at safety and security CUZ TERRORISM!

Same here; but there are more who favor Apple's stance. They want to abandon the constitution here for one phone; yet when we try to outlaw automatic assault rifles the 2nd amendment is thrown in our faces. Many, but not all, people in the US government say they are constitutionalists but the reality is, only when it suits their needs.

As a self-proclaimed liberal who is in favor of many larger government programs...I also deeply oppose any overreach in our government. Everyone, government and citizens, need to follow the constitution. I am in full agreement with Apple here as they are focusing on the larger scope and impact this could have. It is larger than one phone here. This has very real consequences on the future if Apple created special software to bypass their encryption.

At the end of the day, Apple is doing something most humans do not...they are looking at the implications of their actions today on a society decades if not centuries in the future. Our privacy and individuality is what makes us unique and they are trying to protect just that.

mham001 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:38 am

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
If the NSA can't get into the phone, it should be taken to Apple's technical center under proper chain of custody supervision, and the 'hack' done in the Apple lab, without revealing the methodology/ technology used to hack the phone to the feds.

This.

Apple needed to handle this quietly. Their single largest market - China, is demanding all this and much more. They backed off last year, but it will come up again in this year's congress and now, unlike last year, Apple cannot rely on Obama to stand up for them because Obama is asking for the same thing. What a fool is Tim Cook for taking this to the court of public opinion and forcing a public fight with his most powerful ally. I have no doubt they can do it in house.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
The big reason Apple does not want to have this is because they do not want to deal with the constant requests from various nation-state authorities to access their citizens data.

They will have quite a financial conundrum when China cuts off iphone sales. Apple has created a fine little mess with this.

Tugger · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:52 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
The government is asking them to disable security features that will allow the government to access the phone. The distinction between unlocking it and disabling the auto-wipe is basically just the government saying that they only need you to hand them the key, they can turn it themselves.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Really, it's the same thing. They are asking Apple to remove a layer of protection. Which, would allow the government to "brute force' the phone. Same result.

OK... so?? The government already has the power to bust down doors to your house, to arrest you based on suspicions, and the only thing that prevent its abuse is the law and courts and policies and procedures that are in place to protect the public. That is also how the government got to this point as well. What is the difference here from a court ordder to open a private residence and for a safe manufacturer to help open the safe inside?

And regarding hacking the phone, the government has the resources to hack it, just like private citizen hackers and other nation-state hacking agencies. They just don't want that to be publicized, and if they do it without Apple it will be known. I wouldn't even put it past Apple to be pushing this so they can state they were compelled to create the backdoor (but I doubt it). Enough iPhones, enough people with knowledge of the internal coding, enough time and money, it can be done.

Tugg

seb146 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:59 am

I have a Galaxy 3 and I have always assumed there is a "back door" the government could use if I were using my phone for any illegal activity.

Meaning: if I were arrested for illegal activity, I had always assumed the government could hack my phone to get information and/or intel on what illegal activities I had been doing. Frankly, I am surprised the government does not have something for unlocking iPhones.

In the specific case of the San Burnardino shooters, Apple should help the government. However, for Joe Blow walking down Main St. USA, the government should not get involved.

kngkyle · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:01 am

I find it a little hard to believe that the CIA or NSA aren't able to crack the phone. The FBI might not have the capability though.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:04 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 30):

OK... so?? The government already has the power to bust down doors to your house, to arrest you based on suspicions, and the only thing that prevent its abuse is the law and courts and policies and procedures that are in place to protect the public.

Here is the difference:
-it is quite obvious that your door has been kicked in, not so obvious if the government...or someone else has taken a look at your device

Once again, I have no problem if the government develops the ability itself...I have a problem with the government coercing a private entity to develop the ability for the exclusive use of the government.

mham001 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:05 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 27):
Only in America do we arm the terrorists cuz terrorism and we have to protect ourselves against the government infringing on our rights, only to drop our panties and bend over for the government to...infringe on our rights. Have they tried shooting the phone with a gun? Seems to solve everything else

What rights, exactly? Since when does the government not have the right to subpeona anything and everything about you. That you bought an Apple phone makes you immune from this? If you don't want your secrets known, don't put them in your pocket.

mham001 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:07 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31):

I have a Galaxy 3 and I have always assumed there is a "back door" the government could use if I were using my phone for any illegal activity.

Meaning: if I were arrested for illegal activity, I had always assumed the government could hack my phone to get information and/or intel on what illegal activities I had been doing. Frankly, I am surprised the government does not have something for unlocking iPhones.

In the specific case of the San Burnardino shooters, Apple should help the government. However, for Joe Blow walking down Main St. USA, the government should not get involved.

Wow. Late breaking news, I agree with Seb.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:12 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31):
In the specific case of the San Burnardino shooters, Apple should help the government. However, for Joe Blow walking down Main St. USA, the government should not get involved.

Why? What's the difference? We have the current administration bending over backwards trying to treat terrorists as average run-of-the-mill criminals. Why differentiate?

That's the problem I have here. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in. Sure, let's do it for terrorists. Hmmm, what about gang related criminals? Arguably, they are doing way more damage than alleged terrorists.

Quoting Kngkyle (Reply 32):
I find it a little hard to believe that the CIA or NSA aren't able to crack the phone.

So do I, but as I've stated, I don't have the technical knowledge to prove or disprove the government's allegation.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:17 am

Quoting mham001 (Reply 34):
Since when does the government not have the right to subpeona anything and everything about you.

The government can subpoena anything it wants, but it should not be allowed to coerce a private entity to produce something that it is antithetical to its culture.

Tugger · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:24 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
Here is the difference:
-it is quite obvious that your door has been kicked in, not so obvious if the government...or someone else has taken a look at your device

Once again, I have no problem if the government develops the ability itself...I have a problem with the government coercing a private entity to develop the ability for the exclusive use of the government.

So you are fine with the government hiring Apple or a similar company, paying billions to do this? OK. Quite frankly they probably already do this.

This is a court order and the USA has an independent judiciary. There is no "coercion" as it would truly be defined.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 36):
That's the problem I have here. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in. Sure, let's do it for terrorists. Hmmm, what about gang related criminals? Arguably, they are doing way more damage than alleged terrorists.

What genie and what bottle? The hacking into people private accounts and personal items? Was that genie ever in the bottle? I mean for longer than it took for someone to opportunistically open it?

Tugg

MaverickM11 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:33 am

Quoting mham001 (Reply 34):
What rights, exactly?

We still have the fourth amendment, yes?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 34):
Since when does the government not have the right to subpeona anything and everything about you.

What makes you think they're going to always wait for a subpoena?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 34):
If you don't want your secrets known, don't put them in your pocket.

Quite the slippery slope there. More of a slippery cliff.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:38 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 38):
This is a court order and the USA has an independent judiciary.

Correct, and I suspect this will go to the Supreme Court. Still begs the question: what can Apple (and the government) do if Apple can not produce the "key"?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 38):
There is no "coercion" as it would truly be defined.

co·erce
kōˈərs/
verb
verb: coerce; 3rd person present: coerces; past tense: coerced; past participle: coerced; gerund or present participle: coercing

persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
"they were coerced into silence"
synonyms: pressure, pressurize, press, push, constrain; More
force, compel, oblige, browbeat, bludgeon, bully, threaten, intimidate, dragoon, twist someone's arm;
informalrailroad, squeeze, lean on
"he was coerced into giving evidence"
obtain (something) by using force or threats.
"their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture

Quoting Tugger (Reply 38):
So you are fine with the government hiring Apple or a similar company, paying billions to do this?

Yup.

casinterest · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:41 am

I agree with Apple on this one. I work with Encryption on a Daily Basis, and if you have a backdoor, it beats out the integrity of the security. Apple would also run the risk of being inundated with multiple requests from street gangs to terrorists, and when that level of backdoors are opened, far too many people would know how to bypass the security of the Iphones. Think about the folks that have jailbroken the Iphone to load other software onto it.

blueflyer · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:50 am

From a technological view point, I think Apple could comply fairly quickly if they chose to. The solution requires physical control of the device, so it is really ill-suited for mass snooping of any kind, and the government is, for now, quite happy letting Apple control the process. Besides avoiding reputational damage, I think Apple's main concern is they do not want to be compelled to hand the solution over to a US or foreign government in the future.

Quoting Kngkyle (Reply 32):
I find it a little hard to believe that the CIA or NSA aren't able to crack the phone. The FBI might not have the capability though.

I think the NSA could crack the phone but would prefer not to announce it officially for obvious reasons. If they were to help the FBI unofficially though, none of the data recovered would be admissible in court since chain of custody would have to be broken.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
if the government...or someone else has taken a look at your device

What the government is asking Apple to do requires taking the device apart, so unless someone sneaks into your house while you sleep to take the device and brings it back before you wake up...

Tugger · Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:54 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
co·erce

As I said, it does not meet the criteria of coercion in a bad or negative way (why are we all normally law abiding citizens? Because we are generally good but sometimes its also because the law dictates we do the right thing or suffer consequences) . This is a court ruling, not torture, not giving false evidence under threat of harm.

Or are you saying courts and the legal process are a detrimental form of coercion that should be resisted and stopped?

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 42):
From a technological view point, I think Apple could comply fairly quickly if they chose to. The solution requires physical control of the device, so it is really ill-suited for mass snooping of any kind, and the government is, for now, quite happy letting Apple control the process. Besides avoiding reputational damage, I think Apple's main concern is they do not want to be compelled to hand the solution over to a US or foreign government in the future.

Tugg

seb146 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:06 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 36):
Why? What's the difference?

Between a terrorist and a law abiding citizen? You are joking, aren't you?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 36):
We have the current administration bending over backwards trying to treat terrorists as average run-of-the-mill criminals. Why differentiate?

Terrorists are criminals. No difference there. However, terrorists mean to cause great many people harm with no thought. Your average criminal is an opportunist. Little old lady with a purse walking down the street alone is a target for a small time criminal. No need to hack into that criminal's phone. A loner in the United States on an expired visa posting to anti-American web sites and accessing Dark Web on an iPhone is something else.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:28 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 43):
Or are you saying courts and the legal process are a detrimental form of coercion that should be resisted and stopped?

Not at all, but laws are coercive by nature. Let's say Apple resists and refuses, after a Supreme Court order, to comply. What happens? The chief officer(s) would be jailed and fined until they complied. Coerced.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 44):
Between a terrorist and a law abiding citizen? You are joking, aren't you?

Actually, I didn't read all the way through...I thought you meant an average Joe Blow criminal, not Joe Blow, law abiding. My mistake.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 44):
Terrorists are criminals.

No, they aren't. Once we understand that and act on that understanding, we will be better off. But, so long as we support the fiction that they are criminals, they should be treated like any other criminal...and other criminals should be treated like them.

fr8mech · Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:58 am

And, Google weighs in:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...ogles-ceo-just-said-000854021.html

In a series of tweets, Pichai wrote that although Google gives "law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders," that is "wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices and data," which could set a "troubling precedent."

Exactly what I've been saying.

Klaus · Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:09 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
In general I think Apple should comply as it will not endanger other phones unless they are physically obtained.

It would endanger all iOS devices at the very least using the same processor worldwide.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
However I also understand the concerns regarding privacy. As much as terrorists can use encryption to hide their machinations, so can people trying to fight such things. The ability to hide your information is important.

Exactly. As understandable and normal as forensic analysis of a criminal's assets is, when such analysis requires a major infringement of fundamental civic and human rights worldwide by breaching the security of a whole device class (and creating an easily accessible precedent in the USA) the price will likely exceed the reward.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13):
The big reason Apple does not want to have this is because they do not want to deal with the constant requests from various nation-state authorities to access their citizens data.

Which would be coming automatically after that – particularly in China.

Which would – among other things – also put crucial american interests at risk.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
I have no doubt that Apple will deliver if ordered by the Court.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/29...-gains-backdoor-entry-tim-cook.htm
Tim Cook: I've been pushing very, very hard to open the books and be totally transparent. Much of what has been said isn't true; there is no back door. The government doesn't have access to our servers. They would have to cart us out in a box for that. And that just will not happen. We feel that - strongly about it.

He has put the bar pretty high there. I expect he'll stick to it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
At the same time I can see Apple developing the backdoor on a Mac instead of the actual phone. That would allow Apple to "sync" the phone and decrypt the email and messages on that Mad.

Nope. Doesn't work. You can't sync an iPhone to a computer it doesn't know or accept as its "home" partner, and for that you'd have to unlock it already.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Most important Apple could require that the decrypting be done in their home office, with the government only getting those emails and messages as specified by the court order.

That might be an absolutely last resort.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 29):
Apple needed to handle this quietly. Their single largest market - China, is demanding all this and much more. They backed off last year, but it will come up again in this year's congress and now, unlike last year, Apple cannot rely on Obama to stand up for them because Obama is asking for the same thing. What a fool is Tim Cook for taking this to the court of public opinion and forcing a public fight with his most powerful ally. I have no doubt they can do it in house.

This is causing quite a stir abroad as well. It was a major news item over here, and he's effectively mobilizing global public and political support for his position.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 29):
They will have quite a financial conundrum when China cuts off iphone sales. Apple has created a fine little mess with this.

The FBI has been creating this mess – and whether they can pull this through remains to be seen...!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 46):
And, Google weighs in:

Yeah, they're adamantly against the government spying on people Google wants to be spying on exclusively!

Which is why Google is unable to make any privacy arguments here – but they sure don't want the government looking in on Google's own snooping!

rfields5421 · Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:43 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 30):
What is the difference here from a court ordder to open a private residence and for a safe manufacturer to help open the safe inside?

The FBI is asking for a master key that will open every safe the manufacturer ever made. They don't want only this phone opened, they want Apple to give them the ability to open every iPhone in the entire world.

Quoting Kngkyle (Reply 32):
I find it a little hard to believe that the CIA or NSA

CIA isn't that good a cryptography and hacking - the NSA on the other hand.... Knows everything about you. NSA can recover most of the data from a hard drive which hasn't been shredded, or erased thumb drives or almost any other media. Heck the company I used to work for paid a specialist to recover a reformatted hard drive that was overwritten with a new OS. They got 90+ % of the original data back - in 2006.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 38):
What genie and what bottle? The hacking into people private accounts and personal items? Was that genie ever in the bottle? I mean for longer than it took for someone to opportunistically open it?

The amazing thing is that the government (FBI) has alleged that they cannot get into the phone, or rather are afraid to try to get into the phone for fear that it will automatically delete the data. They want a master key created so that any iPhone in the world can be opened if they can obtain physical possession of the device.

Klaus · Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:07 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 48):
The FBI is asking for a master key that will open every safe the manufacturer ever made. They don't want only this phone opened, they want Apple to give them the ability to open every iPhone in the entire world.

Well, they say that they really, honestly only want access to this one particular device, but it is inherent in the nature of what exactly the security downgrade for that would have to be that it would be usable to downgrade the security of any device at least of the same series of processors, and there's the rub regarding the privacy of all the other users of such devices...

(Including, by the way, any US government officials using such devices on foreign trips, for instance...)

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net