User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 10277
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:51 am

This has been a long-stewing issue between one of the biggest IT juggernauts and federal law enforcement - the feds say they need phones unlocked to secure evidence of terrorist intent, narco trafficking, and other crimes. Apparently some defendants refuse to surrender their passcodes, even after incarceration and or court order. Apple says they do not have ability to unlock phones without releasing a backdoor tool to the federal government that would endanger all users' privacy if it got into the wrong hands, though private security firms are apparently able to get past passcode protections. Apple obviously has a smart board and sharp lawyers, and they know the feds can't prove they can keep such a tool secure in a post-Snowden and many other leaks world. What is the remedy here?

From the federal government's POV - how are they supposed to secure evidence without a way into locked devices? From Apple's view - we don't trust the federal government to properly handle a backdoor tool, and we won't risk the viability of our business doing so. Definitely a 21st century issue. Discuss.

The most recent flare-up is over phones belonging to the Saudi Pensacola NAS shooter, and DOJ's investigation into him:

Barr said the FBI received court authorization to search both phones possessed by the shooter the day following the Dec. 6 shooting, but that they had been “engineered to make it virtually impossible to unlock without a password.” Barr said that law enforcement had asked Apple for help in unlocking the phones but that the company had not “given us any substantive assistance.”

“This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that investigators be able to get access to digital evidence once they have obtained a court order based on probable cause,” Barr said. “We call on Apple and other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the lives of Americans and prevent future attacks.”

Apple contested Barr’s accusation that the company had not offered substantive assistance, saying it had offered law enforcement a “wide variety of information” related to the investigation immediately following the attack. This included providing investigators with iCloud backups, account information and transactional information.

The company also said it wasn’t notified until Jan. 6 of a need for additional help, likely to unlock the phones.


https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ans-phones
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:58 am

Apple should rather leave the jurisdiction than giving in.... the best way to keep Americans, or everyone really, safe is to protect their privacy.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:24 pm

In general I do agree that there needs to be better cooperation to allow access when absolutely needed. Though I would not go as far as giving the government itself the key, perhaps a way to have the company perform the service when necessary.

Good law enforcement and investigation has always worked off of available evidence, nowadays a significant portion of evidence is often blocked away beyond any possible reach of review or law enforcement. A home may be private property and no one allowed in, but law enforcement has always been allowed to press their case and receive court reviewed and approved release to search when necessary. The same thinking should apply here. No one should be allowed to be above or beyond the law.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:35 pm

The slippery slope, is that a backdoor that can break encryption, makes encryption worthless.
What good is password protection if everything is accessible.

Even if Apple was to allow access, what stops the criminal from installing an APP that has it's own backdoor encryption?
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:38 pm

casinterest wrote:
The slippery slope, is that a backdoor that can break encryption, makes encryption worthless.
What good is password protection if everything is accessible.

Even if Apple was to allow access, what stops the criminal from installing an APP that has it's own backdoor encryption?

Should ones private residence be absolutely sacred with no one allowed to enter without the express consent of the owner/resident?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7753
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:41 pm

The mere development of a tool that works is likely to land Apple in hot water, even if kept to the tightest controls.

If even classified data gets leaked, what makes us so sure that this tool (which would be proprietary) won't be stolen? What makes us sure that a rogue engineer, with access to the tool, will never be able to sell the code to another entity? Heck, even if it's developed by one person, that person could now be in a position to be bought so that they develop the code for someone else.

Apple is playing it well. It's not their jurisdiction and if they've made a bet on privacy, then it's all or none.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:44 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
The mere development of a tool that works is likely to land Apple in hot water, even if kept to the tightest controls.

If even classified data gets leaked, what makes us so sure that this tool (which would be proprietary) won't be stolen? What makes us sure that a rogue engineer, with access to the tool, will never be able to sell the code to another entity? Heck, even if it's developed by one person, that person could now be in a position to be bought so that they develop the code for someone else.

Apple is playing it well. It's not their jurisdiction and if they've made a bet on privacy, then it's all or none.

Actually it is not that difficult to regularly adjust/modify the encryption protocol so that if something "rogue" happens it will not be valid for long.

Again, should some be allowed to absolutely stop law enforcement from entering their house? Why not? It is the same theory.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:56 pm

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The slippery slope, is that a backdoor that can break encryption, makes encryption worthless.
What good is password protection if everything is accessible.

Even if Apple was to allow access, what stops the criminal from installing an APP that has it's own backdoor encryption?

Should ones private residence be absolutely sacred with no one allowed to enter without the express consent of the owner/resident?

Tugg


But people can and do enter, and they can wreak havoc. It also isn't rocket science to enter a home , You just have to go to it. If you are a good actor, you go away when people say leave.

Encryption is about securing items that anyone can access from anywhere, without the owner's knowledge or permission.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7753
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:01 pm

Tugger wrote:
Again, should some be allowed to absolutely stop law enforcement from entering their house? Why not? It is the same theory.

For starters, law enforcement will almost always have a warrant to search someone's house. It's a guaranteed 4th amendment protection. And to deny access, the parties have to physically be present at the house (until teletransportation becomes a thing).

While a phone is not a house, it's still covered from warrantless searches (and some law experts seems to agree that technology overall is an "effect" applicable under the amendment). But even if a warrant is issued to open the phone and read the data, the concern is whether for future cases law enforcement can violate the 4th amendment by spying remotely. In essence, whatever they do (good or bad) is no longer private.

I used to be an advocate of "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide", but I've come around to appreciate having my privacy and knowing that what I do with my phone is my business only.

We complain about stars having their nudes hacked; imagine if the tool is developed by several entities and falls in the wrong hands. Phones would no longer be private. And some may have no reason to hide (because they don't use their phone to the full extent), but the opportunity for hackers to steal information or even infect with ransomware, rendering the equipment useless is not a farfetched scenario.

So this is something that law enforcement will have to contend with. Surely the criminals may have acted alone, but unless they only had a phone, they should have had other equipment and interactions with people.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:31 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Again, should some be allowed to absolutely stop law enforcement from entering their house? Why not? It is the same theory.

For starters, law enforcement will almost always have a warrant to search someone's house. It's a guaranteed 4th amendment protection. And to deny access, the parties have to physically be present at the house (until teletransportation becomes a thing).

While a phone is not a house, it's still covered from warrantless searches (and some law experts seems to agree that technology overall is an "effect" applicable under the amendment). But even if a warrant is issued to open the phone and read the data, the concern is whether for future cases law enforcement can violate the 4th amendment by spying remotely. In essence, whatever they do (good or bad) is no longer private.

I used to be an advocate of "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide", but I've come around to appreciate having my privacy and knowing that what I do with my phone is my business only.

We complain about stars having their nudes hacked; imagine if the tool is developed by several entities and falls in the wrong hands. Phones would no longer be private. And some may have no reason to hide (because they don't use their phone to the full extent), but the opportunity for hackers to steal information or even infect with ransomware, rendering the equipment useless is not a farfetched scenario.

So this is something that law enforcement will have to contend with. Surely the criminals may have acted alone, but unless they only had a phone, they should have had other equipment and interactions with people.

If law enforcement can get a warrant to enter a home, they should be able to get a warrant to "enter" a phone or other personal device and the manufacturer should value that warrant and assist as they are able. It is no real difference.

People keep going to the "imagine if some nefarious actor gets a hold of it" but that is a straw man argument by definition. And again, the protocol can be modified, and distributed globally, if something does happen. But manufacturer have been successful in keeping their encryption tools and breakers protected and safe.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:34 pm

casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The slippery slope, is that a backdoor that can break encryption, makes encryption worthless.
What good is password protection if everything is accessible.

Even if Apple was to allow access, what stops the criminal from installing an APP that has it's own backdoor encryption?

Should ones private residence be absolutely sacred with no one allowed to enter without the express consent of the owner/resident?

Tugg


But people can and do enter, and they can wreak havoc. It also isn't rocket science to enter a home , You just have to go to it. If you are a good actor, you go away when people say leave.

Encryption is about securing items that anyone can access from anywhere, without the owner's knowledge or permission.

Actually, when you are "logged in" to your cell phone, someone can still then break in and observe remotely even now. That is what happens when you open access, you open the conduits to you and your "online world" (that is how pictures and docs etc get uploaded and stored or shared automatically etc.)

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:36 pm

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Should ones private residence be absolutely sacred with no one allowed to enter without the express consent of the owner/resident?

Tugg


But people can and do enter, and they can wreak havoc. It also isn't rocket science to enter a home , You just have to go to it. If you are a good actor, you go away when people say leave.

Encryption is about securing items that anyone can access from anywhere, without the owner's knowledge or permission.

Actually, when you are "logged in" to your cell phone, someone can still then break in and observe remotely even now. That is what happens when you open access, you open the conduits to you and your "online world" (that is how pictures and docs etc get uploaded and stored or shared automatically etc.)

Tugg


Those are conscious choices made by the user, and not everything gets shared automatically. Some items are still encrypted end to end for storage. A user cannot jut break in remotely when you login. They have to have a way to access. Apple and others have worked hard to limit that access.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14494
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:48 pm

Someone someday if not in the USA, then in Russia, China or Israel will figure out a way to break the codes for their 'security' needs or for bad purposes. It is a matter of time. Let's not ignore that in many other countries, they have no right to not incriminate one's self or prevent access to their 'property', so could by torture, or other extremes force a person to allow entry into their secure phones.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:55 pm

casinterest wrote:
Those are conscious choices made by the user, and not everything gets shared automatically. Some items are still encrypted end to end for storage. A user cannot jut break in remotely when you login. They have to have a way to access. Apple and others have worked hard to limit that access.


Agreed and of course. I just believe that there should be a way to legally access such files and deveices and not only have it available to criminal and illegal methods. I beleive that is part of participating in a just and fair society.

But even in the best society crime happens and homes get broken into and people get murdered. If I get killed in my home I think it is proper and the best for society for law enforcement to have a way to enter my home and examine the evidence. It is the best hope to reduce criminals from repeating such actions.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:02 pm

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Those are conscious choices made by the user, and not everything gets shared automatically. Some items are still encrypted end to end for storage. A user cannot jut break in remotely when you login. They have to have a way to access. Apple and others have worked hard to limit that access.


Agreed and of course. I just believe that there should be a way to legally access such files and deveices and not only have it available to criminal and illegal methods. I beleive that is part of participating in a just and fair society.

But even in the best society crime happens and homes get broken into and people get murdered. If I get killed in my home I think it is proper and the best for society for law enforcement to have a way to enter my home and examine the evidence. It is the best hope to reduce criminals from repeating such actions.

Tugg



Give the people you trust the access ,and the issue will not be one. My wife and i share our pass codes so we can access each other's stuff.
I had a friend pass and they never shared their code with anyone. All those pictures and emails and important account info was lost for their spouse.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:25 pm

casinterest wrote:
Give the people you trust the access ,and the issue will not be one. My wife and i share our pass codes so we can access each other's stuff.
I had a friend pass and they never shared their code with anyone. All those pictures and emails and important account info was lost for their spouse.

Which is fine and obviates my example perfectly but for the other criminal side of things, they will not be shared due to a common interest in protecting themselves. Again I believe that it is appropriate and important for law enforcement to have avenues to "enter" with court approved methods/tools.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:43 pm

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Give the people you trust the access ,and the issue will not be one. My wife and i share our pass codes so we can access each other's stuff.
I had a friend pass and they never shared their code with anyone. All those pictures and emails and important account info was lost for their spouse.

Which is fine and obviates my example perfectly but for the other criminal side of things, they will not be shared due to a common interest in protecting themselves. Again I believe that it is appropriate and important for law enforcement to have avenues to "enter" with court approved methods/tools.

Tugg


That is why CALEA exists, but for personal items there need to be safeguards. Backdoors in encryption make encryption worthless. Why else strive for 256/512 bit encryption keys and hash algorithms that take years to unlock, when there is a "super secret" password that law enforcement has and can be passed along at any point.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:54 pm

casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Give the people you trust the access ,and the issue will not be one. My wife and i share our pass codes so we can access each other's stuff.
I had a friend pass and they never shared their code with anyone. All those pictures and emails and important account info was lost for their spouse.

Which is fine and obviates my example perfectly but for the other criminal side of things, they will not be shared due to a common interest in protecting themselves. Again I believe that it is appropriate and important for law enforcement to have avenues to "enter" with court approved methods/tools.

Tugg


That is why CALEA exists, but for personal items there need to be safeguards. Backdoors in encryption make encryption worthless. Why else strive for 256/512 bit encryption keys and hash algorithms that take years to unlock, when there is a "super secret" password that law enforcement has and can be passed along at any point.

So you are saying doors and locks are useless and worthless because there exists easy ways to by pass them? That is silly.

And again, I did not say or indicate any support for "law enforcement" or "the government" having said keys. Only the ability to access with such as needed.

I think the real problem is that, for Apple, they don't want to admit they do have a key. So they stymie and sue to prevent such from occurring. It is not that difficult to have a single 512 bit key that is otherwise unknowable and as impossible to break and anything in that range (128-bit level of encryption has (340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible key combinations). And it can be unique to the encrypted device in question, it in no way needs to be some universal, "it'll work on every device", key.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:19 pm

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Which is fine and obviates my example perfectly but for the other criminal side of things, they will not be shared due to a common interest in protecting themselves. Again I believe that it is appropriate and important for law enforcement to have avenues to "enter" with court approved methods/tools.

Tugg


That is why CALEA exists, but for personal items there need to be safeguards. Backdoors in encryption make encryption worthless. Why else strive for 256/512 bit encryption keys and hash algorithms that take years to unlock, when there is a "super secret" password that law enforcement has and can be passed along at any point.

So you are saying doors and locks are useless and worthless because there exists easy ways to by pass them? That is silly.

And again, I did not say or indicate any support for "law enforcement" or "the government" having said keys. Only the ability to access with such as needed.

I think the real problem is that, for Apple, they don't want to admit they do have a key. So they stymie and sue to prevent such from occurring. It is not that difficult to have a single 512 bit key that is otherwise unknowable and as impossible to break and anything in that range (128-bit level of encryption has (340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible key combinations). And it can be unique to the encrypted device in question, it in no way needs to be some universal, "it'll work on every device", key.

Tugg


But a single 512 bit key that is always going to means that there are at least two passwords that always work in the device, and one is static. This means the root algorithm on the device must remain fixed, and also that you are not using prime numbers for your encryption. If we go with the unique for each device solution, then we have a list, and you know what happens to lists and files? They get passed around in emails and usb ports.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:28 pm

casinterest wrote:
But a single 512 bit key that is always going to means that there are at least two passwords that always work in the device, and one is static. This means the root algorithm on the device must remain fixed, and also that you are not using prime numbers for your encryption. If we go with the unique for each device solution, then we have a list, and you know what happens to lists and files? They get passed around in emails and usb ports.

Actually you could have two (or more) algorithms. So algorithms don't have to remain static or one could be static and hidden/unknowable/internal only, and the other algorithms interact with it. And you don't need a list as the unlock could be generated when needed. Also It could interact with a number of internal identifiers to increase scope.

FaceID essentially does this, and then there is also a PIN number. There are many things that could be done. How about this, an method for Apple to change/allow the algorithm and allow it to unlock with a persons eyes closed....

But again, my main point is: I support some process or method to allow law enforcement to access a device even against that persons wishes (or if the person is unable to do so themselves) as long as there is court approval.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:05 am

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
But a single 512 bit key that is always going to means that there are at least two passwords that always work in the device, and one is static. This means the root algorithm on the device must remain fixed, and also that you are not using prime numbers for your encryption. If we go with the unique for each device solution, then we have a list, and you know what happens to lists and files? They get passed around in emails and usb ports.

Actually you could have two (or more) algorithms. So algorithms don't have to remain static or one could be static and hidden/unknowable/internal only, and the other algorithms interact with it. And you don't need a list as the unlock could be generated when needed. Also It could interact with a number of internal identifiers to increase scope.

FaceID essentially does this, and then there is also a PIN number. There are many things that could be done. How about this, an method for Apple to change/allow the algorithm and allow it to unlock with a persons eyes closed....

But again, my main point is: I support some process or method to allow law enforcement to access a device even against that persons wishes (or if the person is unable to do so themselves) as long as there is court approval.

Tugg


You can run algorithm's all over the place, but it depends on how the data is stored. If Apple is writing secure Data, it can only write it with the Public Key of the User, so Apple would have to write Data twice. Once for the user, once for Law enforcement. And again we would be stuck with privacy and memory concerns.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 10277
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:09 am

casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
But a single 512 bit key that is always going to means that there are at least two passwords that always work in the device, and one is static. This means the root algorithm on the device must remain fixed, and also that you are not using prime numbers for your encryption. If we go with the unique for each device solution, then we have a list, and you know what happens to lists and files? They get passed around in emails and usb ports.

Actually you could have two (or more) algorithms. So algorithms don't have to remain static or one could be static and hidden/unknowable/internal only, and the other algorithms interact with it. And you don't need a list as the unlock could be generated when needed. Also It could interact with a number of internal identifiers to increase scope.

FaceID essentially does this, and then there is also a PIN number. There are many things that could be done. How about this, an method for Apple to change/allow the algorithm and allow it to unlock with a persons eyes closed....

But again, my main point is: I support some process or method to allow law enforcement to access a device even against that persons wishes (or if the person is unable to do so themselves) as long as there is court approval.

Tugg


You can run algorithm's all over the place, but it depends on how the data is stored. If Apple is writing secure Data, it can only write it with the Public Key of the User, so Apple would have to write Data twice. Once for the user, once for Law enforcement. And again we would be stuck with privacy and memory concerns.


Agreed - that’s a slippery slope all on its own. As suggested earlier, maybe Apple can agree to
perform a certain service for law enforcement when conditions warrant. This can be added to MOUs in contracts with customers.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:12 am

There are always ways to bypass encryption. Just like there are ways to bypass a locked front door (smash the windows and get in).
That does not mean that 1) encryption is no longer necessary (the fact that your window can get broken in does not mean you should leave your front door unlocked), and 2) warrants should still be necessary.

Anyhow, this "debate" is overflowing with Straw Men, Red Herrings, and Tu Quoques.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:37 am

I don't think people understand how encryption works.

In order for Apple or Google for that matter to provide some sort of backdoor to defeat encryption on their products, it would fundamentally break how their products work.

Also, having two passcodes, one for the person, the other for Apple to supply if requested by a court is also a non-starter; it's inherently too risky from a security standpoint because a single private key in this case would allow access to every device from the manufacturer. And key escrow schemes have been proven breakable and evadable in the past; look up the "Clipper" chip from the 1990's and how much of a disaster that was.

Back when the "Clipper" chip was being proposed in Congress, Whitfield Diffie—one of the creators of the Diffie-Hellman Protocol for secure key exchange—spoke to a congressional hearing about the "Clipper Chip," an encryption chip for digital voice communications announced by the Clinton administration. His main points remain relevant:
1. The backdoor would put providers in an awkward position with other governments and international customers, weakening its value.
2. Those who want to hide their conversations from the government for nefarious reasons can get around the backdoor easily.
3. The only people who would be easy to surveil would be people who didn't care about government surveillance in the first place.
4. There was no guarantee someone else might not exploit the backdoor for their own purposes.

Remember: Apple already provides everything connected to one's iCloud's backup and data upon the presentation of a valid warrant, and can't decrypt the phone itself even if they wanted to.

The complaint being made by the government is that Apple should deliberately sabotage future encryption on their products so anyone with access to the back-door key (ie, the government, their contractors, foreign nations with access to one of those contractors, clever security crackers, etc.) can bypass the security.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12138
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:13 am

Smart criminals don't have anything illegal in their home. If they even have a home to their name...
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 10277
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:18 am

Aesma wrote:
Smart criminals don't have anything illegal in their home. If they even have a home to their name...


That goes for their phones too. Haven’t these guys ever heard of a burner?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:02 am

Tugger wrote:
If law enforcement can get a warrant to enter a home, they should be able to get a warrant to "enter" a phone or other personal device and the manufacturer should value that warrant and assist as they are able. It is no real difference.

Tugg

From an older generational perspective - what if instead of using a mobile phone, I wrote letters using pen & paper, and encrypted them?

Law enforcement can "insist" I provide the means for them to read my letters, although maybe that breaches the Fifth Amendment?

The only reason law enforcement can act this way with phones (& e-mails, and...) is because the mechanism is publicly/commercially available, and they (& yourself) see a possibility of cracking the code, exploiting Apple etc as a weak point in the system. However these are still my private communications, that I foolishly entrusted to a third party (Apple).

Next time I'll use a carrier pigeon.

(There are other areas where we entrust sensitive data to a third party, secure in the knowledge that not even the highest Court in the land will be able to force the info to be revealed; Doctor-patient confidentiality, Lawyer-client confidentiality, and the daddy of them all, the Confessional. In this modern era, is it so wrong to look at Apple, and expect the same level of fidelity?)
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:52 am

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The slippery slope, is that a backdoor that can break encryption, makes encryption worthless.
What good is password protection if everything is accessible.

Even if Apple was to allow access, what stops the criminal from installing an APP that has it's own backdoor encryption?

Should ones private residence be absolutely sacred with no one allowed to enter without the express consent of the owner/resident?

Tugg


What has one to do with the other? This is about the company selling break in resistant front doors being required to have a master key/or copy of the customers key. ... which is obviously fast way to go out of business.
Apple sells solid doors, doesn't deliberately weaker them, and doesn't keep spare keys.
Law enforcement has to break those doors open and there is absolutely no reason to treat phones any different.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:27 am

ThePointblank wrote:
I don't think people understand how encryption works.

In order for Apple or Google for that matter to provide some sort of backdoor to defeat encryption on their products, it would fundamentally break how their products work..


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
This 100x times
Having safe critical infrastructure, systems, banking and so on and having a systematic way for law enforcement to cut through encryption are mutually exclusive goals, and in time where cyber terrorism is something to worry about making demand to weaken encryption is essentially aiding and abetting just that Cyber terrorism.

Aaron747 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Smart criminals don't have anything illegal in their home. If they even have a home to their name...


That goes for their phones too. Haven’t these guys ever heard of a burner?


in a time where as much as a deleted browsing history can be bend out of shape until you are charged with destroying evidence/records and go to jail for that i am not so sure that helps...

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:54 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
What has one to do with the other? This is about the company selling break in resistant front doors being required to have a master key/or copy of the customers key. ... which is obviously fast way to go out of business.
Apple sells solid doors, doesn't deliberately weaker them, and doesn't keep spare keys.
Law enforcement has to break those doors open and there is absolutely no reason to treat phones any different.

Yes, "door manufacturers" would be compelled to assist in breaking one of their doors if needed. And they would follow the court order to do so. Apple (and any others) is hiding behind a smoke screen and at some point will have to come out from behind it.

Encryption is a powerful tool and, no there is significant risk to everyone with an encrypted device if a manufacturer assists in the unlocking of said device. Even if that is to disable "limits" on attempts to open a device etc. It is important to be able to enable law enforcement, properly suprevised and following known and accepted protocol, to be able to fully investigate crimes and evidence as needed.

You can of course disagree, however not allowing law enforcement to work is a road to an anarchic society.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7481
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:25 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The complaint being made by the government is that Apple should deliberately sabotage future encryption on their products so anyone with access to the back-door key (ie, the government, their contractors, foreign nations with access to one of those contractors, clever security crackers, etc.) can bypass the security.


Even without backdoor FBI paid an Israeli company to gain access to San Bernadino iPhone. So Apple/Google's argument doesn't hold water.

NSO Group is selling software to governments(some of the worst regimes) to snoop on so called peer-to-peer encrypted transmissions. There goes iMessage, WhatsApp and others. Amnesty International is suing NSO Group to stop exports of Pegasys software.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:33 pm

Tugger wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
What has one to do with the other? This is about the company selling break in resistant front doors being required to have a master key/or copy of the customers key. ... which is obviously fast way to go out of business.
Apple sells solid doors, doesn't deliberately weaker them, and doesn't keep spare keys.
Law enforcement has to break those doors open and there is absolutely no reason to treat phones any different.

Yes, "door manufacturers" would be compelled to assist in breaking one of their doors if needed. And they would follow the court order to do so. Apple (and any others) is hiding behind a smoke screen and at some point will have to come out from behind it.


Please Show me the door manufacturer that is required, by court order or otherwise, to make a) all doors with specific, exploitable weakspots to overcome their doors with ease or that are b) required to provide law enforcement with spare keys they held back from all doors ever sold.

Apple does everything the door manufacturer does, they are refusing to do what the door manufacturer isn't doing either.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:36 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The complaint being made by the government is that Apple should deliberately sabotage future encryption on their products so anyone with access to the back-door key (ie, the government, their contractors, foreign nations with access to one of those contractors, clever security crackers, etc.) can bypass the security.


Even without backdoor FBI paid an Israeli company to gain access to San Bernadino iPhone. So Apple/Google's argument doesn't hold water.


Of course it does. Any exploits someone else is using they can patch for, they can't do that with weaknesses they have to implement. Certain exploits would remain forever, by law.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:48 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
What has one to do with the other? This is about the company selling break in resistant front doors being required to have a master key/or copy of the customers key. ... which is obviously fast way to go out of business.
Apple sells solid doors, doesn't deliberately weaker them, and doesn't keep spare keys.
Law enforcement has to break those doors open and there is absolutely no reason to treat phones any different.

Yes, "door manufacturers" would be compelled to assist in breaking one of their doors if needed. And they would follow the court order to do so. Apple (and any others) is hiding behind a smoke screen and at some point will have to come out from behind it.


Please Show me the door manufacturer that is required, by court order or otherwise, to make a) all doors with specific, exploitable weakspots to overcome their doors with ease or that are b) required to provide law enforcement with spare keys they held back from all doors ever sold.

Apple does everything the door manufacturer does, they are refusing to do what the door manufacturer isn't doing either.

You are making an a straw-man argument and an inaccurate one at that.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:51 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Certain exploits would remain forever, by law.

And that is essentially what they are fighting for/toward, and so are all who do not want such manufacturers to assist as they can when requested/ordered for law enforcement purposes.

This already occurs in China and I don't support that.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:22 pm

The argument around "if a backdoor existed, then it could be exploited, so therefore we won't include a backdoor" is significantly at odds with a company that maintains a secure and reliable update system for its products, that has thus far been safe from abuse and malicious use, especially when that update system has been proven to be able to push updates out to some products without user consent (see the Zoom exploit mitigation patch Apple pushed out to OSX users - no consent, no user interaction, it just happened. Now tell me the IOS update system can't have such an event...)

I'm not advocating for a built in backdoor for law enforcement or government purposes, far from it, but I just have issues with the general arguments being used around it.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:24 pm

moo wrote:
The argument around "if a backdoor existed, then it could be exploited, so therefore we won't include a backdoor" is significantly at odds with a company that maintains a secure and reliable update system for its products, that has thus far been safe from abuse and malicious use, especially when that update system has been proven to be able to push updates out to some products without user consent (see the Zoom exploit mitigation patch Apple pushed out to OSX users - no consent, no user interaction, it just happened. Now tell me the IOS update system can't have such an event...)

I'm not advocating for a built in backdoor for law enforcement or government purposes, far from it, but I just have issues with the general arguments being used around it.



Software features and updates are not the same as securing the data.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:36 pm

casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:
The argument around "if a backdoor existed, then it could be exploited, so therefore we won't include a backdoor" is significantly at odds with a company that maintains a secure and reliable update system for its products, that has thus far been safe from abuse and malicious use, especially when that update system has been proven to be able to push updates out to some products without user consent (see the Zoom exploit mitigation patch Apple pushed out to OSX users - no consent, no user interaction, it just happened. Now tell me the IOS update system can't have such an event...)

I'm not advocating for a built in backdoor for law enforcement or government purposes, far from it, but I just have issues with the general arguments being used around it.



Software features and updates are not the same as securing the data.


Yes, it is. It really is. If you can update the software features without user knowledge or consent, any data on that device is no longer safe.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:51 pm

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:
The argument around "if a backdoor existed, then it could be exploited, so therefore we won't include a backdoor" is significantly at odds with a company that maintains a secure and reliable update system for its products, that has thus far been safe from abuse and malicious use, especially when that update system has been proven to be able to push updates out to some products without user consent (see the Zoom exploit mitigation patch Apple pushed out to OSX users - no consent, no user interaction, it just happened. Now tell me the IOS update system can't have such an event...)

I'm not advocating for a built in backdoor for law enforcement or government purposes, far from it, but I just have issues with the general arguments being used around it.



Software features and updates are not the same as securing the data.


Yes, it is. It really is. If you can update the software features without user knowledge or consent, any data on that device is no longer safe.


Configuration and software features are separate from the data. The Data if encrypted is still safe.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9984
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:04 am

In terms of the government's ability to "protect' any back door - not a chance. First, the government has a very poor history of protecting secrets. How long did it take Russia to get their hands on the secret of the atom bomb. Then there is a reality that our government employees can't keep their mouths shut.

More import, for me, is the probability that Trump is grabbing at this issue fo deflect the public's attention away from his Impeachment Trial. He could care less about the importance of Privacy, or any benefit that Justice could obtain from a Special Key to the iPhone. This is just more of the Trump Crap.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:43 am

casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:


Software features and updates are not the same as securing the data.


Yes, it is. It really is. If you can update the software features without user knowledge or consent, any data on that device is no longer safe.


Configuration and software features are separate from the data. The Data if encrypted is still safe.

If they can update the system to remove an exploit, they could equally add one just as easily.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12138
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:31 am

If your data is not just private but incriminating, you can always encrypt it separately/on top. What then ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:46 am

casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:


Software features and updates are not the same as securing the data.


Yes, it is. It really is. If you can update the software features without user knowledge or consent, any data on that device is no longer safe.


Configuration and software features are separate from the data. The Data if encrypted is still safe.


As Tugger says, only until whomever is pushing updates decides otherwise. Theres no difficulty at all involved in Apple pushing an update which logs the data encryption keys to a remote source, or adds a second set of keys to the encryption set, and 99.999% of people won't even know its happened.

You are using someone else's system - always always remember that.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:48 am

Aesma wrote:
If your data is not just private but incriminating, you can always encrypt it separately/on top. What then ?


Yes, you can - but then your data becomes exceedingly hard for you to use yourself as no app will work with it.

The backdoor issue has been around since PGP was first launched and almost immediately banned from export from the US under arms laws. PGP never really took off because its so difficult to use, hence why the discussion hasnt been settled in the intervening 28 years.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:09 am

Tugger wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Yes, "door manufacturers" would be compelled to assist in breaking one of their doors if needed. And they would follow the court order to do so. Apple (and any others) is hiding behind a smoke screen and at some point will have to come out from behind it.


Please Show me the door manufacturer that is required, by court order or otherwise, to make a) all doors with specific, exploitable weakspots to overcome their doors with ease or that are b) required to provide law enforcement with spare keys they held back from all doors ever sold.

Apple does everything the door manufacturer does, they are refusing to do what the door manufacturer isn't doing either.

You are making an a straw-man argument and an inaccurate one at that.

Tugg


Nope, you just made an amazingly terrible argument that breaks down at even a cursory look. There is no company anywhere outside of IT that has to do, or was demanded to do, what is demanded of Apple and other smartphone manufacturers.

Tugger wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Certain exploits would remain forever, by law.

And that is essentially what they are fighting for/toward, and so are all who do not want such manufacturers to assist as they can when requested/ordered for law enforcement purposes.

This already occurs in China and I don't support that.

Tugg


Apple assists with everything they can assist with. They can not assist beyond what they do by design. ANY law enforcement access in any way, shape or form is an exploitable weakness.

casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:
The argument around "if a backdoor existed, then it could be exploited, so therefore we won't include a backdoor" is significantly at odds with a company that maintains a secure and reliable update system for its products, that has thus far been safe from abuse and malicious use, especially when that update system has been proven to be able to push updates out to some products without user consent (see the Zoom exploit mitigation patch Apple pushed out to OSX users - no consent, no user interaction, it just happened. Now tell me the IOS update system can't have such an event...)

I'm not advocating for a built in backdoor for law enforcement or government purposes, far from it, but I just have issues with the general arguments being used around it.



Software features and updates are not the same as securing the data.


More importantly: You can patch your phone to take the ability to push updates onto your phone away, so it doesn´t work against criminals of even lowest sophistication. And of course you can always install an encryption layer on top, like Cryptomator, and the fun is over for good.....

Tugger wrote:
casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:

Yes, it is. It really is. If you can update the software features without user knowledge or consent, any data on that device is no longer safe.


Configuration and software features are separate from the data. The Data if encrypted is still safe.

If they can update the system to remove an exploit, they could equally add one just as easily.

Tugg


And that gives them the pass code at the basis of the encryption key how exactly? That may help to get access to a phone that is still being used, i.e. install a screen/keyboard reader or what not, but helps you jack all on an impounded phone.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
bennett123
Posts: 9117
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:27 am

I wonder how people would view this situation if a different government was involved?.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:37 am

bennett123 wrote:
I wonder how people would view this situation if a different government was involved?.


completely losing their sh*t..... of course they don´t get that once Apple complies, it has to comply everywhere.

But maybe not, Russia and China having a Trump supplied bug in the oval office doesn´t seem to phase anyone either...

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9691
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:41 am

I believe there’s a company in Israel that can open up locked iPhones?
And that FBI have used them before
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11647
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:43 am

AirPacific747 wrote:
I believe there’s a company in Israel that can open up locked iPhones?
And that FBI have used them before


Sometimes, sometimes not. Apple not being a fraudulent company they close the exploits as soon as they find em.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9755
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Apple vs. The Feds and Court Orders to Unlock Phones

Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:29 pm

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:

Yes, it is. It really is. If you can update the software features without user knowledge or consent, any data on that device is no longer safe.


Configuration and software features are separate from the data. The Data if encrypted is still safe.


As Tugger says, only until whomever is pushing updates decides otherwise. Theres no difficulty at all involved in Apple pushing an update which logs the data encryption keys to a remote source, or adds a second set of keys to the encryption set, and 99.999% of people won't even know its happened.

You are using someone else's system - always always remember that.


And apple is using software to encrypt the data that is sourced most likely from OpenSSL. If Apple is not going to encrypt data then the government would not approve it's use.
Where ever you go, there you are.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jouhou, Number6 and 113 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos