News Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[russ_watters]

Apple is not trying to change that. They are just saying that they don't want to be forced to help.

Refusing to help is not the same as hindering the process if law enforcement can figure out how to conduct the search independently.

Right, those are two separate issues, both of which represent changes Apple is trying to initiate:
1. They are trying to create technology to help people avoid legal search warrants.
2. The technology they created for #1 has a loophole that the FBI wants help exploiting. They've helped in the past, but don't want to help anymore.

The government wants to go beyond being entitled to search with a warrant. They want to be able to compel third parties to assist in such searches.

Yes, 3rd parties are required to assist, as Apple has always done in the past (the FBI discusses this in their new request for an order to compel compliance, linked by Psinter). Apple wants to change that.

Congress has refused to pass a law forcing tech companies to provide means for searches to be facilitated. Now the FBI wants to use court orders to accomplish the same end, even though Congress was asked to pass a law, and they did not.

Fortunately, this phone still has such a means. You're reversing the cart and the horse here. Neither the FBI nor Apple would be able to crack the phone if Apple had done what it promised its customers it had done. That couldn't be changed with a court order, only a law. Because Apple didn't do it, they are still subject to compliance with the warrant.

Why not grant John McAfee the same presumption of innocence and good faith and let him crack the phone? Why force one party to crack the phone against their will when another party is offering to do it for free?

I've already answered that: John McAfee is a 3rd party business owner with financial interest that may be contrary to Apple's. And, presumption of innocence? You don't get presumption of innocence in a security check.

I find this suggestion by you really strange.

 

[russ_watters]

What prospect? Do you mean Apple's prospect?

I find the prospect of completely uncrackable phones ominous just like I find Bitcoin ominous. I find it to be an unnecessary enabler of crime/protection for criminals.

If it's that, I don't find it ominous. What I find ominous is their reaction to Apple's decision to not concede them what they ask for. This was fine, but then the way they filed this motion... It leaves much to be desired from them. Their reaction and wordings are... I don't know how to say it, probably dictatorial is the word, but I'm not sure if it is the correct way to express it.

I don't get it. The second is an additional motion requesting action against Apple for refusing the first, which was a court order. What else is the FBI supposed to do, just let Apple thumb their nose at them?

Yes, an "order" is by definition "dictatorial"!

From the request:

Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow technology, rather than the law, to control access to data which has been found by this Court to be warranted for an important investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the technical ability to comply with the Order, and so should be required to obey it.

At face value, how is that in any way false or unreasonable? Continuing on, it paints a picture that says Apple lied repeatedly in their response letter (which I think we've borne out in this discussion).

Apple is going to need to come up with a better challenge this in court, otherwise I think the next action will include arrest warrants. It isn't entitled to challenge a court order with a PR war alone.

 

[russ_watters]

Then there's this:

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).

CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband Internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.

The original reason for adopting CALEA was the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

That was linked from here, an 18 month article predicting the current conflict:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/18/6...d-signals-whether-police-can-access-your-data

 

[Psinter]

I find the prospect of completely uncrackable phones ominous just like I find Bitcoin ominous. I find it to be an unnecessary enabler of crime.

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

I don't get it. The second is an additional motion requesting action against Apple for refusing the first, which was a court order. What else is the FBI supposed to do, just let Apple thumb their nose at them?

I could tell you my opinion, but this would definitely be more nice in a face to face conversation. Otherwise I would need to write a whole document explaining my opinion.

Yes, an "order" is by definition "dictatorial"!

Now this is good. I am thankful that you make that clear to me. I really am as I wasn't fully aware of it. It gives me a better understanding.

Curiously enough for me, despite the first one being called an order, it wasn't obliging Apple, however the motion is asking for the court to oblige Apple. Hmmmmmm. *thinking for myself*

 

[russ_watters]

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

No, of course not. A lot of people disagree with me on privacy vs security. So many that my opinion may be in the minority, though online people tend to be of a certain mindset...

Curiously enough for me, despite the first one being called an order, it wasn't obliging Apple, however the motion is asking for the court to oblige Apple. Hmmmmmm.

That really isn't true. Apple is obliged to follow the order, but the order doesn't itself contain the mechanism for enforcement of itself -- people get the benefit of the doubt that they are going to comply with the order before stronger action is taken to force them to comply. The legal process is cumbersome.

 

[Psinter]

That really isn't true. Apple is obliged to follow the order, but the order doesn't itself contain the mechanism for enforcement of itself. The legal process is cumbersome.

Oh. I agree there then. It is cumbersome indeed.

 

[russ_watters]

More text from the motion to comply:

In New York Telephone Co., the Supreme Court held that courts have authority under the All Writs Act to issue supplemental orders to third parties to facilitate the execution of search warrants. The court held that "[t]he power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, ...and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice."... In particular, the Court upheld an order directing a phone company to assist in executing a pen register search warrant...

So this seems to me to be a pretty well settled matter of law: Apple is capable of helping, so they have to.
[edit]
More, much of which I've pointed out previously:

Apple designed and restricts access to the code for the auto-erase function... This feature effectively prevents the government from performing the search for evidence authorized by the warrant without Apple's assistance. The same software Apple is uniquely able to modify also controls the delays Apple implemented between failed passcode attempts - which makes the process take too long to enable the access ordered by the Court.

Especially but not only because iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple, and because Apple restricts access to the source code of the software that creates these obstacles, no other party has the ability to assist the government in preventing these features from obstructing the search ordered by the Court pursuant to the warrant.

Ahh, so the existing "back door" Apple has is also covered by heavy encryption. That makes sense: it presents a security risk. But it certainly means that it isn't any kind of "loophole" - it is a by-design "back door" into the inner workings of the phone (they can't claim to not know about something they've taken steps to lock!).

As I said before: Apple tied themselves in this knot.

edit2:
This one made me chuckle:

While the Order in this case requires Apple to provide or employ modified software, modifying an operating system - which is essentially writing software code in discrete and limited manner - is not an unreasonable burden for a company that writes software code as part of its regular business.

Edit 3:
And regarding its customers (all discussed previously):

To the extent that Apple claims that the Order is unreasonably burdensome because it undermines Apple's marketing strategies...The principle that "private citizens have a duty to provide assistance to law enforcement officials when it is required is by no means foreign to our traditions." Apple is not above the law in that regard, and it is perfectly capable of advising consumers that the compliance with a discrete and limited court order founded on probable cause is an obligation of a responsible member of the community.

True! If Apple hadn't promised their customers it would behave illegally, that wouldn't be a problem! Sympathy for Apple's promise to its customers: gone.

 

[russ_watters]

I have more to respond to this:

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

No, I don't automatically assume a person is a criminal for wanting tighter encryption, but as pertains to this case, I do question the wisdom of fearing the FBI more than fearing criminals...while simultaneously placing the same trust in Apple they won't place in the FBI.

 

[Psinter]

I have more to respond to this:

No, I don't automatically assume a person is a criminal for wanting tighter encryption, but as pertains to this case, I do question the wisdom of fearing the FBI more than fearing criminals...while simultaneously placing the same trust in Apple they won't place in the FBI.

It's okay, I understand.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, I don't automatically assume a person is a criminal for wanting tighter encryption, but as pertains to this case, I do question the wisdom of fearing the FBI more than fearing criminals...while simultaneously placing the same trust in Apple they won't place in the FBI.

I read the whole motion to comply and, what strikes me as confusing and questionable is the FBI's stated reason for wanting to get into the phone:

"The government has reason to believe that Farook used that iPhone to communicate with some of the very people whom he and Malik murdered. The phone may contain critical communications and data prior to and around the time of the shooting that, thus far: {1} has not been accessed; {2} may reside solely on the phone; and {3} cannot be accessed by any other means known to either the government or Apple."

There's no surprise he called his co-workers is there? Apparently communicating with them was a necessary and expected part of the job, such that the company provided them phones for that. I don't see a reason the FBI can't get access to information about calls(or messages) he made to co-workers from the co-worker's phones. Aren't the 22 injured willing to share with the FBI? I would be. Of those who died, wouldn't their spouses know their password in some cases as well?

All this time I have have erroneously assumed the FBI thought there were communications with other terrorists on the phone. In view of their stated reason it looks like all they really want to do is fish on the remote off chance there's something important on it.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

1. They are trying to create technology to help people avoid legal search warrants.

Can you prove that this is really Apple's intent?

It seems to me Apple has clearly articulated that this is not their intent, but merely a by product of technology good enough to keep out criminals is that it ends up making it more difficult for the government to execute legitimate warrants.

Are we to assume the motives of the FBI are always pure, but Apple's motives are not?

The fact that law enforcement has a search warrant means everyone needs to get out of their way and let them do their thing. It does not mean anyone has an affirmative duty to help them search. Such an affirmative duty could be created by Congress by passing a law. Congress decided not to pass that law.

 

[russ_watters]

Can you prove that this is really Apple's intent?

It seems to me Apple has clearly articulated that this is not their intent, but merely a by product of technology good enough to keep out criminals is that it ends up making it more difficult for the government to execute legitimate warrants.

Are we to assume the motives of the FBI are always pure, but Apple's motives are not?

You are misunderstanding: intent is not at issue, function/action is. Apple is currently actively evading a legal search warrant and has created software that assists (poorly) in that. It doesn't matter what their actual goal was in creating the software - it is doing what it is doing and they are doing what they are doing.

What concerns me, though, are the statements of intent by Apple supporters.

The fact that law enforcement has a search warrant means everyone needs to get out of their way and let them do their thing. It does not mean anyone has an affirmative duty to help them search. Such an affirmative duty could be created by Congress by passing a law. Congress decided not to pass that law.

That is false. The affirmative duty exists and is discussed in detail in the quotes from the request to compel, quoted above.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

You are misunderstanding: intent is not at issue, function/action is. Apple is currently actively evading a legal search warrant and has created software that assists (poorly) in that. It doesn't matter what their actual goal was in creating the software - it is doing what it is doing and they are doing what they are doing.

What concerns me, though, are the statements of intent by Apple supporters.

That is false. The affirmative duty exists and is discussed in detail in the quotes from the request to compel, quoted aboeliveve.

A court order does not create a duty, it can only enforce and apply a duty created by a law passed by the legislative branch.

Can a court order force law-abiding citizens to do anything against their will?

No. Only people ignorant of basic civics (or conveniently ignoring it) believe that. Separation of powers means a court is limited in its powers to things prescribed by the legislative branch. Congress chose not to give the courts power to force companies to provide back doors into cell phones. It may serve your purposes that the will of the people as expressed through Congress is ignored in this case, but we are a nation of laws, and court orders that are based only in the whims of the executive branch and the judiciary are not valid unless they are grounded in laws passed by Congress.

People are well within their rights to ignore illegal court orders, especially while appeals and further litigation are pending. You are making Apple out to be evil for acting within their rights.

Why is Apple objecting to the government’s order?
The government asked a court to order Apple to create a unique version of iOS that would bypass security protections on the iPhone Lock screen. It would also add a completely new capability so that passcode tries could be entered electronically.

This has two important and dangerous implications:

First, the government would have us write an entirely new operating system for their use. They are asking Apple to remove security features and add a new ability to the operating system to attack iPhone encryption, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

We built strong security into the iPhone because people carry so much personal information on our phones today, and there are new data breaches every week affecting individuals, companies and governments. The passcode lock and requirement for manual entry of the passcode are at the heart of the safeguards we have built into iOS. It would be wrong to intentionally weaken our products with a government-ordered backdoor. If we lose control of our data, we put both our privacy and our safety at risk.

Second, the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.

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

 

[russ_watters]

A court order...

Please read it and try again. I don't like having to respond to factually wrong thing after factually wrong thing. Please do your homework.

 

[mheslep]

Apple is currently actively evading a legal search warrant...

Per the documentation presented here, Apple was not issued a 4th amendment warrant for data on the phone, nor would they, any more than a warrant is issued to a home builder to search a residence. Apple received a court order to assist in the government's search of the phone.

 

[jackwhirl]

Separation of powers means a court is limited in its powers to things prescribed by the legislative branch.

That's not what the separation of powers means. The courts are not inferior to the legislature. Their authority, "judicial Power," was granted them by the constitution.
The separation of powers means that the power of the government, (legislative, executive, and judicial) has been divided between the bodies of government to prevent the concentration of power, prevent the conflict of powers, and to allow the bodies to check and balance each other.

It may serve your purposes that the will of the people as expressed through Congress is ignored in this case, but we are a nation of laws, and court orders that are based only in the whims of the executive branch and the judiciary are not valid unless they are grounded in laws passed by Congress.

Superior courts decide whether the orders of an inferior court are valid: not you, not me, and not Apple.

People are well within their rights to ignore illegal court orders, especially while appeals and further litigation are pending.

People are within their rights to request a stay, or appeal an order. Ignoring an order usually results in the issuance of another order, in the form of an arrest warrant. The FBI would probably comply with such an order.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

People are within their rights to request a stay, or appeal an order. Ignoring an order usually results in the issuance of another order, in the form of an arrest warrant. The FBI would probably comply with such an order.

They may well be foolish enough to do this, because nothing would be a stronger motivation for the people to strip them of their abusive power through Congressional action to clarify their legislative intent. Yeah, let's see how putting Apple execs in jail works out for the fools who try it.

 

[pyroartist]

No one here has been totally clear about what the government is asking for.
Is it just the data from this one phone? If so Apple should queitly take the phone into their labs and give the FBI the data.
If the Gov is asking for a password to all new phones made, that is a different story and they should say no.

 

[Astronuc]

No one here has been totally clear about what the government is asking for.
Is it just the data from this one phone?

The FBI is looking for messages or phone calls involving the victims, or communication with others that Farook indicated that he intended to shoot people.

 

[jackwhirl]

They may well be foolish enough to do this, because nothing would be a stronger motivation for the people to strip them of their abusive power through Congressional action to clarify their legislative intent. Yeah, let's see how putting Apple execs in jail works out for the fools who try it.

Let me clarify. I know I brought it up, but I really don't expect it to come to arrests. If Apple looses the appeal, I expect it will comply with the order. Then I expect it will try to engineer a phone that will not have the weaknesses of the current model.

To be fair, though, it isn't realistic to expect any device to withstand sustained attack while in the physical possession of the attacker.

 

[russ_watters]

They may well be foolish enough to do this, because nothing would be a stronger motivation for the people to strip them of their abusive power through Congressional action to clarify their legislative intent. Yeah, let's see how putting Apple execs in jail works out for the fools who try it.

This is counterfactual to the point of being nonsensical. You are hoping to blow up long established legal principles and laws based on your own misunderstanding of what they actually are. The court documents linked in this thread explain these principles and laws - and yes there are laws that have already been passed at cover this stuff - in detail. You should read them. Or at least read the quotes that I posted last night from the documents, which talk about many of the same principles/laws. Please stop shooting from the hip and making this stuff up as you go along.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me clarify. I know I brought it up, but I really don't expect it to come to arrests. If Apple looses the appeal, I expect it will comply with the order. Then I expect it will try to engineer a phone that will not have the weaknesses of the current model.

That is my prediction as well. It would be interesting to see what form the engineering changes would take, though.

It might be as simple as requiring the phone be unlocked before a software update can be installed - I believe my android already works that way (you don't have a choice, but you have to click OK to start the update). But a phone can never truly be on an island because it is a networked device that responds to information received from the network.

In either case, the separate "back door" fight will be coming later. But based on fairly recent similar laws, I expect Apple will lose that as well.

 

[russ_watters]

No one here has been totally clear about what the government is asking for.
Is it just the data from this one phone? If so Apple should queitly take the phone into their labs and give the FBI the data.
If the Gov is asking for a password to all new phones made, that is a different story and they should say no.

It has been a long thread, but to sum up:
Previously, the FBI has asked Apple to crack individual phones and Apple has complied. This phone has security features that make cracking it harder. So the FBI has asked (court has ordered) Apple to strip those features from this phone only, so it can be cracked. The FBI has provided Apple with leeway about how exactly to comply: they haven't actually ordered Apple to crack the password themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

Per the documentation presented here, Apple was not issued a 4th amendment warrant for data on the phone, nor would they, any more than a warrant is issued to a home builder to search a residence. Apple received a court order to assist in the government's search of the phone.

Yes, there are a couple of steps of complexity that I glossed over there. They aren't germane to what I was discussing, though, but I'll try to be more precise in my wording.

 

[Hornbein]

It has been a long thread, but to sum up:
Previously, the FBI has asked Apple to crack individual phones and Apple has complied. This phone has security features that make cracking it harder. So the FBI has asked (court has ordered) Apple to strip those features from this phone only, so it can be cracked. The FBI has provided Apple with leeway about how exactly to comply: they haven't actually ordered Apple to crack the password themselves.

I don't believe that Apple is taking a stand on principle. I think they want publicity about how secure their system is. Whether their system actually is secure is another matter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't believe that Apple is taking a stand on principle. I think they want publicity about how secure their system is. Whether their system actually is secure is another matter.

I think it's a stand taken on principle alone:

Apple declined due to its policy to never undermine the security features of its products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
They don't want to be seen as making hollow promises about their phone's security. They're not getting any positive publicity about their security in all this, only exposure of the fact that the system wasn't completely secure.

I think the FBI's stand is also taken on principle alone. I don't see any evidence they think there's really any important info on the phone, but they want to be seen as doing something proactive in response to an incendiary crime about which there's really nothing for them to do. Since there isn't anything they can do, they're focusing their energy on this friction from Apple.

 

[Neandethal00]

FBI couldn't stop the shooter before terrorist attacks with their billion dollar budget, what are the chances they would stop
future terrorist attacks using phones? No one should buy FBI arguments.
If Apple and Cook stand firm, I'll buy an iphone,which I do not have currently, not for the phone's security but for their principle.

 

[jackwhirl]

FBI couldn't stop the shooter before terrorist attacks with their billion dollar budget, what are the chances they would stop future terrorist attacks using phones?

With the software they want? Slim. My understanding is that the proposed method requires physical possession of the device.

 

[russ_watters]

I think it's a stand taken on principle alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack
They don't want to be seen as making hollow promises about their phone's security. They're not getting any positive publicity about their security in all this, only exposure of the fact that the system wasn't completely secure.

I think you are probably correct. Let's think it through:

An open/public letter is an improper way to respond to a court order. The proper way is to file an appeal in court (or, of course, to comply with the order). I suspect (but am not sure) that the rules of court wouldn't allow Apple to present so many falsehoods in the actual appeal. So this letter really wasn't meant for the FBI/court, it was a propaganda piece, meant for the public.

Why?
Well, one thing they've succeeded in doing by this is getting the public on their side. They've totally snowed-over their users into blaming the big, bad FBI for this mess. As a result, few people have noticed their own failure to fulfill their promise to their users by retaining a "back hatch" (my new term -- not as big as a door, but close) into the iPhone. But rest assured, the lawyers won't be duped by this: I smell a class action lawsuit.

So Apple will hem and haw and their failure to file an appeal but to try this in public tells me they probably won't be trying very hard to actually fight it in court -- because they probably expect to lose.

I think the FBI's stand is also taken on principle alone. I don't see any evidence they think there's really any important info on the phone, but they want to be seen as doing something proactive in response to an incendiary crime about which there's really nothing for them to do.

I believe you are correct about this as well. No, I don't think it is likely that they will find anything useful, but it is possible, so this is just the basic principle of investigative due dilligence. I demand nothing less from my FBI.

 

[russ_watters]

FBI couldn't stop the shooter before terrorist attacks with their billion dollar budget, what are the chances they would stop future terrorist attacks using phones?

The chances are excellent. Homegrown, lone wolf type terrorists (in this case a couple) are extremely difficult to stop, but the FBI and other agencies have had an extremely good success rate since 9/11 and it is due in large part to their information technology tools/investigations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

And that's one of the reasons I oppose Apple's new features: I believe it is a significant security threat.

 

[gleem]

And I'm not convinced that Apple does not already know or have a way of breaking into its Iphones right now as a tightly held proprietary secret. They say that an attempt to defeat their system would reduce the trust in their commitment to privacy even though they were forced to do it. But how much greater would that trust be destroyed if it was found out that Apple always had a method to break in. It is so easy to manipulate the impression of the capability or not of software. Do you for example believe that gambling software maintains the same randomness as a throw of a die or draw of a card? Really? Sorry that I seem cynical but I am.

 

[Psinter]

I think it's a stand taken on principle alone:

What does 'stand taken on principle alone' means? (Sorry if it's something simple, I'm not native English speaker)

They don't want to be seen as making hollow promises about their phone's security. They're not getting any positive publicity about their security in all this, only exposure of the fact that the system wasn't completely secure.

I think that getting publicity was their first intent, but it failed as they chose the wrong wording to refuse. They cut their own throats in their wording.

I don't see any evidence they think there's really any important info on the phone, but they want to be seen as doing something proactive in response to an incendiary crime about which there's really nothing for them to do. Since there isn't anything they can do, they're focusing their energy on this friction from Apple.

I can't see it either. And if they think there is, this exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishfire along with other software for mass surveillance.

Unless the owner of the phone used an application to encrypt texts and calls, there exist a possibility of getting it from their database and you don't even have to touch the phone. Or get information from anyone who also own phones related to the phone owner. Why the NSA haven't been asked for information instead is what I wonder? Or were they asked already? So much for their mass surveillance if they couldn't get their hands on something as simple as that.

Had it been me I would have filed the motion to order the NSA to cooperate, not Apple. I don't think the NSA would refuse like Apple. It should be more effective that way.

 

[russ_watters]

What does 'stand taken on principle alone' means? (Sorry if it's something simple, I'm not native English speaker).

Boy, it's tough to explain that one without using another American literary device. "A stand" is a metaphor for a fortified position you decide to defend.

"On principle" means you don't really have anything material to gain (money, fame, customers). It's an argument over a moral/ethical principle.

 

[Psinter]

Boy, it's tough to explain that one without using another American literary device. "A stand" is a metaphor for a fortified position you decide to defend.

"On principle" means you don't really have anything material to gain (money, fame, customers). It's an argument over a moral/ethical principle.

Thank you very much. I get it now.

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like the public isn't in Apple's corner, despite the vocalness of the minority:

survey concluded Sunday by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that 51% of Americans say Apple should assist the FBI in its efforts to unlock the iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters.

Just 38% said Apple should not unlock the phone to ensure the security of its other users' information, while 11% said they didn't know what should be done.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...pend-timing-pew-apple-fbi-court-911/80765662/

 

[Hornbein]

"A stand" is a metaphor for a fortified position you decide to defend.

Not necessarily fortified, as demonstrated by Colonel Custer. I think "take a stand" means retreat is not an option.

 

[jackwhirl]

If Apple looses the appeal, I expect it will comply with the order. Then I expect it will try to engineer a phone that will not have the weaknesses of the current model.

Looks like they're not waiting: Apple Is Said to Be Trying to Make It Harder to Hack iPhones

 

[nsaspook]

Looks like they're not waiting: Apple Is Said to Be Trying to Make It Harder to Hack iPhones

Because of the FBI court order IMO Apple and others will eventually install self-destruct cryptographic memory hardware systems that can't be bypassed by software or recovered by cloning hardware after being activated by hacking or updates as the default. The current security loophole is not technically needed and is mainly a convenience for users and Apple.

People won't lose all those family photos, contacts, etc... because they would be stored in the network but all data locked inside the phones memory and not uploaded would be lost with every system upgrade if you don't have a private external backup.

 

[jackwhirl]

As long as we're making fantastic predictions:
By the time data on [personal computing devices] are as secure and private as the information stored within our own heads, tools will exist to extract the information directly from our brains, living or deceased.

 

[nsaspook]

As long as we're making fantastic predictions:
By the time data on [personal computing devices] are as secure and private as the information stored within our own heads, tools will exist to extract the information directly from our brains, living or deceased.

It's not a fantastic prediction if the government continues to demand companies be able to provide access to locked data via software updates. You can buy commercial cryptographic memory systems with self-destruct today. We had systems with physical key card cutters to destroy the OTP keys years ago to stop reuse.
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kw_g_card_reader.pdf

 

[zoobyshoe]

Looks like they're not waiting: Apple Is Said to Be Trying to Make It Harder to Hack iPhones

I'm pretty sure they were already on this track way before the current upset. A couple articles said the next generation of iPhones was planned to have firmware that was un-rewritable by any means. I haven't found this explicitly stated anywhere, but I got the impression Apple jumped the gun by claiming that kind of security for the phone in question, which wasn't actually there yet, gamboling on not having that claim challenged. Instead, something like a worst-case scenario happened, and they are reduced to supporting the claim by refusing to write the tool to rewrite the firmware.

 

[russ_watters]

Apple has filed its appeal:
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6106157/apple-motion-to-vacate.0.pdf

Summary/analysis:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/25/apple-files-motion-denying-fbi-request/80939820/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/25/11105438/apple-fbi-response-court-filing-encryption-battle

No big surprises in there. I believe we discussed the tacks Apple could take in the thread already and were correct in predicting them.

 

[Evo]

Can I just say that I believe that if you used the device in commission of a felony, you've lost your right to have the information hidden?

That means that the information can be viewed, it can only be used as evidence, evidence can either make you not guilty or guilty, so it should be allowed. In the case of terrorism, there should be no question, it should be allowed.

 

[russ_watters]

Can I just say that I believe that if you used the device in commission of a felony, you've lost your right to have the information hidden?

That means that the information can be viewed, it can only be used as evidence, evidence can either make you not guilty or guilty, so it should be allowed. In the case of terrorism, there should be no question, it should be allowed.

Yes, I believe some people are confused about what information people are entitled to keep secret from the law enforcement or think that since it has become technically possible to keep it secret that that somehow changes the rules to make it ok for the information to be secret. That's basically obstruction of justice on technical grounds and not fundamentally different from Arthur Andersen shredding Enron documents -- which they were convicted for.

It seems to me to be a pretty obvious losing argument.

Apple, in this case, is the company who makes the shredder, not Arthur Andersen who used it. Others (Napster) have argued that making the tool to do something illegal shouldn't itself be illegal if it can also be used for non-illegal purposes, but they've generally lost such arguments when the legal uses were thin or the illegal part indiscriminate. The government has tabled efforts to specifically outlaw perfect shredders*, but in this case, Apple has made a shredder that is good enough to foil the FBI while retaining the technical ability to un-shred the documents themselves.

Because the documents can still be un-shredded, there was no immediate need for Congress to act on the issue of un-un-shreddable documents, but the day when it becomes necessary/relevant for Congress to decide is coming. Apple's trying to push up that fight. Trouble is, I think they over-estimate their chances of winning either this fight or that one.

*Actually, in terms of physical paper shredders, my understanding is the good ones are essentially un-shreddable: you are just not allowed to use them for certain things. The issue with the iPhone is that its shredding is indiscriminate.

 

[jim hardy]

Can I just say that I believe that if you used the device in commission of a felony, you've lost your right to have the information hidden?

i agree with that
but
what's at issue is FBI wants Apple to give them a key that'll unlock any (Apple)phone,
even though for hard core computer types the phones are hackable and FBI should have been able to do it themselves..
Now - Party A's felony does not relieve Party B of his right to privacy
so the mere existence of such a device frightens security types.myself i hold no expectation of privacy for anything in electronic medium but not everybody feels that way.
Smartphone ? Meh - i knew they were snakes so never took one home.

 

[russ_watters]

i what's at issue is FBI wants Apple to give them a key that'll unlock any (Apple)phone,

I know it is Apple's lie, not yours (you are just repeating it), but again, the FBI has not asked (as part of this case) to have the key. They asked Apple to create and use it. Complying with this decision will result in *Apple* having a master key, which the FBI can request/demand they use in other cases, but it would not give the FBI the capability to do it without them.

 

[jim hardy]

I know it is Apple's lie, not yours (you are just repeating it),

Well, thank you for your tact !

I could well be mistaken, for i do get lost in the whirlwind of information.

The blog i followed on this subject assumes that if such a master key exists it'll get leaked and mis-used.
Right now there exist backdoors through which manufacturers can update software
and i think they're hardening those doors as we speak.

http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/docs/iOS_Enterprise_Deployment_Overview_EN_Sep14.pdf
(Greek to me.)

 

[russ_watters]

The blog i followed on this subject assumes that if such a master key exists it'll get leaked and mis-used.
Right now there exist backdoors through which manufacturers can update software
and i think they're hardening those doors as we speak.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

The flaw in the logic though is that Apple is portraying a dis-allowed or partially un-done increase in security as a an absolute decrease. That part isn't specifically a lie, it is just wildly misleading: two steps forward and one step back is portrayed as just being one step back, when the sum is one step forward.

 

[nsaspook]

Because the documents can still be un-shredded, there was no immediate need for Congress to act on the issue of un-un-shreddable documents, but the day when it becomes necessary/relevant for Congress to decide is coming. Apple's trying to push up that fight. Trouble is, I think they over-estimate their chances of winning either this fight or that one.

I generally agree that this current fight is a lost (after a long series of appeals designed as a delay tactic) cause for Apple to win because a reasonable person expects them to do what's possible (use their cryptographic signing key to make a special update designed to the FBI specifications to speed up the process of cracking the data passcode) to help produce even if it seems unlikely to exist on this phone, evidence in this crime. I think the case of Congress mandating that Apple or others to always leave an opening in the future to be exploited via warrant or court order is a completely different type of case and one I can't support if the right to privacy has any meaning in the digital age.

IMO the delay tactic is to allow time for Apple to release its next round of device security improvements that will eliminate all current loopholes as the default.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the case of Congress mandating that Apple or others to always leave an opening in the future to be exploited via warrant or court order is a completely different type of case and one I can't support if the right to privacy has any meaning in the digital age.

And that's just it: I think the "right to privacy" means a lot less than most people realize today (it does not enable one to evade a search warrant). Allowing uncrackable encryption would be a substantial expansion of it.