Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[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.