News Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    apple
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conflict between Apple and the FBI regarding access to encrypted data on iPhones, raising significant concerns about privacy and government overreach. Participants argue that the FBI's request for Apple to create a backdoor undermines user privacy and sets a dangerous precedent for law enforcement's power over private companies. Many emphasize that while warrants are important, the demand for Apple to compromise its security measures is unacceptable and could lead to broader implications for all users. The conversation also touches on the balance between national security and individual rights, questioning whether citizens should be compelled to assist the government in overcoming technical challenges. Overall, the community expresses strong support for Apple's stance on protecting user privacy against government demands.
  • #401
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #404
This looks a little more like what Id expect.

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&s=FPDS&q=+cellebrite+usa+corp+2016+CONTRACTING_AGENCY_NAME%3A%22FEDERAL+BUREAU+OF+INVESTIGATION%22
Award ID (Mod#):DJF161200G0004569 (View)[/PLAIN] Award Type: PURCHASE ORDER
Vendor Name: CELLEBRITE USA CORP Contracting Agency: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date Signed: March 28, 2016 Action Obligation: $218,004.85
Referenced IDV: Contracting Office: DEPT OF JUST/FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
NAICS (Code): RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING ( 334220 ) PSC (Code): INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES ( 7045 )
Vendor City: PARSIPPANY Vendor DUNS: 033095568
Vendor State: NJ Vendor ZIP: 070544413
Global Vendor Name: CELLEBRITE USA CORP Global DUNS Number: 033095568

Over 200 grand
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #406
paywall on LATimes link

what's up with Arkansas ?
 
  • #408
Apple still doesn’t know how the FBI hacked iPhone without help
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-remains-dark-fbi-hacked-072634235.html

The FBI’s announcement that it mysteriously hacked into an iPhone is a public setback for Apple Inc., as consumers learned that they can’t keep the government out of even an encrypted device that U.S. officials had claimed was impossible to crack. Apple, meanwhile, remains in the dark about how to restore the security of its flagship product.

A few clues have emerged. A senior law enforcement official told The Associated Press that the FBI managed to defeat an Apple security feature that threatened to delete the phone’s contents if the FBI failed to enter the correct passcode combination after 10 tries. That allowed the government to repeatedly and continuously test passcodes in what’s known as a brute-force attack until the right code is entered and the phone is unlocked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #409
Astronuc said:
Apple still doesn’t know how the FBI hacked iPhone without help
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-remains-dark-fbi-hacked-072634235.html
Do honest average Americans really have to fear this level of hacking into their phones if they have done nothing..NO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #410
Evo said:
Do honest average Americans really have to fear this level of hacking into their phones if they have done nothing..NO.
The worry of the average person isn't that law enforcement would get into their phone, but that criminals or identity thieves might be able to. I have a lot of contacts in my phone (many include addresses) that I wouldn't want just anyone to have, especially if their intent is malicious.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #411
Dembadon said:
The worry of the average person isn't that law enforcement would get into their phone, but that criminals or identity thieves might be able to. I have a lot of contacts in my phone (many include addresses) that I wouldn't want just anyone to have, especially if their intent is malicious.
A good argument. Personally, I keep all of my phone contacts off of my phone, a bit more work, but less to worry about.
 
  • #412
Evo said:
A good argument. Personally, I keep all of my phone contacts off of my phone, a bit more work, but less to worry about.
Probably a good idea. I've been gradually moving away from having important information stored electronically over the past 6 months or so. I don't store things like my tax documents locally on my computer anymore. So many programs are linked to "the cloud" now that I'm not sure I trust having that type of information in a place I can't control, or that cloud-linked programs might have some vulnerability that could allow local access to my machine.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #413
Astronuc said:
Apple still doesn’t know how the FBI hacked iPhone without help
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-remains-dark-fbi-hacked-072634235.html

I don't think that's completely the case with Apple. They (most companies do) have an internal group to find vulnerabilities in their products so the likely hardware exploit used in this case is unlikely to work with the latest phones and future models will be even more secure due to this case publishing possible hacks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #414
Dembadon said:
Probably a good idea. I've been gradually moving away from having important information stored electronically over the past 6 months or so. I don't store things like my tax documents locally on my computer anymore. So many programs are linked to "the cloud" now that I'm not sure I trust having that type of information in a place I can't control, or that cloud-linked programs might have some vulnerability that could allow local access to my machine.
Yeah, I don't trust that the information I share in the "cloud" is secure.
 
  • #415
Evo said:
Yeah, I don't trust that the information I share in the "cloud" is secure.
People may or may not remember the celebrity phone hacks by tabloids a few years back:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...o-pay-1-2m-to-celebrity-phone-hacking-victims
You may not be a celebrity, but anyone can pick up a stalker, or someone trying to run some kind of scam. If you keep any texts or voicemails, there's probably a way to get into them.
 
  • #416
Evo said:
Yeah, I don't trust that the information I share in the "cloud" is secure.

E-filed income tax?
I'm glad to be a small target . It's the best one can do these days.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #417
The company that apparently helped the FBI. Little-Known Japan Firm Helping the FBI Crack iPhones

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nown-japan-firm-helping-the-fbi-crack-iphones

Cellebrite Mobile Synchronization Ltd. worked with the FBI to crack an iPhone connected in a terrorist attack, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified as the matter is private. Neither Cellebrite nor the FBI have confirmed the link, and a spokesman from parent Sun Corp. on Thursday said the company isn’t able to comment on specific criminal cases.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...work-with-israel-s-cellebrite-to-crack-iphone
The FBI was already a Cellebrite client before this project, the people said, who asked not to be identified as the matter is private. Cellebrite, founded in 1999, is a unit of Japan’s Sun Corporation.
 
  • #419
The FBI’s ability to hack into an iPhone may not last much longer
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/fbi-ability-hack-iphone-may-001209987.html

I presume that iPhones already in possession of law enforcement will be unlocked, since they will not be updated with a fix for the flaw. New iPhones will probably have more robust security. At least one would think.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #422
Dembadon said:
I don't understand. I thought the FBI has already found a way, with third-party help, to unlock iPhones.
Some iPhones.
 
  • #423
Dembadon said:
I don't understand. I thought the FBI has already found a way, with third-party help, to unlock iPhones.
Particular phone with a particular operating system. Upgraded iPhones and upgraded Operating Systems would require a different hack apparently.
 
  • #424
In addition to Apple v FBI:
Microsoft has sued the US government for the right to tell its customers when a federal agency is looking at their emails, the latest in a series of clashes over privacy between the technology industry and Washington.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday (NZT) in federal court in Seattle, argues that the government is violating the US Constitution by preventing Microsoft from notifying thousands of customers about government requests for their emails and other documents.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/78971322/microsoft-sues-us-government-over-data-requests
 
  • #425
Dr. Courtney said:
...Can you make a strong case that a search warrant is not just _permission_ for government to search, that it confers on the government the power to conscript any party they deem necessary to execute the search to their satisfaction?...

I don't think this point has been adequately discussed and would be interested in what the current legal precedent is. Surely this situation must have arisen outside the digital domain.

Consider a wealthy criminal who has obtained a physical item wanted by law enforcement -- it could be a document, a key, an artifact, etc. The criminal has placed this in a fire-proof safe beneath molten lava inside an active volcano -- which he owns, along with the surrounding land. This is not impossible -- Mt. St. Helens was privately owned.

Law enforcement obtains a search warrant to his property and the safe. Does this grant them (a) The legal right to enter the property, climb the mountain, obtain and open the safe, or (b) The right to impress into service a mountaineering company, helicopter pilot, and volcanologists to obtain physical access?

If yes, what are the limits of this? If it turned out a former NASA astronaut was a criminal mastermind and had covertly stashed secret information in the Apollo Lunar Module on the moon which was later found vital to a criminal investigation, would a search warrant for NASA's lunar property compel them to build a rocket and travel there?
 
  • #426
joema said:
If it turned out a former NASA astronaut was a criminal mastermind and had covertly stashed secret information in the Apollo Lunar Module on the moon which was later found vital to a criminal investigation, would a search warrant for NASA's lunar property compel them to build a rocket and travel there?
It probably does mean that the FBI could legally compel NASA, but I think not without paying NASA appropriately for the work.
 
  • #427
joema said:
(b) The right to impress into service a mountaineering company, helicopter pilot, and volcanologists to obtain physical access?
Hire. They would hire a pilot/mountaineer/volcanologist.
 
  • #428
russ_watters said:
Hire. They would hire a pilot/mountaineer/volcanologist.

What if the best available volcanologist was previously engaged on a research mission he'd waited his entire life for, and he politely declined and referred law enforcement to other less capable volcanologists? Does the warrant give law enforcement the right to command the services (even if compensated) of any party to render any service whatsoever to facilitate execution of the warrant? Or is the warrant merely the legal right to conduct the search, not the right to force other parties to assist in the search?
 
  • #429
joema said:
What if the best available volcanologist was previously engaged on a research mission he'd waited his entire life for, and he politely declined and referred law enforcement to other less capable volcanologists?
That's fine.
Does the warrant give law enforcement the right to command the services (even if compensated) of any party to render any service whatsoever to facilitate execution of the warrant?
No, it doesn't.
Or is the warrant merely the legal right to conduct the search, not the right to force other parties to assist in the search?
If by "other parties", you mean uninvolved 3rd parties, no. But the owner and/or manufacturer of the device, probably yes. You seem to be drawing a false comparison. Apple is not a randomly chosen company in this case, of course.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #430
russ_watters said:
...If by "other parties", you mean uninvolved 3rd parties, no. But the owner and/or manufacturer of the device, probably yes. You seem to be drawing a false comparison. Apple is not a randomly chosen company in this case, of course.

Upon further thought, it appears the search warrant itself does not grant the authority to compel other parties -- whether involved or not -- to labor in the execution of that warrant. Rather it is the application of the 1789 All Writs Act which was used to command third parties’ assistance to execute a prior order of the court.

So although much of the above discussion was framed in terms of a warrant, it is really the 1789 All Writs Act that is key. The issue is to what extent does the All Writs Act grant government authority to conscript 3rd parties to labor against their will in furtherance of a court order. Whether they are compensated or not and to what degree is beside the point.

Also the issue exists whether you define it as two parties, three or more. E.g, what if the government felt that Google with their vast technical resources and prior competitive reverse-engineering study of iPhones could construct hardware/software to weaken iPhone encryption. Could Google be compelled under the All Writs Act to render this service? What if that service required dozens of engineers, developing new technologies, etc?

The All Writs Act wording says use of it must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law", IOW it can be limited by other statutes -- if those exist. In this case it would seem limited by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which states that law enforcement cannot "require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
 
  • #431
joema said:
Upon further thought, it appears the search warrant itself does not grant the authority to compel other parties -- whether involved or not -- to labor in the execution of that warrant. Rather it is the application of the 1789 All Writs Act...
Yes, I assumed that was what you meant: the warrant allows the search and the All Writs Act provides for court orders in support of the warrant/search.
...which was used to command third parties’ assistance to execute a prior order of the court.
It was? Can you give an example of where the All Writs Act was used to command a third party's assistance? Also, if that is already true, I'm not sure what your point here is then, since the question would be already answered and therefore moot...
Also the issue exists whether you define it as two parties, three or more. E.g, what if the government felt that Google with their vast technical resources and prior competitive reverse-engineering study of iPhones could construct hardware/software to weaken iPhone encryption. Could Google be compelled under the All Writs Act to render this service?
Still no.
In this case it would seem limited by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which states that law enforcement cannot "require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
As far as I can tell, those words do not appear in that wiki article. Where did you get them? It does say, though:
"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."

It appears to me to say exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Can you show me where your quote came from or otherwise explain this discrepancy?

Also, that law wasn't part of the current line of discussion, unless you are saying that it adds/clarifies power to the All Writs Act. In either case, I do think most observers agree at this point that it would be best for that law to be updated to include (or explicitly exclude) the current situation.
 
Last edited:
  • #432
russ_watters said:
"Can you give an example of where the All Writs Act was used to command a third party's assistance? Also, if that is already true, I'm not sure what your point here is then, since the question would be already answered and therefore moot..."

In United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), NY Telephone Co argued that it wasn't part of the investigation or the criminal wrongdoing, it was just a third-party phone provider.

Writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, Justice Byron White did not dispute they were a third party, but said: "...the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed...the order issued here against respondent was clearly authorized by the All Writs Act ."

This was further discussed in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/

'It was not a problem that the phone company was an innocent third party: “The 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.”'

russ_watters said:
...As far as I can tell, those words do not appear in that wiki article. Where did you get them?...It appears to me to say exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Can you show me where your quote came from or otherwise explain this discrepancy?

This is discussed here:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/...writs-act-and-protects-security-apples-phones
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/02/more-calea-and-why-it-trumps-fbis-all-writs-act-order
 
  • #433
joema said:
In United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), NY Telephone Co argued that it wasn't part of the investigation or the criminal wrongdoing, it was just a third-party phone provider.
Ok, then I was misunderstanding how they use the term "third party". In either case, it should be obvious per your previous line of questioning and my responses that not all third parties are the same. Apple has specific knowledge here that other companies would not, since they made the product in question and they alone hold an encryption key into it.
This is discussed here:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/...writs-act-and-protects-security-apples-phones
In the context of the wiki quote, I think you/the author misread the significance of the word "specific". CALEA requires companies build-in wiretapping capabilities, it just doesn't dictate (nor can it dictate) a specific method.
 
  • #434
As expected.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-encryption-legislation-idUSKCN0YI0EM
Burr had said repeatedly that legislation was imminent.

But last week, he and Feinstein told Reuters there was no timeline for the bill. Feinstein said she planned to talk to more tech stakeholders, and Burr said, “be patient.”

In the meantime, tech companies have accelerated encryption efforts in the wake of the Apple case. The court showdown ended with a whimper when the FBI said it had found a way to get into the phone, and subsequently conceded privately it had found nothing of value.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith

Similar threads

News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
News Who Is to Blame When a Child Enters a Gorilla Exhibit?
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Was the FBI Agent Indicted in the Oregon Standoff Case?
5
Replies
229
Views
22K
News Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU
2
Replies
81
Views
10K
News A Novel Reform Proposal of the National Election Process
Replies
27
Views
5K
Blind Barber Defies Discrimination: The Inspiring Story of Jim Buist
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Battle for Delegates: Romney vs. Santorum vs. Gingrich vs. Paul
Replies
32
Views
6K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
Replies
14
Views
4K
News Bush's War against Civil Liberties
Replies
43
Views
5K
News Bowman vs Monsanto, genetically modified soybean case
2
Replies
62
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top