Apple Refuses to Build iPhone Backdoor

[unixknight]

This is a statement issued by Apple.

It seems the FBI wants Apple to install a modified version of the OS onto the iPhone recovered from one of the San Bernadino terrorists which would allow them to bypass the phone's security features.

Of course, the court order in this case says this would only be used on this one phone, but without a guarantee of that, it's just handing the Government yet another means to ignore the 4ith Ammendment.

 

Thoughts?

[unixknight]

Here's the BBC News article on the matter.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 hours ago, unixknight said:

This is a statement issued by Apple.

It seems the FBI wants Apple to install a modified version of the OS onto the iPhone recovered from one of the San Bernadino terrorists which would allow them to bypass the phone's security features.

Of course, the court order in this case says this would only be used on this one phone, but without a guarantee of that, it's just handing the Government yet another means to ignore the 4ith Ammendment.

 

Thoughts?

You summed up my concerns. Very worried about the fourth amendment in general. This won't help. 

[unixknight]

What bothers me about it is the amount of effort being expended to try and push Apple to do this.  The crime has already been committed, and the terrorists were VERY thorough in destroying all their other hard drives, phones, etc that might have sensitive stuff.  To have left this phone intact seems odd to me.  Is it that it has nothing they considered sensitive?   If so, then it's not going to be worth the effort.  Was it an oversight?  Seems unlikely.  What if this phone has nothing to do with the San Bernadino shooters at all, and it's just being used to get this technology?  I know that last sounds conspiracy theory-ish... but would you put it past 'em?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

29 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What bothers me about it is the amount of effort being expended to try and push Apple to do this.  The crime has already been committed, and the terrorists were VERY thorough in destroying all their other hard drives, phones, etc that might have sensitive stuff.  To have left this phone intact seems odd to me.  Is it that it has nothing they considered sensitive?   If so, then it's not going to be worth the effort.  Was it an oversight?  Seems unlikely.  What if this phone has nothing to do with the San Bernadino shooters at all, and it's just being used to get this technology?  I know that last sounds conspiracy theory-ish... but would you put it past 'em?

 

I know you what mean, and it does sound conspiracy-ish. Before the Snowden revelations I would have told you to chill, but now I'm like "Oh, well maybe we're being too paranoid, but we kind of aren't". Hope that comes out clear. 

[NightSG]

36 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The crime has already been committed, and the terrorists were VERY thorough in destroying all their other hard drives, phones, etc that might have sensitive stuff.  To have left this phone intact seems odd to me.  Is it that it has nothing they considered sensitive?   If so, then it's not going to be worth the effort.  Was it an oversight?  Seems unlikely.  

This is what I'm thinking; as long as it's locked, they have no idea what's on it, but logically based on the terrorists' other actions, it's highly likely to be nothing at all of any use.

[NeuroTypical]

Every nation's people draw the line between liberty and safety in different times, for different reasons.  You wouldn't see this much yelling if this was happening in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.   To me, the news isn't between liberty/privacy and safety, but is about a government's ability to demand a business spend money and resources to do what the govt wants it to do.  

[unixknight]

That's a good point.  I suppose since the Supreme Court has ruled that the Government can make individuals spend money and resources on things whether we want to or not, it isn't a huge leap to that next point. 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Every nation's people draw the line between liberty and safety in different times, for different reasons.  You wouldn't see this much yelling if this was happening in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.   To me, the news isn't between liberty/privacy and safety, but is about a government's ability to demand a business spend money and resources to do what the govt wants it to do.  

By parallel:  If I put my evil plans in a bank vault, and I die in executing my plans, everyone would agree that the bank should have to comply with a warrant ordering that they open up my vault.

But what if I put them in a Liberty Presidential Safe, placed in my living room?  What if law enforcement finds the safe uncrackable--Under the current state of the law, can the feds compel Liberty Safe and Security Products, Inc to disclose the proprietary information--or even develop a whole new product--that will help them crack the safe?

There has to be precedent for this kind of thing; and I wonder why we don't just follow that precedent (whatever it may be) when it comes to encrypted data.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

Am I confused, or is the government asking not to be let into _this one phone_ (a comparatively simple and harmless task), but rather, for the ability to get into any phone they want, whenever they want?  It's the difference between them asking for Liberty to open _your_ safe, vs. Liberty giving them those proprietary secrets which would allow them to open _any_ Liberty safe.  Or the difference between asking the bank to open your vault vs. ordering the bank for the key to _every_ vault.

Personally, I think they should only be asking for the one phone to be unlocked (easy enough - just change the user's pin / password).  To demand the ability to unlock every phone out there seems over the top and guaranteed to increase abuse.  (Of course, I don't know why they don't just have Penelope Garcia hack in - she ought to be able to do that before the next commercial break.)  

[estradling75]

24 minutes ago, zil said:

Am I confused, or is the government asking not to be let into _this one phone_ (a comparatively simple and harmless task), but rather, for the ability to get into any phone they want, whenever they want?  It's the difference between them asking for Liberty to open _your_ safe, vs. Liberty giving them those proprietary secrets which would allow them to open _any_ Liberty safe.  Or the difference between asking the bank to open your vault vs. ordering the bank for the key to _every_ vault.

Personally, I think they should only be asking for the one phone to be unlocked (easy enough - just change the user's pin / password).  To demand the ability to unlock every phone out there seems over the top and guaranteed to increase abuse.  (Of course, I don't know why they don't just have Penelope Garcia hack in - she ought to be able to do that before the next commercial break.)  

The government says they want into one phone... (Which doesn't seem unreasonable)...  However to get into this one phone Apple has to developed the ability/tools to get into "every phone" and that is exactly what Apple does not want to do... Once that ability exists then it will be used for other reasons.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The government says they want into one phone... (Which doesn't seem unreasonable)...  However to get into this one phone Apple has to developed the ability/tools to get into "every phone" and that is exactly what Apple does not want to do... Once that ability exists then it will be used for other reasons.

I am sympathetic to the government wanting to stop terrorist attacks-but I'm more sympathetic to privacy rights. You give the government an inch, they take 5 miles. 

[zil]

40 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The government says they want into one phone... (Which doesn't seem unreasonable)...  However to get into this one phone Apple has to developed the ability/tools to get into "every phone" and that is exactly what Apple does not want to do... Once that ability exists then it will be used for other reasons.

Why would they have to do that?  I have a hard time believing Apple can't unlock a single phone - really, it ought to be as simple as resetting the user's password / pin so the feds can log into the phone as if they were the user.  As a programmer, I'm just having a hard time believing Apple would have to develop anything, and am certain they would NOT have to hand that over to the government - just unlock the one phone.

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Why would they have to do that?  I have a hard time believing Apple can't unlock a single phone - really, it ought to be as simple as resetting the user's password / pin so the feds can log into the phone as if they were the user.  As a programmer, I'm just having a hard time believing Apple would have to develop anything, and am certain they would NOT have to hand that over to the government - just unlock the one phone.

Similar to Android, an iPhone can have all of the data in the phone stored encrypted.  To decrypt the data, the phone has to be unlocked using the owner's password.  Resetting the password won't work because there's no means to do so.  If you have a phone like that and lose your password, the only way to recover the phone is to do a factory reset which will delete ALL user data. 

So to give the FBI what it wants, Apple would have to develop a means to swap out the existing OS from the phone with one that has some kind of backdoor password or other feature that allows the data to be decrypted without the original password. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I know you what mean, and it does sound conspiracy-ish. Before the Snowden revelations I would have told you to chill, but now I'm like "Oh, well maybe we're being too paranoid, but we kind of aren't". Hope that comes out clear. 

I've got o problem believing it is a conspiracy.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've got o problem believing it is a conspiracy.

LOL! 

[estradling75]

27 minutes ago, zil said:

Why would they have to do that?  I have a hard time believing Apple can't unlock a single phone - really, it ought to be as simple as resetting the user's password / pin so the feds can log into the phone as if they were the user.  As a programmer, I'm just having a hard time believing Apple would have to develop anything, and am certain they would NOT have to hand that over to the government - just unlock the one phone.

The nature of encryption is if you don't have the password you don't get the data... If you force a reset of the password then the data is destroyed... Otherwise it is good for nothing.  Apple can reset the phone... easy... doing so destroys the data.  That is not what the government wants

[zil]

Not all encryption works exactly that way*, but if that's how Apple have done it, then that's how they've done it.

*It can be that the user password is not the encryption key, so that the user password is used to permit decryption, and then the encryption key (separate value) is applied to do decryption.  This was my thought.  But if they've used the user's password as the encryption key, then that's that (unless they can figure out the user's password).

[estradling75]

4 hours ago, zil said:

Not all encryption works exactly that way*, but if that's how Apple have done it, then that's how they've done it.

*It can be that the user password is not the encryption key, so that the user password is used to permit decryption, and then the encryption key (separate value) is applied to do decryption.  This was my thought.  But if they've used the user's password as the encryption key, then that's that (unless they can figure out the user's password).

No not all encryption works that way but it makes total sense for Apple to do so.

If Apple holds the "key" to unlocking every Iphone, that key becomes a single point of failure for all of them.  That would make the "key" so valuable someone else would go to great lengths to acquire.  It would be only a matter of time until it got out...  And when it did you are talking about a PR and technical nightmare for Apple.  They would lose trust and goodwill of their customers.

Whereas if they don't have a "key" then every phone is as secure as the user makes it.

Now the government is demanding that Apple develop a "key" and then hand it over...

 

[Bad Karma]

I am very uncomfortable with Apple giving it up, I don't care if it is in the guise of "Public safety", we've been sold lots of nonsense by the government under the guise of public safety, and it's not made us any safer either, quite the opposite.

 

Information on the phone *MAY* provide intel to other active "bad guys" operating in kind, yet I'd rather face more risk to safety than give government any further infringement into privacy, there is no substitute for GOOD POLICE WORK, no matter how hunky dory the short cuts may seem.

 

I should note that I am one of the (step parents) of an adult "Survivor" of that event where the terrorists were engaged with SBPD SWAT, my daughter was in her office where the exchange of gun fire was taking place just outside of her window. My youngest step daughter who works in the same building was at the time, en route to work at that very location. In addition, My wife's niece was in the insurance building located next door to the initial active shooter incident. This said, I sustain Apple's position. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Bad Karma

[Blackmarch]

On 2/17/2016 at 10:58 AM, unixknight said:

This is a statement issued by Apple.

It seems the FBI wants Apple to install a modified version of the OS onto the iPhone recovered from one of the San Bernadino terrorists which would allow them to bypass the phone's security features.

Of course, the court order in this case says this would only be used on this one phone, but without a guarantee of that, it's just handing the Government yet another means to ignore the 4ith Ammendment.

 

Thoughts?

I was under the impression that there was a law to some extent or the other that if you develop encryption that you more or less had to give the gov some sort of key to it.

my thoughts this is mostly posturing on apples part. they've done that sort of thing in the past.
Ideologically it seems that apple has the high ground tho.

but ya FBI shouldn't be asking for a blanket back door for everything. but should be asking for access to a single device.

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

I was under the impression that there was a law to some extent or the other that if you develop encryption that you more or less had to give the gov some sort of key to it.

my thoughts this is mostly posturing on apples part. they've done that sort of thing in the past.
Ideologically it seems that apple has the high ground tho.

but ya FBI shouldn't be asking for a blanket back door for everything. but should be asking for access to a single device.

No such law exists, at least not in the U.S.

 

The court order in this case does only apply to this one device, but you know how it is once the camel's nose is in the tent...

[Jojo Bags]

As a former cop I understand the FBI's position.  As a citizen I applaud Apple's response.  The FBI's request is a recipe for disaster, along with all the other unconstitutional disasters forced onto the American people.

[Ironhold]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/19/john-mcafee-ill-hack-san-bernardino-terrorists-iphone

John McAfee, the guy who founded the organization which makes McAfee computer products, has offered to break into the phone via "social engineering" (thus supposedly eliminating the need for a back door) providing that the FBI meets his terms. 

He's also claiming that the reason why the FBI can't do things like this for themselves is because the restrictive culture at the FBI is a major turn-off for the younger, more adventurous computer types who get scouted by others that are willing to cut them some more slack. 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 hours ago, Ironhold said:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/19/john-mcafee-ill-hack-san-bernardino-terrorists-iphone

John McAfee, the guy who founded the organization which makes McAfee computer products, has offered to break into the phone via "social engineering" (thus supposedly eliminating the need for a back door) providing that the FBI meets his terms. 

He's also claiming that the reason why the FBI can't do things like this for themselves is because the restrictive culture at the FBI is a major turn-off for the younger, more adventurous computer types who get scouted by others that are willing to cut them some more slack. 

He's also running for president on the libertarian ticket, I think