Apple v. FBI

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

They have helped law enforcement unlock phones 70 times, although it didn't require this code.

Of course they can write the code.  Apple's "concern" is they cannot secure it, i.e., it will leak.  I call BS on that.

The FBI wants Apple to install a back door.  If Apple does this, the phone is no longer secure.  If your house in completely secure but you put a key in a fake rock near your front door, is your house still secure?   That's how back doors in software work, they take something secure and make it vulnerable.  

Apple should tell the FBI to pound sand.  

[boogielicious]

6 hours ago, chspeed said:

Agreed. Which is why we have a constitution and a government ostensibly elected by us, with checks an balances, to guide us.

I'm imagining a similar scenario, one in which instead of Tim Cook, we've got Jamie Diamond (CEO of JP Morgan), telling the FBI that he'd really like to hand over info on those money transfers to Syria, but he really can't, because the bank is now using encryption technology to hide the identity of the recipients. And sure, they could change that encryption technology, but then all their consumers' transactions would be in danger.

I don't think we'd have the same outpouring of support we see for Apple. At least not on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

 

The difference in your scenario is banks have guaranteed backing by the Federal government for losses. They are protected by all of us if they mess up. FDIC. That's the deal they made. They get to play with investors money (yours and mine) with oversight from the Federal Government. That is how the US Banking system works. Because they trade across state and international lines, they are regulated as commerce in a sense. 

You and I, on the other hand, do not have that agreement with the Federal Government. So our privacy is protected somewhat. 

The irony of all this is several years ago there were outcries that cell phones were way too easy to hack if they got stolen. Thieves could get all your personal info. So Apple and the other cell phone companies created this encryption technology in response.

Lastly, this is not a "left/right" argument. There are plenty of conservative libertarians that agree with this protection and privacy rights. There are also plenty of liberals who think access should be wide open. Let's not make this into a Dem/GOP debate. It's not.

[pganapathy]

Very simple and very correct argument by Apple.  If they install a backdoor, somebody out there will figure out how to use that and then the safety of millions of iPhone's across the globe is compromised.

Additionally, using "security" as an excuse to violate an individual's privacy is not fair.

[Ernest Jones]

7 hours ago, chspeed said:

Agreed. Which is why we have a constitution and a government ostensibly elected by us, with checks an balances, to guide us.

I'm imagining a similar scenario, one in which instead of Tim Cook, we've got Jamie Diamond (CEO of JP Morgan), telling the FBI that he'd really like to hand over info on those money transfers to Syria, but he really can't, because the bank is now using encryption technology to hide the identity of the recipients. And sure, they could change that encryption technology, but then all their consumers' transactions would be in danger.

I don't think we'd have the same outpouring of support we see for Apple. At least not on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

 

Yeah, how's that working out for you? Ever heard of Edward Snowden?

Unfortunately, the US government (Dem or GOP, it makes no difference) despite their best intentions, having proven time and time again that they are incapable of restraint in these matters. Once they have the key to this door they will absolutely abuse it. And the government itself is only half the concern, once you've created this door, how do you keep it locked in a world full of rogue locksmiths?

 

[saevel25]

I agree there is a big difference between actually knowing the passcode or having access to it in a database versus being required to augment their technology to allow the FBI access to a secure phone. 

Yes, if you allow a crack to be opened in a phone would compromise the whole iphone and in turn the whole phone industry because this would set precedent for the FBI to be able to force not just apple but all smart phones to have a backdoor in their technology. 

In the end Apple did what was best for security, not knowing or holding passcode information. 

 

[Jeremie Boop]

The only thing I could think of that would avoid pushing out an over the air update to all phones would be having the update push applied only if the phone is connected to a computer running a special version of iTunes or something. That, however, doesn't exactly mean that that special version of iTunes wouldn't somehow get out. It would make it so that the phone would have to be in the physical possession of the person/people trying to gain access to the information contained on it. This is just a half-baked thought that I haven't put much time into, just something that popped into my head.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

Can they write the code for a "one time" use?

No, they can't write code that's somehow limited to only one use, or which couldn't be easily modified to be used more than one time. Doing so sets a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

10 hours ago, chspeed said:

If I was hiding a terrorist in my garage, with a hypothetical lock for which a key doesn't yet exist, but I know how to create the key, can't the government force me to create the key (assuming they have a court order)? Even if that key can open up someone else's door too?

Is it really my decision just because I built the lock?

That analogy doesn't really work that way. Others responded already so I'll leave it at that.

10 hours ago, Gunther said:

They have helped law enforcement unlock phones 70 times, although it didn't require this code.

@Gunther, your record remains unsullied by the occasional correct call: http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/ .

9 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Big time. This is a wet dream for the NSA and once that door (a door that doesn't currently even exist) is open, even a crack, it's never closing again. Decisions like this change the world. 

Yep. China is watching, too:

Quote

Edward Snowden noted the following passage from this NYT report, but it was subsequently removed from the article:

China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say the Chinese government does take cues from United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would most likely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in United States.

Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firms providing encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign trade groups. …

“… a push from American law enforcement agencies to unlock iPhones would embolden Beijing to demand the same.”

I have no idea why The Times removed this, because it’s one of the most important but so far least talked about issues in this case. U.S. culture is in many ways insular, making it easy to see this as a “U.S.” issue. But it’s not — it’s a worldwide issue.

I’ve long wondered why China allows companies like Apple to sell devices without back doors for their government. A big part of why they tolerate it seems to be the fact that no government gets this.

UPDATE: Daniel Roberts has posted a screenshot of the entire segment on China that was cut from the article.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/18/nyt-china-apple

8 hours ago, chspeed said:

Agreed. Which is why we have a constitution and a government ostensibly elected by us, with checks an balances, to guide us.

C'mon, the government has never overstepped its bounds? It's never written broad and far-reaching legislature that lets it spy on innocent civilians, or do anything to people without due process or an actual threat to national security?

I once had federal marshals show up at my door and threaten to come back in the  middle of the night and kick the door in if I didn't let them look around my apartment… because I had the same first name - the same first name - as a guy who was wanted for something and who used to live in the same apartment complex. All because I asked to see a warrant, even after I had shown them my ID and told them they could easily verify who I was from the comfort of their offices.

8 hours ago, chspeed said:

I'm imagining a similar scenario, one in which instead of Tim Cook, we've got Jamie Diamond (CEO of JP Morgan), telling the FBI that he'd really like to hand over info on those money transfers to Syria, but he really can't, because the bank is now using encryption technology to hide the identity of the recipients. And sure, they could change that encryption technology, but then all their consumers' transactions would be in danger.

Not the same type of thing, but better and closer than your house analogy.

Businesses are required to hand over the documents and data that they HAVE. They do that all the time - even doctors and psychologists have to hand things over in certain cases. Apple is being asked to CREATE something they consider highly dangerous.

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

Yeah, how's that working out for you? Ever heard of Edward Snowden?

You might appreciate the tweet I added up above.

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

Unfortunately, the US government (Dem or GOP, it makes no difference) despite their best intentions, having proven time and time again that they are incapable of restraint in these matters. Once they have the key to this door they will absolutely abuse it. And the government itself is only half the concern, once you've created this door, how do you keep it locked in a world full of rogue locksmiths?

Bingo again.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2016/02/18/walled-garden/

[nevets88]

Not a bad summary, I miss old Colbert/Stewart though.

Don't watch This Week in Google anymore, but interested in what they had to say.

Democracy Now

 

[Gunther]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

 

 

Computers and phones have been used as evidence for many, many years.  Most law enforcement agencies have their own tech departments specifically tasked with decryption and electronic data collection from hard drives, email, texts, etc. (think child molesters).  If there is probable cause, a judge can issue a warrant to collect that data.

I don't see how this case is much different.  It's data from 1 phone, owned by the obviously guilty party and ordered by a judge.  The difference is that the FBI's tech group cannot decrypt so they're asking for help. 

What if the FBI were able to hire programmers to write code to gain access? Would you be OK with that?  Is it only Apple's involvement to which you object?  Or, are you against any sort of personal electronic data being used against people or to help further an investigation?

I'm just not seeing the downside here.  Apple is probably the world's expert in electronic proprietary security, it's what they do so the probability of others accessing this decryption code is almost non-existent.  Plus, as encryption protocols continue to evolve, some hacker today is working on cracking it, and they will.  Which is why I don't believe this is truly Apple's concern.  

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

C'mon, the government has never overstepped its bounds? It's never written broad and far-reaching legislature that lets it spy on innocent civilians, or do anything to people without due process or an actual threat to national security?

Of course it has, I'm not even hinting that the government is perfect or even good, but it is our government.

I don't think this is a simple issue. But I'm seeing this as a massive shift in power away from the government and to corporations.

If Apple wins this decision, you can bet that many companies will rush to protect their content in the same or similar way. And Apple, in this case, is the only one that can access this data. They don't need your approval, don't need your permission, don't need a court order, they can simply change the code and not release it to the public. It's their code.

Apple is driven by profit. Yes, their profit is currently based on protecting your data, but that could change at any time.

Everyone seems to be pointing to the evils of the government spying on everyone, but what about companies spying on you to make more money? Why are we trusting Apple? or Google? or Microsoft?

1 hour ago, iacas said:

CREATE something they consider highly dangerous.

This is hyperbole by Cook. If it's so dangerous, why did Apple release to the public all iOS versions before iOS 8 that didn't even have end-to-end encryption. Was Apple putting us in danger for seven years?

Edited February 19, 2016 by chspeed

[GolfLug]

So here's a conspiracy theory... Is Apple the only party capable of writing the code? I really feel the code is already on it's way - not by Apple, but by Hackers Anonymous Inc. under the watchful eye of the FBI. I do not have much knowledge of encryption tech but I would think code's being written as we speak/write. Then they will use it and keep it for their future use. Not only will they over step their bounds but we will be none the wiser for it.

 

[Jeremie Boop]

24 minutes ago, Gunther said:

 

 

Computers and phones have been used as evidence for many, many years.  Most law enforcement agencies have their own tech departments specifically tasked with decryption and electronic data collection from hard drives, email, texts, etc. (think child molesters).  If there is probable cause, a judge can issue a warrant to collect that data.

I don't see how this case is much different.  It's data from 1 phone, owned by the obviously guilty party and ordered by a judge.  The difference is that the FBI's tech group cannot decrypt so they're asking for help. 

What if the FBI were able to hire programmers to write code to gain access? Would you be OK with that?  Is it only Apple's involvement to which you object?  Or, are you against any sort of personal electronic data being used against people or to help further an investigation?

I'm just not seeing the downside here.  Apple is probably the world's expert in electronic proprietary security, it's what they do so the probability of others accessing this decryption code is almost non-existent.  Plus, as encryption protocols continue to evolve, some hacker today is working on cracking it, and they will.  Which is why I don't believe this is truly Apple's concern.  

Most people's concern lies in the forcing a private company to aid in cracking it's own product. Nobody has a problem with the FBI using it's own experts or recruiting other individuals to help them, it's just the forcing of the company to do it. At least that's the understanding I have.

edit** I feel like most people would even be ok with the fact that the FBI asked for help, the real problem lies in the forcing of help.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Jeremie Boop

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

Computers and phones have been used as evidence for many, many years.  Most law enforcement agencies have their own tech departments specifically tasked with decryption and electronic data collection from hard drives, email, texts, etc. (think child molesters).  If there is probable cause, a judge can issue a warrant to collect that data.

As has been said now several times, Apple will comply to furnish data they have. If given a warrant to see who "guntherplaysgolf@icloud.com" is, they'll give the information to the police which includes, say, your address or credit card info.

This is not that.

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

I don't see how this case is much different.  It's data from 1 phone, owned by the obviously guilty party and ordered by a judge.  The difference is that the FBI's tech group cannot decrypt so they're asking for help.

That's why it's different.

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

What if the FBI were able to hire programmers to write code to gain access? Would you be OK with that? Is it only Apple's involvement to which you object?  Or, are you against any sort of personal electronic data being used against people or to help further an investigation?

I'm not against personal data being used. And the FBI cannot really break the iPhone. They'd have to re-write a large portion of the entire iOS and sign it with a key only Apple knows. And that alone (re-creating iOS) would probably violate intellectual property laws. At any rate, it might take them years, if they were able to do it at all.

The phone is relatively secure because you can't just "hire programmers to write code to gain access." If that were the case, hackers would have already done that. They haven't.

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

I'm just not seeing the downside here. Apple is probably the world's expert in electronic proprietary security, it's what they do so the probability of others accessing this decryption code is almost non-existent. Plus, as encryption protocols continue to evolve, some hacker today is working on cracking it, and they will.  Which is why I don't believe this is truly Apple's concern.

You don't seem to understand the realistic scope of this sort of thing. I"m not going to re-hash it here as security experts, legal experts, etc. have all written extensively on this.

Watch the videos above. Do some more reading.

9 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Of course they have, I'm not even hinting that the government is perfect or even good, but it is our government.

It's also China. It's also hackers. It's also other countries who not only look to us for laws, but who could abduct an Apple engineer and force him to write the code all over again once he knows how to do it.

9 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I don't think this is a simple issue. But I'm seeing this as a massive shift in power away from the government and to corporations.

I don't. Companies are still required to turn over information they have, and people have always been able to keep things private.

9 minutes ago, chspeed said:

If Apple wins this decision, you can bet that many companies will rush to protect their content in the same or similar way.

Why? They haven't yet. Doing security properly is difficult. I don't think that other companies are going to rush out to enhance security.

But if they do, good. The FBI chose this case because it would have the most PR appeal for people to side against Apple, but that's great until you consider the ramifications of allowing the FBI this one, and the next one that isn't quite as PR-favorable, and the next one after that…

9 minutes ago, chspeed said:

And Apple, in this case, is the only one that can access this data. They don't need your approval, don't need your permission, don't need a court order, they can simply change the code and not release it to the public. It's their code.

That's not what the FBI is asking. The FBI is not asking Apple to "access the data." If Apple could access the data, they'd comply with a court order to do so.

And you can't just add the word "simply" to something so that it sounds like something a guy can do in two hours.

9 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Everyone seems to be pointing to the evils of the government spying on everyone, but what about companies spying on you to make more money? Why are we trusting Apple? or Google? or Microsoft?

Huh?

I'm not really trusting Google. I have a very low limit for Facebook trust and use it mostly to talk about golf stuff. I trust Apple in a limited capacity, too, but more than I trust Google, because of things like this - because I understand that even Apple can't get into certain bits of my data. TouchID is not only great for ease of use, it's great for security purposes.

BTW, if the dead guy had a TouchID iPhone and had enabled it, the FBI could use his finger to unlock his phone without Apple. I have no problem with that, either.

9 minutes ago, chspeed said:

This is hyperbole by Cook. If it's so dangerous, why did Apple release to the public all iOS versions before iOS 8 that didn't even have end-to-end encryption. Was Apple putting us in danger for seven years?

How is it hyperbole? What has he said that's incorrect? And the answer to the second part is simply that the technology didn't exist. It does now.

3 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Most people's concern lies in the forcing a private company to aid in cracking it's own product. Nobody has a problem with the FBI using it's own experts or recruiting other individuals to help them, it's just the forcing of the company to do it. At least that's the understanding I have.

Possibly, but really not worth speculating about here. Improbable, but not impossible.

3 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Most people's concern lies in the forcing a private company to aid in cracking it's own product. Nobody has a problem with the FBI using it's own experts or recruiting other individuals to help them, it's just the forcing of the company to do it. At least that's the understanding I have.

Right. Most people also understand it might be really, really, really difficult for the FBI to do this, too. They don't have Apple's key that's required to load software onto the iPhone. They've effectively demanded that Apple use their own key and write new software to open the back door for the FBI's passphrase guessing software.

[jamo]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

If Apple wins this decision, you can bet that many companies will rush to protect their content in the same or similar way.

It's not their content they're protecting, it's yours and mine.

[Dave2512]

Apple is right on this one and we have no idea if getting into that phone will bear fruit. The SB killers were just barely terrorists. I don't see this as a huge security issue with much to gain but there is certainly much to lose.

[Abu3baid]

Not sure if this was shared from business insider.

Quote

JOHN MCAFEE: I'll decrypt the San Bernardino phone free of charge so Apple doesn't need to place a back door on its product

 

Quote

So here is my offer to the FBI. I will, free of charge, decrypt the information on the San Bernardino phone, with my team. We will primarily use social engineering, and it will take us three weeks. If you accept my offer, then you will not need to ask Apple to place a back door in its product, which will be the beginning of the end of America.

If you doubt my credentials, Google "cybersecurity legend" and see whose name is the only name that appears in the first 10 results out of more than a quarter of a million.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

 

They should take him up on the offer!

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

 

 

Computers and phones have been used as evidence for many, many years.  Most law enforcement agencies have their own tech departments specifically tasked with decryption and electronic data collection from hard drives, email, texts, etc. (think child molesters).  If there is probable cause, a judge can issue a warrant to collect that data.

I don't see how this case is much different.  It's data from 1 phone, owned by the obviously guilty party and ordered by a judge.  The difference is that the FBI's tech group cannot decrypt so they're asking for help. 

What if the FBI were able to hire programmers to write code to gain access? Would you be OK with that?  Is it only Apple's involvement to which you object?  Or, are you against any sort of personal electronic data being used against people or to help further an investigation?

I'm just not seeing the downside here.  Apple is probably the world's expert in electronic proprietary security, it's what they do so the probability of others accessing this decryption code is almost non-existent.  Plus, as encryption protocols continue to evolve, some hacker today is working on cracking it, and they will.  Which is why I don't believe this is truly Apple's concern.  

The government doesn't like things they can't access.  The prefer the use of encryption algorithms that are secure on the basis that the amount of computing power required to break it isn't feasible or possible for 99.9% of the world.   Apple's encryption isn't breakable regardless of computing power and Apple claims there isn't a backdoor inside their device that allows access to the data without the pass-phrase.  

The FBI has tried for some time to hack the phone, they can't, which is why they are placing pressure on Apple to either unlock the phone or add a back door to IOS to allow them to in the future.  This is why you should use a pass phrase and not your fingerprint to lock your phone, if you use the finger print, the government can forcibly use your finger to unlock the phone, they can't force you to provide them the pass phrase, at least not legally here in the US.

The government has demonstrated they can't be trusted.  This government doesn't work for us, they work for themselves.  I have gained a lot of respect for Apple in maintaining this position and will continue to support them so long as they don't cave in.    

12 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Not sure if this was shared from business insider.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

 

They should take him up on the offer!

McAfee is a whack job, last I heard he wasn't even living in the US because of his paranoia.  

[nevets88]

Many more details about Apple's case in NY.

Quote

Time and again after the introduction of the iPhone nearly a decade ago, the Justice Department asked Apple for help opening a locked phone. And nearly without fail, the company agreed.

Then last fall, the company changed its mind. In a routine drug case in a Brooklyn federal court, prosecutors sought a court order demanding that Apple unlock a methamphetamine dealer’s iPhone 5S running old, easy-to-unlock software. The company acknowledged that it could open the phone, as it had before. But this time, it pushed back.

That stance foreshadowed this week’s showdown between the Obama administration and Apple over the locked iPhone belonging to one of the suspects in the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting rampage. By the time of Mr. Zwillinger’s statement, Apple and the government had been at odds for more than a year, since the debut of Apple’s new encrypted operating system, iOS 8, in late 2014.

 

Quote

Then came the Feng case. By refusing to help, the Justice Department thought Apple was sending a clear signal. If it would no longer cooperate with requests to help unlock old phones, there was little chance it would give in and build a way to unlock the new encrypted phones running iOS 8.

 

Quote

The case in Brooklyn continues, even though Mr. Feng has already pleaded guilty. While the Justice Department sees the San Bernardino incident as its ideal test case, Apple is hoping for a legal win in Brooklyn.

Judge James Orenstein has given the company reason to be hopeful. In the past, he has been skeptical of the way the government uses an 18th-century law — the All Writs Act — that the Justice Department is now claiming gives it the authority to force Apple to unlock the phones. He once even described the Justice Department’s use of it as a “Hail Mary play.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/a-yearlong-road-to-a-standoff-with-the-fbi.html?ref=technology