Apple v. FBI

[saevel25]

The Justice Department better not be Aaron Rodgers or they will complete that Hail Mary 

 

[Gunther]

37 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

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.    

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

Far be it from me to trust the government...I do not.  I am not in favor of Apple providing the FBI with this "back-door", or key. 

I do, however, expect Apple to comply with the law and open the phone themselves to provide the evidence to the FBI.  I'm ok with them keeping their encryption proprietary but they need to cough up the evidence.  They've done it before although the encryption previously was not as sophisticated.

Apple is grandstanding to gin up customer support, and it's working but I believe they could have had it both ways had they denied the FBI the back door yet provided the evidence decrypted internally.  They can't do that now without looking like they've capitulated.

[Ernest Jones]

10 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Far be it from me to trust the government...I do not.  I am not in favor of Apple providing the FBI with this "back-door", or key. 

I do, however, expect Apple to comply with the law and open the phone themselves to provide the evidence to the FBI.  I'm ok with them keeping their encryption proprietary but they need to cough up the evidence.  They've done it before although the encryption previously was not as sophisticated.

Apple is grandstanding to gin up customer support, and it's working but I believe they could have had it both ways had they denied the FBI the back door yet provided the evidence decrypted internally.  They can't do that now without looking like they've capitulated.

You are completely missing the point, by a wide margin.

 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I do, however, expect Apple to comply with the law and open the phone themselves to provide the evidence to the FBI.  I'm ok with them keeping their encryption proprietary but they need to cough up the evidence.  They've done it before although the encryption previously was not as sophisticated.

Apple does not. They don't actually have the evidence. It's not like it's stored on Apple's servers. It's stored on that person's phone, which was the property of the guy the FBI is investigating. 

I am not up to date on Apple's security features. It sounds like Apple can not access a person's phone with out a pass code. 

Here is straight from Apple's website, 

Quote

Unless you made a backup before you forgot your passcode, there isn't a way to save your device's data. You'll need to erase your device, which deletes all of your data and settings. Choose a way to erase:

Right there.  you forgot your passcode you are SOL, your phone will be erased. It's a security feature built into the phone.

10 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Apple is grandstanding to gin up customer support, and it's working but I believe they could have had it both ways had they denied the FBI the back door yet provided the evidence decrypted internally.  They can't do that now without looking like they've capitulated.

Apple is protecting their consumer base from a massive intrusion of privacy. If the FBI wins this case it will give them legal standing to demand all cell phones be built in a backdoor. If that is the case then any hacker worth his salt will be able to gain access to your phone. To think this would only be accessible by the FBI is laughable. This is not grandstanding. This is Apple protecting their security feature that pretty much makes it nearly impossible to gain data directly from your phone with out a pass code. 

Ok @Gunther, how does apple gain access to the data internally? What mechanism in the iOS for the iPhone allows apple to do this? You are stating they can, so you should know right? 

 

 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I do, however, expect Apple to comply with the law and open the phone themselves to provide the evidence to the FBI.  I'm ok with them keeping their encryption proprietary but they need to cough up the evidence.  They've done it before although the encryption previously was not as sophisticated.

You do not seem to thoroughly understand the situation. Apple is not being asked to get the contents of the phone. The FBI can do that on its own… once the phone is unlocked. Apple would not have control of the phone after the FBI took it away to continue their investigation.

13 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Apple is grandstanding to gin up customer support, and it's working but I believe they could have had it both ways had they denied the FBI the back door yet provided the evidence decrypted internally.  They can't do that now without looking like they've capitulated.

Poppycock.

[Gunther]

Perhaps I am missing something.  My understanding is that the FBI requested Apple provide the FBI with this back-door code to retrieve the contents of this one particular phone before the threshold is reached and the data is destroyed.  Once they have this code, they'd be free to use it again and it could be and frankly would be leaked.

I further understand that Apple has the capability to do this but their concern is that once developed, this code would be available to all nefarious entities as well as the FBI for future use.

My solution is that Apple should open the phone and provide its contents to the FBI, while maintaining the integrity of the mechanism or code used to retrieve it internally.  This, of course, only works if my above 2 assumptions are correct.

 

[Yukari]

7 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Perhaps I am missing something.  My understanding is that the FBI requested Apple provide the FBI with this back-door code to retrieve the contents of this one particular phone before the threshold is reached and the data is destroyed.  Once they have this code, they'd be free to use it again and it could be and frankly would be leaked.

I further understand that Apple has the capability to do this but their concern is that once developed, this code would be available to all nefarious entities as well as the FBI for future use.

My solution is that Apple should open the phone and provide its contents to the FBI, while maintaining the integrity of the mechanism or code used to retrieve it internally.  This, of course, only works if my above 2 assumptions are correct.

 

What the FBI is asking is to make iOS so that it has a backdoor.  Currently it does not.  Basically the government is upset that there is no way to crack the phone.  Once they put that backdoor in the iOS, anyone with malicious intent can also access your phone.

Apple is maintaining that they will NOT install any backdoor way of hacking into their iOS devices.

Frankly, I applaud Apple for not installing any backdoor channel to access my phone.

[Gunther]

1 minute ago, Yukari said:

What the FBI is asking is to make iOS so that it has a backdoor.  Currently it does not.  Basically the government is upset that there is no way to crack the phone.  Once they put that backdoor in the iOS, anyone with malicious intent can also access your phone.

Apple is maintaining that they will NOT install any backdoor way of hacking into their iOS devices.

OK, I agree with that, completely.  But, I want the content of that terrorist's phone in the FBI's hands, as soon as possible.  

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

OK, I agree with that, completely.  But, I want the content of that terrorist's phone in the FBI's hands, as soon as possible.  

Why? We already know they were guilty. There's no guarantee that there will be anything at all useful on the phone, particularly now, months later. This wasn't an elaborate terrorist plot like 9/11. What knowledge do you expect to gain from getting the contents of their phone? How likely is that to happen?

[14ledo81]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why? We already know they were guilty. There's no guarantee that there will be anything at all useful on the phone, particularly now, months later. This wasn't an elaborate terrorist plot like 9/11. What knowledge do you expect to gain from getting the contents of their phone? How likely is that to happen?

Definitely no guarantee there is anything useful.  It is also possible there is information on that phone that could save lives.

I must be missing something here as well.  I know (somewhat) and respect all of the guys here who have made points why Apple should not do this.  And as such, I think you are correct in this, and I am wrong.

I still don't see why they can't write the OS, install it on the phone, unlock it, change the OS back, and then give it to the FBI.  This way the "backdoor" OS never leaves Apples hands.  Hopefully someone can explain this to me.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Definitely no guarantee there is anything useful.  It is also possible there is information on that phone that could save lives.

There could be (either). The odds of the latter are probably small, though. The terrorists would not only have to be part of a larger organization or something (and I mean in ways we don't already know about), but would have to have had that info on their phone.

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I must be missing something here as well.  I know (somewhat) and respect all of the guys here who have made points why Apple should not do this.  And as such, I think you are correct in this, and I am wrong.

There's no right or wrong. It's all just opinions. I feel strongly about mine, but it's still just an opinion.

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I still don't see why they can't write the OS, install it on the phone, unlock it, change the OS back, and then give it to the FBI.  This way the "backdoor" OS never leaves Apples hands.  Hopefully someone can explain this to me.

Short answer: because the FBI wants to unlock the phone. They're not asking Apple to unlock the phone by typing in the passphrase. They're asking Apple to build a backdoor so that they can unlock the phone.

And, once you create the back door, not only is "it" out there, but the knowledge of how to do it is out there, as well.

[14ledo81]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Short answer: because the FBI wants to unlock the phone. They're not asking Apple to unlock the phone by typing in the passphrase. They're asking Apple to build a backdoor so that they can unlock the phone.

And, once you create the back door, not only is "it" out there, but the knowledge of how to do it is out there, as well.

Ok.  Tell the FBI that they will not build the backdoor for FBI use, but they will do it themselves and get the information for them.  Is this possible?

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, 14ledo81 said:

Ok.  Tell the FBI that they will not build the backdoor for FBI use, but they will do it themselves and get the information for them.  Is this possible?

This is also my take on the situation, if the two parties could compromise in order to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement then everyone wins. I completely agree with refusing to add a backdoor to all devices, but it really seems like there should be some other way that they could accomplish the task. If not, then of course I still lean towards not having every device compromised to access this one.

[jsgolfer]

My understanding is the same as IACAS, that once you have a backdoor for one device, it's is basically now a backdoor for any device.  In effect you are creating a master key which allows a government agency (or hackers if they can get the code) the ability to look into any phone.  

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Ok.  Tell the FBI that they will not build the backdoor for FBI use, but they will do it themselves and get the information for them.  Is this possible?

The back door still has to be created.

And Apple would then also have to create software to repeatedly enter passphrases by brute force.

Possible? Sure. So is doing what the FBI wanted in the first place. Apple still feels (and I agree more than not) that doing so is a dangerous, dangerous thing. That it sets us on the path down a slippery slope. That a neutral third-party is being conscripted, by force and by a law that's over 200 years old, into doing the government's bidding with no guarantee whatsoever of any actual positive payoff.

[k-troop]

Spoiler

The word "backdoor" appears so many times in this thread I'm afraid the content filter on our network at work is going to generate a report on me.

I agree that forcing Apple to write content that currently doesn't exist, then use their "key" to install that content on the device, to enable unlocking the phone is a stretch of "reasonable assistance."  Unfortunately there are two legal facts in this case that make Apple's position tenuous:

1. District judge has already ordered this.  Apple is now in the position of fighting to overrule a decision that has already been made.

2. The phone in question was owned by San Bernadino County, so the REOP is zero.  I think the court will weigh the privacy concerns only in the context of this specific case, not the speculative privacy of millions of hypothetical (though quite real--I'm right here!) iPhone users.  Since the owner of the phone has consented, there is no privacy interest in this case.

[jsgolfer]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

The back door still has to be created.

And Apple would then also have to create software to repeatedly enter passphrases by brute force.

Possible? Sure. So is doing what the FBI wanted in the first place. Apple still feels (and I agree more than not) that doing so is a dangerous, dangerous thing. That it sets us on the path down a slippery slope. That a neutral third-party is being conscripted, by force and by a law that's over 200 years old, into doing the government's bidding with no guarantee whatsoever of any actual positive payoff.

I wonder how long it would take to create the back door?  

8 minutes ago, k-troop said:

  Reveal hidden contents

The word "backdoor" appears so many times in this thread I'm afraid the content filter on our network at work is going to generate a report on me.

I agree that forcing Apple to write content that currently doesn't exist, then use their "key" to install that content on the device, to enable unlocking the phone is a stretch of "reasonable assistance."  Unfortunately there are two legal facts in this case that make Apple's position tenuous:

1. District judge has already ordered this.  Apple is now in the position of fighting to overrule a decision that has already been made.

2. The phone in question was owned by San Bernadino County, so the REOP is zero.  I think the court will weigh the privacy concerns only in the context of this specific case, not the speculative privacy of millions of hypothetical (though quite real--I'm right here!) iPhone users.  Since the owner of the phone has consented, there is no privacy interest in this case.

Tenuous at best,  couldn't a judge then order any company to create aback door to any digital system if the law enforcement agency can convince them that it is in the best interest of National Security?  

[k-troop]

4 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Tenuous at best,  couldn't a judge then order any company to create aback door to any digital system if the law enforcement agency can convince them that it is in the best interest of National Security?  

Umm, I said making the company create something stretches the idea of reasonable assistance (which as I understand it is the legal issue at play here).  Unfortunately, due to the posture of the case the BoP is on the FBI's side, and due to the lack of privacy interest at issue in this case there may not be much to put on the other side of the scale if they start balancing Apple's burden against the privacy (or other) interests at issue.