Apple v. FBI

[iacas]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/apple-said-to-get-more-time-to-oppose-order-to-unlock-iphone

Apple now has until February 26 to respond.

[nevets88]

Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones

Quote

Silicon Valley celebrated last fall when the White House revealed it would not seek legislation forcing technology makers to install “backdoors” in their software -- secret listening posts where investigators could pierce the veil of secrecy on users’ encrypted data, from text messages to video chats. But while the companies may have thought that was the final word, in fact the government was working on a Plan B.

In a secret meeting convened by the White House around Thanksgiving, senior national security officials ordered agencies across the U.S. government to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone, the marquee product of one of America’s most valuable companies, according to two people familiar with the decision.

The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council “decision memo,” tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the “going dark” problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet. Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones

[chspeed]

3 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

47 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.

we have no idea if getting into that phone will bear fruit.

In my opinion, the certainty of getting valuable information is not at issue here. It was the court's job to determine whether to hand out the warrant after Apple refused to cooperate, and that's what it did.

It's also, as far as I understand it, not a technical issue. Apple can create code to unlock this phone without releasing it to all other phones. It seems like Apple is drawing the line in the sand because it thinks that this case will set a precedent which will empower the government (either through the judicial system or congress) to impel Apple to open the create the backdoor on all phones.

You can read the Government's latest filing, in which they claim that Apple's refusal is a marketing/brand play, here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/business/document-motion-to-compel-apple-compliance.html

It's definitely a PR war now, and Apple is very, very good at PR. We'll see what happens!

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

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. 

 

Where the data is, and who owns it, is not at issue here. There is a precedent of the government impelling a company to offer assistance to get evidence.

[chspeed]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

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? 

 

 

Not sure why you're attacking @Gunther for not understanding Apple's iOS simply because he disagrees with you. You think they can't do it, he thinks they can. Regardless, only iOS code digitally signed by Apple can run on the iPhone so even if someone else coded it, only Apple can run it.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, chspeed said:

In my opinion, the certainty of getting valuable information is not at issue here. It was the court's job to determine whether to hand out the warrant after Apple refused to cooperate, and that's what it did.

And Apple gets to appeal, which it is doing.

The likelihood of successfully retrieving information is a critical factor. Suppose a criminal commits a crime: a judge is not going to issue a search warrant for the 7-11 or the Wal-Mart where the criminal stopped for gas and a new pair of pants on the way to committing the crime.

I'm sure @k-troop will know the legal words for these types of things, but the likelihood of finding "evidence" is an important thing to weigh along with the negative implications and the "reasonable-ness" of the request.

4 minutes ago, chspeed said:

It's also, as far as I understand it, not a technical issue. Apple can create code to unlock this phone without releasing it to all other phones. It seems like Apple is drawing the line in the sand because it thinks that this case will set a precedent which will empower the government (either through the judicial system or congress) to impel Apple to open the create the backdoor on all phones.

That's one of their reasons, yes.

Nobody is denying that Apple could create the backdoor.

4 minutes ago, chspeed said:

You can read the Government's latest filing, in which they claim that Apple's refusal is a marketing/brand play, here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/business/document-motion-to-compel-apple-compliance.html

I regard any and all instances of calling this a "marketing" tactic as poppycock.

4 minutes ago, chspeed said:

It's definitely a PR war now, and Apple is very, very good at PR. We'll see what happens!

Oh, the backhanded compliment.

Apple is very, very good at making pretty darn good products. Secure ones, too.

Seriously, there's nothing special about this commercial except the product in it:

And Penelope Cruz.

[chspeed]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Apple is very, very good at making pretty darn good products. Secure ones, too.

No arguing there - I own a bunch of them myself!

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm sure @k-troop will know the legal words for these types of things, but the likelihood of finding "evidence" is an important thing to weigh along with the negative implications and the "reasonable-ness" of the request.

Yes, and that's what the judge did. I don't think Apple is contesting the warrant based on likelihood of finding evidence. At least not in its initial response.

1 hour 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.

You are entitled to, and should, form your on opinions. You can like and respect them and still disagree!

Edited February 19, 2016 by chspeed

[jsgolfer]

 

59 minutes ago, k-troop said:

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.

In your opinion, how did a judge make the case that writing a new code would be reasonable assistance? On face value it doesn't seem to be reasonable at all, I guess that  was the last point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully it appears.

[flopster]

My gut instinct tells me it's only a matter of time before the FBI gets their way.

[iacas]

http://www.macworld.com/article/3034355/ios/why-the-fbis-request-to-apple-will-affect-civil-rights-for-a-generation.html

I skimmed it only as most of the stuff seemed to be stuff I knew already.

[newtogolf]

7 hours ago, flopster said:

My gut instinct tells me it's only a matter of time before the FBI gets their way.

I'm not so sure, the FBI can't prove Apple can break into IOS 8, they can just speculate.  Is the FBI going to pay Apple for the resources to break the phone or do they expect Apple to do it for free?  It seems the FBI just thinks they can bully businesses into doing their dirty work at our expense (privacy) so I hope Apple fights this to the end.  We need tech companies to stop making it easy for our government to violate our rights.  

[nevets88]

And things get more complicated.

Quote

County officials changed the Apple ID password in the crucial days after the attack, senior Apple executives said today on a call with reporters. Had the Apple ID not changed, executives said, the data on the phone could potentially have been retrieved through the iPhone's auto-backup feature, which would have transmitted the data to the county-controlled iCloud system. Still, it's unclear whether such a tactic would have worked if the password had not been reset. Farook's phone had not backed up to iCloud since October, although it's unclear what caused the backups to discontinue.

The county later defended itself via a tweet, claiming that the iCloud password was reset under guidance of the FBI. Officials appeared to contradict the sequence of events put forward by a Department of Justice filing which implied that auto-backups were unavailable because the county "reset the password remotely ... in an attempt to gain access to some information."

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/19/11075292/iphone-san-bernardino-icloud-password-reset

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-appleid-passcode-changed-in-government-cust#.vmmqbrGlx

[iacas]

Right, so Apple gave them four ways to retrieve the data, their own resetting of the password having screwed up their chances of trying some of them. Great. So they screw up, and then ask Apple to bail them out.

As for whether there's likely to be much information on the phone…

Quote

Right. It was his work phone. Why the hell would he use iMessage to talk about terrorists plots? He destroyed all his other phones, if this one had evidence then he would have destroyed it also.

In other words, the chances are slim that he'll have any helpful information on the phone at all. This was not his personal cell phone.

The response to that comment:

Quote

Exactly. This all lends credence to the theory that the FBI just really wants a back door into iPhones, and they are using this high-profile terrorist attack as a way to sway public opinion and force Apple to give it to them.

 

[iacas]

 

[newtogolf]

The FBI has been pressing Apple and others to give them back doors in their devices and encryption.  This is all grandstanding on the Governments part to paint Apple into the corner and make it look like they are trying to protect terrorists.   I'm loving how Apple is making the FBI look stupid.   

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, nevets88 said:

And things get more complicated.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/19/11075292/iphone-san-bernardino-icloud-password-reset

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-appleid-passcode-changed-in-government-cust#.vmmqbrGlx

 

15 hours ago, iacas said:

Right, so Apple gave them four ways to retrieve the data, their own resetting of the password having screwed up their chances of trying some of them. Great. So they screw up, and then ask Apple to bail them out.

As for whether there's likely to be much information on the phone…

In other words, the chances are slim that he'll have any helpful information on the phone at all. This was not his personal cell phone.

The response to that comment:

 

My wife saw that last night on line and read it to me. This is a WTF moment for sure. My guess is whoever changed the password, forgot all of it. After trying several times, they realized they may exceed the attempt limits. Morons.

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

 

My wife saw that last night on line and read it to me. This is a WTF moment for sure. My guess is whoever changed the password, forgot all of it. After trying several times, they realized they may exceed the attempt limits. Morons.

If they would have done nothing but put the phone back in an location with a "known" WiFi hot spot to the phone it would have backed up the entire phone to iCloud and they would have had all the contents.  How could the FBI cyber team be so ignorant as to how iPhones works and to change the password and not remember it.  Someone should be fired.  

[Jeremie Boop]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If they would have done nothing but put the phone back in an location with a "known" WiFi hot spot to the phone it would have backed up the entire phone to iCloud and they would have had all the contents.  How could the FBI cyber team be so ignorant as to how iPhones works and to change the password and not remember it.  Someone should be fired.  

I think it was mentioned that the icloud backup was turned off 6 weeks before the attack.

[Yukari]

The Government has been trying to get access to iPhones for years.

It seems FBI is using this case to get what it's been asking for years.

They just keep trying to pick away our rights to privacy in the name of fighting terrorism.  Look around you.  You have all these CCTV's everywhere.  ATM, traffic lights, street corners, etc.  Big Brother is watching everyone.  They now wants access to our private phones too.

I am sure they are monitoring me typing this on the internet.  I guess my name will be added to an FBI list.