Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To FBI: Encryption Rules Out Handing Over iMessage Data In Real Time

Posted by timothy on from the oh-did-you-want-that? dept.

Mark Wilson writes that Apple has balked at a court order to provide the FBI with the contents of text messages among users of its iMessage service, claiming that the encryption it uses to protect these messages makes handing over the messages themselves impossible. From the article: The Justice Department obtained a court order that required Apple to provide real time access to text messages sent between suspects in an investigation involving guns and drugs. Apple has responded by saying that the fact iMessage is encrypted means that it is simply not able to comply with the order. The stand-off between the US government and Apple could last for some time as neither side is willing — or possibly able — to back down.

21 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Why not ... by zeugma-amp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... give them what they are asking for? Just hand over the encrypted data and say "good luck with that".

    --
    This is an ex-parrot!
    1. Re:Why not ... by MasseKid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. This is the data apple has, it's the data being requested, the fact that neither apple nor the FBI can do anything useful with it should be of no legal concern to apple.

    2. Re:Why not ... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple will end up doing that I imagine, but they also want the publicity of "not handing over iMessage data to the FBI" before they do it.

    3. Re:Why not ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This exactly, if there is a warrant hand over the information you have. I don't believe safe makers have to open safes subject to a warrant. So why is this any different? (The FBI could always contract Apple to attempt to crack the message, similar to a safe company being hired to attempt to break into a safe, but that's different than the "real time" access asked for)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Why not ... by macs4all · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple will end up doing that I imagine, but they also want the publicity of "not handing over iMessage data to the FBI" before they do it.

      Or, maybe, just maybe, they don't want to force the Court into finding Apple in Contempt, with possible sanctions of who-knows-how-much per day until they "comply" with an Order with which they really can't comply (because they really don't have a "master key").

      Or even worse, the DoJ gets some fascist Judge to Order Apple to install a backdoor, and it turns into a REALLY ugly (and expensive) fight.

      BTW, this really should shut up all the slashtards that say that Apple secretly colludes with the Gummint; but it won't.

    5. Re:Why not ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BTW, this really should shut up all the slashtards that say that Apple secretly colludes with the Gummint; but it won't.

      Why should it? You have no idea what secrets they have together. That's why they're called 'secrets'. What government wants, the government gets.... At least until we put up some feeble resistance.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Why not ... by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BTW, this really should shut up all the slashtards that say that Apple secretly colludes with the Gummint; but it won't.

      I think your faith in a human's ability to logically think past their biases is overblown. They will just claim it is a PR stunt to fool people into believing Apple can't read the messages while they secretly handing over all the data. Never try to argue with a conspiracist since, no matter how sound your evidence, you will never win them over. As the saying goes, never argue with a fool, lest you are brought down to his level.

    7. Re:Why not ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your belief that secrets must exist, because if they did they would be secret, speaks to your paranoia.

    8. Re: Why not ... by pr0fessor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More like a cop asks you to open someone else's locked car because it's parked in your parking lot. They can tow it and break into it but you can't unlock it because you don't have the keys.

    9. Re:Why not ... by DrVxD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As always, the question is not "are you paranoid", it's "are you paranoid enough"

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    10. Re:Why not ... by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why would Apple have the keys anyway? This is what they're basically trying to say, they might have the algorithm but without the salt (key) which only the USERS will have, and to each one totally unique, it's fucking useless.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    11. Re:Why not ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't designed for criminals. It was designed for - and is mostly used for - legitimate purposes. They cannot control what every single user of their platform uses it for. Otherwise the phone system would be liable every time a criminal makes a phone call, the post office would be liable every time a criminal sends a letter, etc. If they'd intended it to be used by criminals, that would be something else.

  2. Re:Well, they COULD also encrypt for the FBI... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would be akin to backdooring a safe. Not something Apple wants to do. It's not that it cannot be done, it's that doing so violates the security and integrity promises made to customers, and then those customers would go elsewhere, effectively ruining the business.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  3. Re:So, the FBI doesn't need to ask for Android? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's an easy solution for this. You simply apply to your government to use encryption. And of course deposit the master key with them. Then you may encrypt as you please.

    You do trust your government, don't you?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Re:Well, they COULD also encrypt for the FBI... by macs4all · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Long story short, Apple COULD provide real-time access to encrypted messages, but it would take a little work to sneak that in, and eventually someone would find it.

    Or maybe, just maybe, Apple really doesn't like what the Gummint is doing, and is doing everything in its power to passively-resist.

    Did you ever ONCE stop to consider that possibility?

  5. Re:send it anyway by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How in the FUCK did THAT happen?!?

    The voters keep reelecting corrupt politicians. How could it NOT happen??!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Re:send it anyway by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this wonderful? From the Fourth Amendment, we now have a situation where Privacy == Obstruction. How in the FUCK did THAT happen?!?

    Because the Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee you absolute privacy, it grants "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", meaning until a court has issued an order to grant such access "upon probable cause". In this case the court issues such an order. The question is, given the circumstances, what Apple is legally required to do. Hint: they are not required to change their software to create the ability for the government to get access, only to give the government what they already have access to.

  7. Re:send it anyway by CeasedCaring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How in the FUCK did THAT happen?!?

    The voters have no choices BUT corrupt politicians. How could it NOT happen??!

    FTFY!

  8. Re:So, the FBI doesn't need to ask for Android? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What difference do you think guns make? Do you honestly think you would still be allowed to have them if if made a difference?

    And please, don't come with "but, but, but the 2nd". Bullshit. They steamrolled over 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th... without even blinking. What makes your 2nd on-so-special that you honestly think they wouldn't simply circumvent that one, too, if it somehow bothered them?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Is this all just a false flag? by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, the EFF is only reporting what the government official 'said' was true.

    Do you have a creditable source that says otherwise, or just statements by people speculating to fit their theories?

  10. Re:Just bought my first apple product ever by macs4all · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My father and his friends all worked for Big Blue during their golden years selling/installing mainframes and I've had a PC in the house my entire life. Never once have I ever considering paying for over-hyped over-priced Apple "toys" until now. I simply cannot ignore the facts anymore that Apple makes the best phones on the market with sound security while Android and Windows erode away, and articles like this go a long way towards making me feel confident about my purchase. I'm very impressed with my 5s.

    So, stick your other foot in the water and buy a MacBook Pro and run OS X on it. You'll wonder why you ever waited this long. Trust me.