Slashdot Mirror
Apple Court Testimony Reveals Why It Refuses To Unlock iPhones For Police (dailydot.com)
blottsie writes: Newly unsealed court transcripts from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York show that Apple now refuses to unlock iPhones for law enforcement, saying "In most cases now and in the future, the government’s requested order would be substantially burdensome, as it would be impossible to perform." “Right now Apple is aware that customer data is under siege from a variety of different directions. Never has the privacy and security of customer data been as important as it is now,” Apple lawyer Marc Zwillinger said at the hearing. “A hypothetical consumer could think if Apple is not in the business of accessing my data and if Apple has built a system to prevent itself from accessing my data, why is it continuing to comply with orders that don’t have a clear lawful basis in doing so?”
It takes guts to stand up to government, especially the U.S government.
One U.S. attorney argued that it was "more concerned with public perception" than helping catch criminals.
Duh? No shit? That's not Apple's job, dipshit. They're not here to make your job easier, stop being a bunch of lazy jackasses.
For one, I love the fact that Apple is saying "fuck you" to the cops.
On the other hand, it shows the power of multinational corps - they're above the law. Meaning one day, they may do me or others some serious harm and get away free - like Wall Street did.
And as far as my personal privacy is concerned, neither can be trusted.
The problem with this of course, is that it will not really stop the really bad guys from using strong security, since they are going ahead and breaking the law anyways, and while it might stop the otherwise too incompetent person who wouldn't know how to use such facilities from getting away with something they might have otherwise, in general, all this does is mean that most of the stuff that law enforcement is able to access is stuff that is entirely benign and wouldn't be of interest to them.
But of course, no matter how well intentioned the government and law enforcement may claim to be, and even if they *COULD* be fully trusted to not abuse such access to the general public's highly confidential and private data (leaving aside the whole matter that they may not be as trustworthy as they claim aside, and suggesting that even *IF* they could be trusted so completely), if they can decrypt it, then so can the bad guys, who will abuse it and invariably cause harm to completely innocent people. And suddenly, law enforcement actually has a harder job than they had before, because while their job may have become slightly easier with respect to catching otherwise incompetent criminals that don't know how to use strong encryption that isn't legally available, and that they might have been able to catch in other ways anyhow, now they *ALSO* have to work harder to protect the public from the new potential attack vector on completely innocent parties that such regulations would give the bad guys.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
spend a week cracking the data
How do you propose to do that?
If you assume:
Every person on the planet owns 10 computers.
There are 7 billion people on the planet.
Each of these computers can test 1 billion key combinations per second.
On average, you can crack the key after testing 50% of the possibilities.
Then the earth's population can crack one encryption key in 77,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years
http://www.eetimes.com/documen...
Anyone who thinks AES 256 (what iPhones are encrypted with) can be cracked by any computer doesn't understand the math.
That's not to say there aren't potential successful ways to get the information besides brute forcing. I just get a little chuckle out of every time somebody suggests governments have magic computers. Yes, I'm aware of quantum computing and exactly how far along the tech has come and no, it isn't something that anybody has yet. The magic quantum encryption cracking system is still *at least* a decade away. (It may never happen, and if I were guessing, I'd put it at closer to a couple centuries away, but even assuming impossible breakthroughs have already been made, a decade is unreasonably optimistic.)
I've worked in a few corporate environments where they were extremely paranoid about e-discovery (back when this was a new thing.) Almost always, the answer was to set the retention policy to 30 days, as in, no email backups older than 30 days, no (sanctioned) way to archive email, and everything older than 30 days was purged from mailboxes. This allowed the company to say with a straight face, "I'd love to give you the messages relevant to such-and-such business deal gone bad 5 years ago, but I simply cannot."
It sounds a lot like what Apple's doing -- they purposely built the encryption system with no way to bypass it so they can push it right back on the police and courts -- "Sorry, can't help you!" That gets them tons of great customer PR, as opposed to Google/Android, so it makes sense.
It's long, but that transcript is really worth a read. First the judge thoughtfully skewers every argument the government presents, and tries to get to the fundamental principles involved. Then he thoughtfully skewers every argument Apple presents and tries to get them to throw away all of the marketing nonsense and just say what they think the actual issues are. Then he takes it all into consideration and says he'll go try to find the proper balance in his ruling.
No matter how that case comes out, that's one judge who is doing his job.
Correct, you do not know much about how iPhones work but it didn't seem to stop you from speculating.
If you want to learn how the encryption works, see this explanation.
Yes, it does use dedicated cryptography hardware. Yes, the key is protected from the rest of the OS.
ah, putting words into Apple's mouth is so much fun. Of course, they never said any such thing. Instead, as you could read from the quotes above, they say that they believe in the customer's privacy. You aren't playing devil's advocate, you are willfully misrepresenting Apple's position.
Nice strawman, btw
Maybe, just maybe, because that backdoor provides a vulnerability that can be hacked. One less complication in the system means at least one less vulnerability to be exploited.