Why Are Apple's Competitors Staying Silent On the iPhone Unlocking Fight?

erier2003 writes: A court order forcing Apple to help the FBI access a terrorism suspect's iPhone has drawn responses from leading tech companies, newspaper editorial boards, and security experts. But one major faction is staying largely silent: the computer and smartphone manufacturers who compete with Apple for business and could be subject to similar orders in the future if the company loses its high-profile case. Silicon Valley software firms have universally backed Apple in its fight against the Justice Department, which won a ruling Tuesday from a California magistrate judge compelling Apple to design custom software to bypass security features on an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. But Apple's hardware competitors are staying on the sidelines.

Comments

Finally the debate is here

[NotInHere]

Finally we have a debate on whether or whether not the state should have access to people's personal data. This is what snowden wanted, his goal is reached.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[pedz]

Yes, but only kinda. It seems like the real fight would be between the US citizens and the FBI represented by the shooter bringing suite (after the fact) and various other parties joining in. What is depressing is at least half the politicians seem to be on the side of the FBI / NSA / etc implying that their belief is that more than half of the citizens are on the side of the FBI / NSA / etc. The article by Jon Oliver was extremely revealing I think. People don't really even think about this stuff until it is their personal "dick pics" ... then they get very engaged.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[MacTO]

I'm not sure what Snowden wants in cases like this, because it is about evidence collected after a crime was committed. It isn't terribly different from a court demanding paper documentation.

The big concern, and the concern which ties into Snowden's revelations, is that US government agencies have proven untrustworthy. If Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. fulfill this presumably legitimate request, they may find themselves fulfilling requests for surveillance purposes or disclosing information that these agencies can use to engineer their own solutions for surveillance purposes.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not sure what Snowden wants in cases like this, because it is about evidence collected after a crime was committed. It isn't terribly different from a court demanding paper documentation.

It's completely different. It's not about demanding paper documentation, it's about demanding that a company crack a code. The gov't can make me open my door, but they can't make me invent a new way of opening doors.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is even possible for Apple to crack into that phone, then the device is not secure. When will these manufactures make a friggin secure device that will nuke the encryption keys at any hacking attempts?

It should not be possible to load new/custom firmware (which is what the gov is demanding that Apple create) without unlocking the device first.

I applaud Apple's stance, but the still have a weakness in their architecture -- which is what the FBI is attacking.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's a US only debate, it will still have long term repercussions. Apple won't be able to sell their phones abroad to governments or serious bizmen. Only as a toy phone, playing the latest and greatest Angry birds or Clash of clans.
American hw and sw is already a hard sell outside of US.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[ooloorie]

US government agencies are no more and no less trustworthy than those in other countries. The difference is that in the US, spying on citizens is actually illegal; the only way to search someone should be by court order. The reason you don't hear about such problems in Europe is because what the NSA did is by and large legal already in Europe in the first place.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Midnight Thunder]

Whatever happens to Apple here will impact everyone else, especially if it gets worded in law. Don't believe Android, Windows Phone et al. will be unimpacted by this. Other companies are staying silent because they probably don't want to get involved in something high profile until it really impacts them or that they know the any publicity on their part may backfire.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[93 Escort Wagon]

Nope. Only Android and IOS.

Well thank heaven those two don't have more market share, then!

Re:Finally the debate is here

[gnasher719]

Finally we have a debate on whether or whether not the state should have access to people's personal data. This is what snowden wanted, his goal is reached.

No, that's not what this is about at all. The government has a search warrant for this data. They have the right to get the data. Apple even handed over an iCloud backup based on a legal warrant. Apple has absolutely no problem with handing over data when the police comes with a valid search warrant.

What Apple refuses to do is to break the security of their phones that they sell to millions of honest, hardworking citizens, honest but lazy citizens, dishonest citizens, politicians, lawyers, army personnel and so on and so on and so on, by creating software that they don't have right now, to access data that they cannot access right now.

This is not about preventing the government from executing search warrants, it is about keeping customer data safe. Apple declares that your iCloud data is safe from hackers and criminals, even though Apple can access it, because all that data is under Apple's control and they don't let hackers and criminals near it. Apple also declars that your phone data is only safe if _nobody_, including Apple, can access that data, because your phone can get under total control of the hacker.

As a side effect, Apple can deliver data stored on iCloud if they get a search warrant, but they can't deliver data stored on your phone. If Apple could deliver the data on the phone without creating a risk to the security of everyone, they would.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[2ms]

In other words only about 99% of smartphones have American OSes?

Re: Finally the debate is here

[cyber-vandal]

It isn't in the UK otherwise David Cameron wouldn't be demanding that US companies weaken their encryption and threatening them with new laws if they don't comply. The European Convention on Human Rights isn't as strong as the US Constitution, but people still have plenty of rights and the state has to justify any violation of those rights in court.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[whoever57]

No, that's not what this is about at all. The government has a search warrant for this data.

They also have permission from the phone's owner: the San Bernadino Health Department. It's important to recognize that this phone was Farook's work phone. There was never an expectation of privacy for this phone.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[ooloorie]

It isn't in the UK otherwise David Cameron wouldn't be demanding that US companies weaken their encryption and threatening them with new laws if they don't comply.

Think about what you're saying there. US companies have strong encryption, both in the US and the UK. And it is the UK government that demands that the US companies weaken their encryption for the UK market. What does that tell you?

but people still have plenty of rights and the state has to justify any violation of those rights in court.

No, that is false. European legal systems have huge exemptions from the need to justify searches and surveillance for national security and other kinds of situations. That's why the NSA activities in the US were a scandal, while the equivalent activities by European intelligence agencies against their own citizens were not. European governments tried to distract people from that basic fact by getting people all riled up about the NSA spying on Europeans as well, but that is actually the NSA's job, and that too was done in collaboration with European intelligence agencies.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with this case is that Apple can comply with a court order to help the FBI break into the phone. If they had not screwed up by allowing the Secure Enclave's auto-erase and rate limiting functions to be disabled, we could get to the real question: will companies be allowed to build truly unbreakable encryption?

That's why everyone else is keeping quiet. Why risk saying something that affects the inevitable future legal case when the phone really cannot ever be unlocked? Then it will be down to lobbying against laws mandating backdoors.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Solandri]

With all the rhetoric surrounding this case, I didn't learn a crucial fact until reading this CNN article - It is not the shooter's phone!

The phone belongs to his employer - the San Bernardino government. This is like a homeowner letting someone stay in his home, and the guest changes the locks. The guest then kills a bunch of people and himself. The homeowner wants to get back in and (clumsily) resets the lock so the old key won't work even if they managed to find it. They then ask the lock maker (Apple) to help them unlock the door, and Apple refuses.

I'm all for keeping the government out of my encrypted data. But this is the wrong case to fight that fight.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, it's the right fight to fight.

Apple isn't asked to crack this specific phone only. It looks like the government wants Apple to give them the ability to easily (ie. using untrained stooges and not NSA level experts) to crack phones and are using this specific case as a talking point.

If Apple gives in, the government will have access to any and all iPhones. Life being what it is, the tool will tumble through all sorts of law enforcement agencies and be used for pretty much whatever, depending on individual ethics of whoever has access. Organized crime will probably have access via some corrupt employee somewhere before the last sheriff's department gets their act together with reading the instructions manual

I have read comments to the effect that if law enforcement really, really wanted to know what's on this particular phone they could have had it cracked long ago by now, but that's not what this thing is about. Considering the general state of computer security I believe those commenters are correct.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[BronsCon]

The problem is, it wasn't his phone and the owner is also locked out of it. If that is the case, and the owner wants to help (which it would seem they do), then it should be the city of Sane Bernadino seeking this and, while they still wouldn't comply, nobody would think twice about it if they did. The city of San Bernadino could then hand over any relevant information to the FBI. The headlines on both stories would read "Malicious User Changes iPhone Credentials, Apple Helps Regain Access" and "Terrorized City Recovers Information, Aids FBI Investigation".

For example, if the FBI Apple a court order to install a compromised firmware on behalf of the city of San Bernadino, when the city brought them the phone, and presented the city with both the phone and a warrant for its contents and a court order to comply, city officials would be asking Apple to compromise their own phone, which should be acceptable. A court order forcing a vendor to comply with a customer request relating to their own property should also be acceptable. The only questionable part then becomes the warrant and court order served to the city itself, for which there is plenty of precedent; we've already shown that we accept entities being made to share their own records, or face their own consequences if they do no. The problem is that the city, ostensibly innocent in this, is being removed from the loop regarding the handling of their own property.

Also to note: if we don't fight that fight here, we allow a precedent to be set that allows the government to do the same in any case.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Aighearach]

This is absolutely the wrong case to fight that other fight, but this fight might be more important.

That said, I don't really care what some hardware companies have to say. They might not even have a strong record as any sort of moral or legal authority. ;)

The debate that matters here is the legal debate that lawyers are having. Congress is incapable of action on either side of this, and Joe Schmoe's opinion is irrelevant. And, most Schmoes don't understand the difference between opinions and analysis, or how it affects the type of analysis that is useful to do in cases where nobody is going to ask your opinion because you're not a professional in the relevant field.

The EFF's involvement is a lot more meaningful than the opinions of hardware companies.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[BronsCon]

I accidentally a whole word. "For example, if the FBI Apple a court order" should be "For example, if the FBI served Apple a court order".

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Aighearach]

American hw and sw is already a hard sell outside of US.

Export data begs to differ. ;)

It turns out that pundits writing anti-American stuff in foreign media is not the same thing as lost sales. Who knew?! Oh, right, the marketing people. Turns out they did know something, even if it wasn't what the product features are. ;)

Gosh, if it is so hard to sell American software and hardware, why is the demand so high? Oh, right, there are people who disagree with you even in your own country, but you pretend they don't exist. It might turn out, they even have money and are the ones choosing which software and hardware to buy.

Not all foreign business people are more scared of the US Government than their own Government, did you consider that? Lets say, just as example, that it is possible an audit would come up with a different tax amount than the company had claimed. Which Government cares, the US Government, or their own local Government? Which government presents a real risk of corrupt or coercive demands for payouts? Which government's corruption would potentially expose them to local organized crime, with local wrenches? It may be that even the magazines publishing breathless anti-American conjecture about lost hardware sales are still going out of their way to buy US networking hardware. And that factories in countries that are US allies prefer to buy US factory equipment rather than equipment from a nearby company that is more likely to have information stolen by competitors. We have corruption in the US, but of a different sort than many places in the world. This is a whole country where offering bribes will land you in jail, it is not an accepted practice. This is a country where the sugardrink companies call the police when somebody tries to sell them their competitor's recipe. Foreign companies often care more about that than they do about breathless blahblahs.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Austerity Empowers]

Whatever happens to Apple here will impact everyone else

So assume that if they never jump in, they are already compromised.

But if they're going to jump in, they won't do it now. Let Apple deal with the PR issues (which won't be entirely in their favor, a lot of people are terrified of terrorists and would gladly give their house keys to the government). If Google and MS are going to jump in, and i agree they pretty much have to if they are not already compromised, it will be when this hits the courts.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Aighearach]

It's more like asking a safe manufacturer to unlock one of their customers' safes.

To which, of course, the correct response is "Why the hell does the safe manufacturer have the ability to unlock the safe in the first place?".

It is exactly like that, because there is a service for opening safes, and it is called a "locksmith," and not all safe manufacturers offer locksmithing services. Some do, some do not. The manufacturer is usually hired to help the locksmith determine where to drill, but they don't actually do the work.

This is the same; there are companies that offer services to write custom firmware; Apple isn't one of those companies, and the firmware in question is not a tool that they have and use internally. Furthermore, the FBI admits that it knows that if Apple got into this line of work it would affect their public image; they can't accuse Apple of PR without implying that they know there is a market affect on them.

In the NY pen register case that the FBI cited, the tool that the phone company was asked to use already existed, and was being used by the company for similar purposes; and further, the company already used the tool to provide (paid) services to law enforcement at other jurisdictional levels where it was clearly allowed. The company was happy to "lose" the case; they only said "no" because they thought they weren't allowed to say yes. If Apple was already using the tool internally, this would be a different case; it would be the case the FBI is claiming it is. ;)

That is without even getting to the part where firmware is copyrighted speech and Apple doesn't want to say those things.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[Qzukk]

A proper encryption scheme does not rely on the secrecy of the scheme. The FBI almost certainly has the schematics and code. It won't help them.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[davester666]

It's not a real debate, just a bunch of talking heads.

The FBI and DOJ knows that it is very likely they will lose. They WANT to lose, because then, Congress and the Senate and WAY more likely to pass laws that will go much further into enabling them to invade our privacy, "otherwise, the terrorists and child molestors win."

Re:Finally the debate is here

[amiga3D]

Because to break into this safe you basically would have to compromise all the other safes in the world. Think about the implications of that.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[amiga3D]

Microsoft is already in bed with the Feds. I'd bet they're loving this.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[PhunkySchtuff]

As the phone is owned by the San Bernadino Health Department, why are they rolling out phones to employees without any proper MDM solution in place that would allow them to, among other things, unlock the phone even if they don't know the user's PIN/passcode?

Re:Finally the debate is here

[currently_awake]

Apple can release a software update that blocks this universal key. Simply requiring you to log into your phone before it will install software updates would suffice. Having the passcode software programmed into the CPU where it can't be altered would make newer phones immune to this attack.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. This isn't some 'loophole' or grand scheme to subvert what you think is democracy. This is how encryption works. It's how it will always work. The government can totally pass a law that the sky should be pink and that won't make it so.

Any encryption that can be broken by the manufacturer is broken and badly designed. Yes, any example you can think of.

The government is not asking them to break the encryption by the way. They know better. What they're asking is for a safety feature to be removed that stops random guessing. If it is possible for Apple to do that at all, that is a design flaw that I guarantee they'll fix later.

Breaking encryption isn't like CSI. It relies on:

- poor key management
- bad implementation like predictable random number generators (like the NSA bribing certain manufacturers to do)
- using algorithms with known vulnerabilities (like the NSA suggesting things that are broken for common use)
- spying on the user for passwords, etx.

If you don't make mistakes it simply can't be broken. Learn to live with the fact that it doesn't matter what you think or what politicians and judges think.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[tlhIngan]

Whatever happens to Apple here will impact everyone else

So assume that if they never jump in, they are already compromised.

But if they're going to jump in, they won't do it now. Let Apple deal with the PR issues (which won't be entirely in their favor, a lot of people are terrified of terrorists and would gladly give their house keys to the government). If Google and MS are going to jump in, and i agree they pretty much have to if they are not already compromised, it will be when this hits the courts.

Or, perhaps Samsung, Microsoft, etc., are simply relishing at the thought? I mean, if the FBI wins, that means they'll benefit in the short term as everyone leaves Apple for competitors. After all, Trump just gave Samsung a boost.

Yes, it's very short term thinking at the expense of the long term - perhaps Samsung will be next, and they can't fight it because Apple lost. Now everyone moves from Samsung to someone else. Rinse, repeat and so on.

Basically, the competitors are making hay while the sun shines.

What happens to Apple will happen to everyone else, but in the meantime, they have a year or two to sell lots more phones for profit.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[cyber-vandal]

Let's see some citations for that.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[sonamchauhan]

No. Its about getting Apple to assemble existing bits and bolts which force the lock to stay open while the government tries a millions keys, one after the other.

Its a reasonable request. Apple's upset because it shows customers that encryption is a charade on a device you don't fully control.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[minstrelmike]

From the government's pov, the debate is between the user of the phone and the owner. Fareed the mental case "terrorist" locked the phone but the owner is the county organization he worked for. They paid for the phone and the account and they are fully onboard with finding out what their employee used it for.

That's not quite the same as a citizen's right against the govt.
Forcing Apple to write some sw that doesn't exist seems onerous to me even in this case.
But employers may think different about buying iPhones for their employees now.
quite the interesting conundrum.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[steveg]

The point here is it doesn't matter at all whose phone it is, or whether they have permission to break into this phone. It doesn't matter what's on this phone, or how important it is to get that information.

It has nothing to do with *this* phone. Whatever they do will be to all iPhones. They are being requested to design a backdoor for iPhones. After they do that, it will exist.

Re:Finally the debate is here

[BronsCon]

You're right, it has nothing to do with *this* phone, and I never said it did. It has everything to do with who is asking. If the owner of the phone is asking for it, Apple would be fully within the realm of reasonability to do so; whether or not they would without a court order is irrelevant, though I don't think they would. Were this both the owner of the phone making the request and the FBI serving Apply a court order instructing them to comply with the phone owner's request, it would certainly be reasonable for them to comply; for the owner, not for the FBI. And, in this case, it just so happens that the owner of the phone does wish to aid the FBI and, if they could, would.

Or are you saying that the owner of a device shouldn't be allowed to ask someone to help them hack it, or that someone shouldn't be allowed to help hack a device should the owner request it?

Do you seriously believe that Apple doesn't already have builds of iOS without the failed login limit and login delay? You know as well as I do that these builds certainly do exist, if for no other reason than testing. That is to say, what is being asked of Apple here already exists; your fears have been reality for as long as iOS has incorporated these features.

Re: Finally the debate is here

[niftymitch]

No. Its about getting Apple to assemble existing bits and bolts which force the lock to stay open while the government tries a millions keys, one after the other.

Its a reasonable request. Apple's upset because it shows customers that encryption is a charade on a device you don't fully control.

Formally the bits and bolts do not exist. The court order demands that they be created, tested and applied.

The demand is for a service and a software product that is contrary to Apple's business.
One key business depends on a trusted platform to make payments.

The law does not care but Apple cares a lot about the reality that this would be the first
of many phones. Subsequent court orders will make much the same demand and apple
will have to comply. Divorce court, Russian, French, Cuban courts.

Because this involves Apple signature codes Apple should worry that the value of their signature
is compromised by this service. The service demands that Apple engineer, design, sign and install
this hobbled version of its product. In the future someone could demand the change, inspect the
phone, restore the software and return the device to the owner.

In this case the criminal acts make me wish there was a way to open exactly
this one this device and no other and have the authorities satisfy their need.
That does not seem to be the case, the problem is that once done there is
proof that it can be done again and again.

For many of use this is a do not care because it requires physical control
of the device. However anyone in any nation place or time could have their
device opened and once active data can be inspected, added or deleted.

A previous service generated an image Each transfer of that image could
be audited and multiple check copies made providing checks and balances.
This not so much. While the FBI has had very few problems with their evidence
management this context is more difficult to audit. Consider how one might
keep an Etch-a-Sketch image from being altered or damaged in transit.

Most are unconvinced that there is anything on the device. Many see that this
crime is so evil that they are willing to allow this order to be executed when
more common victim less crimes would allow less emotion and more more worry
about consequences.

There are no laws and this order will have lasting effect as law without action
from elected officials.

Ask the software guys.

[0100010001010011]

asked phone manufacturers LG, Samsung, and Sony and computer manufacturers Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, and Lenovo (which also owns phone manufacturer Motorola) whether they agreed with the government or Apple in the unfolding legal battle.

None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys. The FBI is asking for a software backdoor.

Google (those guys behind Android) has stood by Apple

Re:Ask the software guys.

[jonwil]

Google may make the core OS for Android devices but I can assure you that Samsung and HTC and LG and the other OEMs releasing Android devices do a lot of software work themselves. More to the point, it would be HTC or LG or Samsung or whoever that would need to produce a customized software stack with a backdoor in it if the FBI needed it, not Google (especially if the device the FBI wanted cracked would only run signed firmware)

Re:Ask the software guys.

[c]

None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys.

Well, that and the majority of Apple's hardware competitors aren't US companies, and hence operate under somewhat different legal environments; in some cases, legal environments where resisting government law enforcement efforts is suicide.

Microsoft is one of the few US competitors equivalent to Apple, and everyone knows where they stand on the security and privacy of their users.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[Overzeetop]

"They select the OS that they put on their device"

You mean like selecting KitKat or Lollipop or Marshmallow? What other mainstream, well-populated ecosystem exists outside of iOS and Android? Microsoft? Blackberry? Name me a successful consumer handset company which isn't "choosing" Android.

No - there's pretty much one choice if you don't plan on building entire, robust ecosystem from scratch (and you're not Apple).

Re: Ask the software guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read the Google tweets in their entirety, if you have not, before praising Google on this. The language used in those tweets provides enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[jonbryce]

It would be Samsung, not Google, that would have to bake a custom ROM in similar circumstances.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[aliquis]

No - there's pretty much one choice if you don't plan on building entire, robust ecosystem from scratch (and you're not Apple).

And that one my friends is: Symbian! ;D .. or Maemo/MeeGo/Tizen.

So.. Nokia.. I think I've found your future product and chance! ;D

Re:Ask the software guys.

[thegarbz]

None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys.

False. The other guys make enough OS customisations that they are well and truly in control of features to this level. Take a look at features like Samsung Knox to see what kind of security bolt-ons these vendors put on top of the features already in existence on Android. Many of these vendors also attempt to lock down the boot loader to prevent unauthorised code from running in ways that isn't part of the standard Android feature set so they most definitely do make major security changes to the OS before loading them on devices.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[AmiMoJo]

It's not the OS developer who can unlock the secure memory that holds the encryption key or disable the rate limiting/auto erase. It's the CPU manufacturer.

Samsung make their own CPUs. Most others use Qualcomm or Allwinner parts. Samsung and Allwinner are not US companies which complicates things a bit. Qualcomm didn't make the mistake of allowing the secure memory's firmware to be altered so couldn't comply anyway.

Re: Ask the software guys.

[Aighearach]

Yeah, if you wiggle hard enough while you read it, it almost looks like the words are wiggling. I kinda see your point. I guess I'd have to view it while riding in a bouncy truck to misconstrue the rest.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[UnknowingFool]

The amount of other software added by the OEMs is not the point. The point is that the bulk of hardware encryption software Android has is created by Google. But because Google does not control the hardware, Android cannot enforce the application of it. If the hardware is capable, an Android phone is every bit as locked down as an iPhone and there is little that Google or the OEM can do to unlock it.

Re: Ask the software guys.

[amiga3D]

I'm thinking Jobs made the right choice with Tim Cook. I own a Samsung phone but this makes me want an iPhone. To know a company stands up for it's customers against this kind of pressure renews my faith in humanity.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[amyreyna]

Do you know how to do this ? Or any article ? I'd like to try it in my android phone. I don't know if there is a way to lock up to hardware in Android phone

Re:Ask the software guys.

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

That could happen. If the U.S. mandates backdoors, the market (and some of the companies) will shift to countries where the policies are different. Of course we don't know the contents of TTIP which could have an effect on the ability of Finland to be one of those countries.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[aliquis]

That could happen. If the U.S. mandates backdoors, the market (and some of the companies) will shift to countries where the policies are different. Of course we don't know the contents of TTIP which could have an effect on the ability of Finland to be one of those countries.

I don't know if Iceland is part of TTIP, they aren't an EU member at-least.

Re:Ask the software guys.

[UnknowingFool]

The problem with Android is the variation in hardware means not all features in the OS are possible in a specific model. You can try these steps.

Why should they?

[Sneftel]

What good would it do them? Since Google has taken point on designing, evangelizing, and (recently) mandating strong, backdoor-less crypto -- actions they, along with most of the technologentsia, are firmly in favor of -- they can ride the wave of inevitability, rather than stick their neck out with broad anti-government pronouncements. Sometimes the best PR is no PR.

Really?

[rmdingler]

This is a win-win situation for competitor corporations who might find themselves ideologically aligned with Apple's stance, yet lack the political will to stand against the governors ubiquitous snooping.

If Apple wins, everyone of them win. If Apple loses, and they could, they lose alone.

Listen to the proffered positions of the pretenders to the Presidential nomination. To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.

Re: Really?

[ooloorie]

Whether Apple "wins" this fight or not is completely irrelevant to privacy or security. The only way to make sure that your data is secure is to make the technology secure, not to fight governments or subpoenas. That means that phone backups need to be encrypted with a pass phrase and biometric identifiers (including pins and pass codes) cannot be used as keys and need to be verified by a secure subsystem before performing decryption. Furthermore, in order to be sure that this works as advertised, it needs to be verifiable by users somehow.

Re:Really?

[FlyHelicopters]

To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.

That is only because most people like to have opinions on things they know nothing about.

I cannot begin to tell you how many non-pilots have strong opinions about aviation, helicopters, and all things flying, while having no idea whatsoever what they are talking about (I'm a professional pilot with commercial and instrument ratings in both airplanes and helicopters, a certified flight instructor in both airplanes and helicopters, with thousands of hours of flight time and over 2,000 hours of dual instruction given). Yet whenever major aviation stuff is in the news, they all like to talk like somehow they have a clue.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the tweet:

"Simple security rule of thumb: don't build encryption for how the world is today, but how it could be if Donald Trump were President." from Aaron Levie, CEO of Box

Re:Really?

[dbIII]

Yes but to those people treason is beating a Russian at chess without permission to play the match. Meanwhile a "patriot" sells weapons to terrorists less than a year after those terrorists have killed more than one hundred US Marines. Why should we care how people with such fucked up concepts call traitors since it comes down to people in their Party can do no wrong while people outside are seen as evil?

Re:Really?

[rmdingler]

Why should we care how people with such fucked up concepts call traitors since it comes down to people in their Party can do no wrong while people outside are seen as evil?

Well, we care because this stupidity is among us, and because what stupid people do en masse can sometimes affect the rest of us.

The point is simply that Apple has found itself on the same side of the privacy argument as many of us, but there are factions of citizens who couldn't care less or begin to understand what is actually at stake here.

Re:Really?

[Kjella]

This is a win-win situation for competitor corporations who might find themselves ideologically aligned with Apple's stance, yet lack the political will to stand against the governors ubiquitous snooping. If Apple wins, everyone of them win. If Apple loses, and they could, they lose alone.

First of all, corporations are rarely ideologically aligned to anything. Apple wants people to trust the iPhone so they'll buy iPhones. And post-Snowden, the more noise they can make about the US government not being able to crack it the better for world sales. Even if they lose, I think they'll still win by introducing the "iPhone Clipper Chip" edition for the US, creating an impossible situation where businessmen, tourists and others come to the US with uncrackable phones. I really doubt Apple gives a crap about this one phone, they know exactly what they're doing now by making a big deal out of it.

As for the political grandstanding, it'll always happen... take phone cameras, before anything like it would be considered spy cameras. Ask people about the potential for espionage, taking pictures of people in the shower, underage sexting and so on and they'll all agree that's terrible. But if you ask them if they'd really like to get rid of digital cameras and go back to huge, dedicated cameras with film rolls and processing labs, then hell no. We want the good, without the bad... and a free pony. Like we want the justice system to put all the bad men in jail, and we're angry with the ones that get away. And we're angry about innocent people being wrongfully convicted. We want a perfection we can't have.

Re:Really?

[rmdingler]

I know you're right. Often, smart people are the worst offenders, as if some skill or acumen in an unrelated field leaks over into all things.

Re:Really?

[rmdingler]

You're probably correct. I know this plays well for foreign sales.

But maybe some geek at the top of a tech superpower, who already has all the money he could ever spend, might just decide to stand for something he believes in.

Re:Really?

[tlambert]

To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.

That is only because most people like to have opinions on things they know nothing about.

You mean like "treason" being applicable, when the only currently outstanding and ratified articles of war that the U.S. has are versus North Korea?

Otherwise, you know, we'd be going against Wall Street for their "treason" committed during the "War On Poverty" (another ongoing war on a concept that the U.S. has "declared").

Re: Really?

[SuricouRaven]

"pulled out of stolen iPhones bought off of eBay"

Huh. So that's where they come from.

Re:Really?

[Aighearach]

A bit off-topic, but I'm going to love the debates in the general election when those candidates have to debate this against the backdrop of Snowden. Right now the Republican candidates are having a shouting contest over this only in the context of terrorism. In the general election, the broader issue of rights will be discussed, and they're going to have a hard time reconciling this standing across from somebody arguing that it violates people's rights. So far both the Democrats are refusing to "take a side" in the legal issue, but their response is also to talk about believing in privacy and supporting encryption rights. So as the shouting dies down, and the case matures a little, this is going to get more interesting than it is now.

Re:Really?

[Aighearach]

False, it is legally well-established that when Congress authorizes money for a military action, that is the "declaration" that the War Powers Resolution and other documents talks about. There is not, and never was, a Declaration of War Form that gets filled out. Congress doesn't like to use the word, but they still authorize wars.

As an example, the Authorization for use of Force against Terrorists of 2001 specifically says that it satisfies the declaration of war requirement, even though it doesn't use the term. Here is the type of language Congress uses when it explicitly declares war:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )

Law has to be learned by reading. It can't be learned by listening to complainers in a tavern.

The situation in Korea is that the UN declared war, not the US, and there was never a formal resolution at that level. US soldiers who fought in the Korean War were not fighting on the side of the US, or South Korea, they were fighting under the banner of the UN. It is hilarious that people not only bungle the status of US wars, but their one claimed exception doesn't even apply. It seems to be rooted in this mythical belief in a war declaration long form.

Re:Really?

[Aighearach]

Wait, you thought that violating sanctions against Serbia during crimes against humanity is only about not having "permission?" Wow.

People reading this should be aware that he is trying to say that Bobby Fischer was only charged with doing financial business in violation of sanctions, during a military conflict, because he didn't "get permission." No, it is because he was materially supporting crimes against humanity. Those crimes are not based on "permission." They are not crimes relating to contempt of cop, which is what you want to reduce it to.

As a rated tournament chess player, your attempt to re-write history disgusts me.

For people wondering, "WTF" this is what this is about:

United States District Court
for the District of Columbia

Holding a Criminal Term

Grand Jury Sworn on October 29, 1991

UNITED STATES of AMERICA

vs.

ROBERT JAMES FISCHER

Criminal No.
Grand Jury Original

Violation 50 USC 1701, 1702, and 1705

(International Emergency Economic Powers Act )

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury Charges that:

From on or about July 11, 1992 to on or about November 5, 1992, within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROBERT JAMES FISCHER, a United States person, did knowingly and willfully perform a contract in support of a commercial project in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), in that the defendant ROBERT JAMES FISCHER did enter into and perform a contract between the defendant, the Jugoskandic Company of Belgrade, Yugoslavia and Boris Spassky to participate in the "World Chess Championship Match" in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), for a cash purse of $5 million in United States currency and a percentage of revenues from the commercial gain as a result of the performance of the aforementioned contract.

( In violation of Title 50 USC 1701, 1702, and 1705 and Executive Order 12810)

How is violating sanctions somehow patriotic? Also note that we ended up going to war with Serbia, because the sanctions were not effective. This was a real conflict, and the sanctions were real sanctions. And they were clearly violated materially, it is not some innocent technicality.

Re:Really?

[amiga3D]

If they go by the Constitution then Apple wins. Lately though they've been trying to ignore that tired, old, outmoded document that limits their ability to rule over the surfs.

Re:Really?

[FlyHelicopters]

Law has to be learned by reading. It can't be learned by listening to complainers in a tavern.

And a whole lot of lawyers love to ignore the practical world of politics and reality.

Remind me again when the last time a non-military member was charged in the US with treason was.

Re:Really?

[Aighearach]

I didn't use the word "treason" in my comment. I was discussing the issue of when a war has or has not been declared, legally.

Remind me again what you're replying to?

Re:Really?

[AK Marc]

Treason is against "enemies" not "only states we are currently at open war with". It seems your definition is the broken one, not everyone else's

Re: Really?

[Aighearach]

China had had a civil war, and the place we now call Taiwan was the last stronghold of the old government; they were still recognized internationally as the government of China until 1971.

The Soviet Union (USSR) was not only helping North Korea, they were also boycotting the UN meetings over the "wrong" China being represented there.

Things were right on the edge as far as if the UN would survive. Most of those types of organizations had failed. However, if it failed most of the world would have simply been behind the US. Russia realized after Korea that they were better off if they attended the UN and made use of their vote; that's why that is the only major war ever authorized by the UN, and everything else military has been smaller peacekeeping missions with broad support.

They have made official statements backing Apple

[lseltzer]

Newsweek: Google and Microsoft Back Apple on Encryption Battle With FBI

Re:could it be

[Pax681]

Because they don't make iPhones, you dumb fuck.

WHOOSH!

Re:Because they don't store user data in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurr durr. All speculative nonsense. But yea it helps an Apple-hating narrative so Slashdotters will eat it up.

Why is someone silent?

[no-body]

Answer: NSL

case closed.

Re: Why is someone silent?

[jmac_the_man]

The answer is actually that "They aren't silent. Apple's two biggest competitors in the smartphone market are Google and Microsoft. Both have put out statements supporting Apple's position."

Re:Why is someone silent?

[mark-t]

The biggest issue I can see with NSL's is the non-disclosure aspect... to the point that you aren't even allowed to say why you won't talk about something even if you are directly asked, and what I can see being the biggest problem there is that can put a person in a position where the only way that they may be able to prevent revealing that they aren't allowed to talk about something (by explicitly avoiding talking about it if they are asked, for example, which may suggest to someone who pays attention to non-verbal cues that they are being compelled to not talk about it) is to make up some answer to what they are being asked that isn't true. In addition to potentially violating one's personal ethics on the matter of telling lies (which has potential to run afoul with the human right of freedom of religion), it can also require that the person possess certain levels of improvisational skills in order to convincingly tell such a lie, or else it may still be evident to whomever they are lying to that they *are* hiding something, and an observant person or someone who knows that person very well may still be able to conclude from this that they have been given a gag order.

Obviously, if they are never asked about it by anyone else, then there is no problem.... but this is not necessarily entirely within one's control... and easily the most problematic issue of such a gag order.

Re:They have made official statements backing Appl

[slashping]

Yes, that's what the summary said. It's the hardware makers that are quiet.

Only OEMs can offer hacker proof software?

[bogaboga]

I just have a question: Is it possible to download and install some software that will do exactly what Apple has done with their [iPhone] devices?

If so, let Apple do as they please then quietly advertise the availability of this software.

Re:Only OEMs can offer hacker proof software?

[wvmarle]

No, because (especially in current models) a major part of the encryption and related protections against brute forcing a key are engrained in the hardware. The best a software update could do is approach the iPhone 5 level (the kind of phone the FBI is now so desperate to unlock) of security.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a backdoor if the device is capable of installing new firmware without unlocking (or destroying the encryption keys) first.

Re:Because they don't store user data in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly disagree. As someone who's usually all for eating Apple-hating narrative, this particular one wasn't baked long enough; and I suspect that the ingredients had gone off, judging by all the fish-scented weaksauce used to mask the flavour.

Simple...

[Sebby]

They don't want to get accused that they're "just copying Apple".... again.

Re: They have made official statements backing App

[ArmoredDragon]

Well Microsoft does make phone hardware...but...lol.

The Early Bird May Get the Worm...

[Irate Engineer]

...but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.

They are watching Apple to see if they get hammered by the DOJ or win business due to not selling out their customer's privacy.

they probably don't have this problem

[ooloorie]

Based on what has come out over the last few days, it seems like there are two ways the FBI can access information on an iPhone: from the backups on Apple's servers and by disabling the limit on the number of passcode attempts in its OS without requiring the user to unlock it first. It's because of those two weaknesses that the FBI can order Apple to help them access information on a phone.

What's the situtaion with other phones? Hardware manufacturers don't handle Android backups, Google does. And Google seems to encrypt them. And in general, it doesn't seem to be possible to push phone software updates to Android phones without rebooting them, at which point a full pass code is required (of course, if you pick a weak one, that's your problem). In addition, any weakness would be specific to one manufacturer, not to all phones.

I think Apple's biggest problem is that they are a single, juicy target: compromise iOS and you have compromised half the phone and tablet users in the country. So, even if other manufacturers have similar weaknesses, they all require separate efforts to subvert, making life a lot tougher for people trying to invade our privacy.

Re:they probably don't have this problem

[Jeremi]

They have long needed a reason to give that they charge a large markup on their hardware compared to their competitors.

Actually, they don't need a reason. Plenty of people are happy to buy their product already, without them needing to come up with any new motivations for people to do so.

I know it's tough for the haters to accept, but they produce a quality product that people are willing to pay a premium for.

Re:they probably don't have this problem

[jonbryce]

You have to reboot for an iOS update as well. However, the update would let you try all 10,000 pin combinations if the FBI had their way.

Re:they probably don't have this problem

[ooloorie]

You have to reboot for an iOS update as well. However, the update would let you try all 10,000 pin combinations if the FBI had their way.

The issue isn't whether you have to reboot the phone, but whether you have to unlock it for the upgrade and how they implement the unlock count. This is complicated because there are many different ways of implementing it. But whichever way you look at it, a secure system must guarantee that no matter what an external user does, you get to try your pin combinations only 10 times before the system requires a full password.

Re:could it be

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the WHOOSH. Not to say the Feds are smarter right?

My prognostication:

Feds said: Open the device
Apple said: We cant do that. I.E even if we could why the hell would we do it for you? BTW you're the damn Feds with all these cool tools right?
Feds said: Errr yeah errr no errrr. You do it :)
Apple said: Erm no stop trying to privatize surveillance with us you fucksticks now cram it.

They'll will ask again dance around it and forget the discussion happened. Rest assured they already have the data. This is a media spectacle is all about "break the law now based on Legal precedent we'll set in the future" type situation. These guys are just prepping us for the onslaught ...

Re: The government voluntarily gave up their righ

[Hawks]

Getting the new password won't allow them to use the known iCloud backup work around for the encryption. The iPhone has the old iCloud password stored in its keychain. The current iCloud password, even if revealed to the FBI is different. The iCloud encryption work around is due to the iPhone doing an automatic backup sync to the iCloud account. This will not work if the iPhone's stored password doesn't match the current iCloud password. With out being able to unlock the phone, they can't change the iCloud password on it to match the current actual iCloud password. Its also not feasible to change the current iCloud password back to what is stored on the iPhone, as I'm sure the password reset didn't expose the old password.

So go ahead, get the new password from the IT individual who changed it, he would probably give it up with out a warrant, it won't help the FBI get into the phone.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[pauljlucas]

If you bothered to read any of the news articles, Apple currently doesn't have that capability. What the FBI is asking for is to update iOS on the phone with a custom version that removes the time delay between unsuccessful passcode attempts, the 10-try limit before wiping the phone, and a way to enter passcodes via the lightning connector rather than the keypad --- all of this so the FBI can brute-force unlock the phone.

Because they have already been compromised

[RogueWarrior65]

Just a theory but there are some 4000 Android devices from 400 different manufacturers using who knows what version of Android that may or may not be in the original form since it's open source.

Laugh

[koan]

They already know how it's going to turn out, because it is all just theatre, Apple will comply again because they already have complied in the past.

Apple just want their consumers to keep believing in the myth of Apple.

Re:Laugh

[SeaFox]

They already know how it's going to turn out, because it is all just theatre, Apple will comply again because they already have complied in the past.

That was with older versions of iOS that had weaker security. Since iOS 8 Apple has not had the same degree of access.

Re:this is a criminal investigation vs two decease

[koan]

Apple knows this, Apple is putting on a big show for their customers "we care about your privacy", they picked this battle to lose, in effect losing allows them to maintain "face" with their customers and comply with the FED's request.

This was planned, this is theatre, and you really shouldn't be buying Apple products.

Because a backdoor damages Apple

[Mr. Jackson]

One of the big reasons to spend $600 on an iphone instead of $100 on an Android is privacy and security. I need a smartphone about $100 worth, but I was just about to bite the bullet and get an iphone because of the phone's built-in encryption and Apple's pro-privacy policy. Now I'm going to wait and see. A backdoor into iphone makes me less likely to fork over the extra money, to the good of Apple's competitors.

Re:Because a backdoor damages Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what I think he's saying is that he'd rather pay $100 for an insecure phone, than $600. If that $600 phone was secure (whatever that means in this context), but the $100 wasn't, buy the expensive one. If they are both subject to compromises, buy the cheaper. Makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Because a backdoor damages Apple

[gweihir]

And you are not the only one thinking that way. The only thing Apple does better is security and privacy. Other than that, there is no reason to get an iPhone (except maybe "lifestyle", i.e. it is a fetish). Apple stands to lose big-time here if they cave. The problem really is that the FBI does not ask them to unlock just this one phone, they are demanding a tool that would allow them to get into any similar iPhone (not the newer ones though), and Apple has to refuse in order to protect their reputation.

Whether they do this out of a sense of duty to their customers or whether they want to protect their future business is entirely immaterial. Both are fully acceptable desires for a corporation and in this case they coincide.

Re:Because a backdoor damages Apple

[Aighearach]

It is probably modded down because it conflates access to the data stored on the phone with access to the data stored in a iCloud account.

Users who care about privacy have different expectations of cloud data than they do for data that is stored on physical devices they own and exclusively control.

Re:this is a criminal investigation vs two decease

[belthize]

They haven't been given a 'lawful order' they've been given a 'strongly worded request'. There is precedent for what Apple is being asked to do and the precedent is they can say 'fuck off'.

They're not being asked to present data they have access to, they're being told to provide a mechanism to extract data. Picture a tech company that specializes in image manipulation and they make cameras. One of their cameras has a security still of a suspect. The government can ask that they turn over the still, they can not compel the company to write new software to manipulate that still.

The govermnent has the phone, in fact there's evidence they borked things up by attempting to change the password. They want the data on it they can knock themselves out. If they succeed in extracting the data then phone manufacturers need to step up their security. If they fail then things are working as intended.

Compels me

[stud9920]

Unless you're a recluse old spinster portrayed by Kathy Bates, how can you force anyone, let alone a corporation, to write something. Will they also maim the guy if the produced work is not up to the expected?

I could understand forcing spec & design disclosure, but *write* something ?

Re:Compels me

[tlambert]

Unless you're a recluse old spinster portrayed by Kathy Bates, how can you force anyone, let alone a corporation, to write something.

It's more likely that anyone who starts working on it might accidentally get hit by a bus.

Re:Compels me

[gweihir]

That is pretty much Apple's point. Apple basically says "we think we could, but we think very strongly we should not, so fuck off".

Re: Looks kind of bad

[mark-t]

So basically, if Apple can do it at all, then the backdoor already exists, and is already awaiting exploitation.

Re:They are Collaborators

[sasparillascott]

Now, now lets not have any name calling...he's just stating common sense. The other mfrs take the base Android stack and modify it (extensively at a low level) to work with their hardware and make the ROM image and with that (or the hardware itself) you can insert any backdoor you want.

An example we know about is our friend Lenovo using the PC ROM they modified to install their phone home spyware onto your PC after you do a clean install - it was Windows but something similar or worse could be done in Android if the mfrs felt they should (by govt suggestion perhaps):
http://arstechnica.com/informa...

Most of the other smartphone mfrs are keeping quiet because they are friendly with their Governments - Samsung (I have a Galaxy S5) for example is very close to the South Korean Govt (who is a good partner with the USA and in particular its military and intelligence apparatus). Microsoft is very friendly with the U.S. government and a "partner" with the NSA and they certainly won't protest this either. Cause they would line up with their govts not their customers.

It's important to look at the big picture, from a business standpoint it makes sense to work with your govt and their desire to spy on their citizens as they control your market access. Frankly its odd that Apple is doing this from a purely business perspective, from a moral perspective it makes sense - but most companies don't care about moral issues and will faithfully line up with their govts surveilance apparatus when the call comes no matter the consequences for their cutsomers / citizenry. Remember all those German companies that closed up shop and moved out of country in the 30's after the Nazi's were elected? Yeah, most just shrugged and fell in line. That is exactly what is happening (and what would be expected to happen) in this fight over privacy - if the govts want to surveil the population of the planet (which they do), most smartphone companies will ask how they can help.

US Government Should Post an Ad

[retroworks]

Hire some ex-Apple employees to hack this phone. It's a job, and the government has every right to crack THAT phone. But Apple shouldn't be the only people in the world who can do it, and shouldn't be forced to. Surely if he government pays someone enough money, they can do whatever Apple would do half-heartedly

Re:US Government Should Post an Ad

[MillionthMonkey]

Former employees would probably be liable to a civil suit if they did this. I'm pretty sure Apple makes you sign legal documents when you get a job there.

Re:US Government Should Post an Ad

[gweihir]

O ye of simple minds. The issue here is not cracking that single phone.

Re:US Government Should Post an Ad

[Aighearach]

Contracts don't trump laws, and the investigative actions of law enforcement are authorized by laws. The lawsuit you contemplate would not be legally possible. If there was something that could go to court in that scenario, the government agency would have to be a named defendant, and the former Apple employee would only have to show that they thought the government had authorized... what they had authorized. If it wasn't in their power to authorize it, that doesn't pass through to the civilian as legal liability unless that person would have known it was illegal; and we already know we're talking about engineers, not lawyers, so there is no expectation that they would know the government lawyers were wrong.

More likely, being a former employee wouldn't actually help because engineers don't memorize all the datasheets for all the chips they've worked with in their careers. ;) I'm not a bigshot Apple engineer, but if I'm writing firmware I have to keep some of the header files, datasheets, and other documentation open while I'm writing it; even reading it an hour ago isn't good enough.

Re:US Government Should Post an Ad

[PhunkySchtuff]

Unless they jailbreak the phone (which is pretty risky given what is at stake) they can not update the firmware on the device without it being signed by Apple's keys. Writing the code to extract the data from the phone would not be that difficult for someone familiar with the inner workings of the phone. Getting it to run on the phone without being signed by Apple's keys is another thing altogether.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[fustakrakich]

If you bothered to read any of the news articles, Apple currently doesn't have that capability.

Too good to be true, I believe is the phrase....

Let's look at a few great reasons to stay quiet...

[Dzimas]

Let's look at a few good reasons to stay silent if you're an Apple competitor.

1. Apple's competitors are based in South Korea and China. They're going to have a much harder time arguing privacy with the US government.
2. Apple has lots of money and excellent legal counsel. They'll put up a better fight than their competitors possibly could.
3. Staying silent won't piss off any American lobby groups, and it probably won't piss off the American general public.
4. This could be a PR nightmare if someone mis-words something. You don't want to accidentally paint yourself as pro-terrorist.
5. There's no obvious win here. If the corporations win and privacy remains paramount, eventually someone is going to do something awful that involves encrypted communication. At that point, the corporations look bad. If the government wins, things could devolve into 1984 if the wrong people ascend to power.

This is simple

[slashmydots]

Is WinZip responsible for cracking passwords that their customers' set on their zip files? No! That's their product and that's what their product does. It's a security and privacy product so naturally the company doesn't "hold the keys" or put in a backdoor. All cellphone makers should leave encryption in the hands of the customer and tell the FBI to fuck off.

Re:This is simple

[PhunkySchtuff]

Exactly. As the phone is owned by the San Bernadino Health Department, why are they rolling out phones to employees without any proper MDM solution in place that would allow them to, among other things, unlock the phone even if they don't know the user's PIN/passcode?
If the customer (San Bernadino Health Department) had have set it all up properly to begin with, this would all be moot.

What happens if Apple cooperates, but fails?

[mark-t]

What happens if Apple tries to cooperate, attempts to write a version of iOS that will do what the FBI wants, and the result does not work? What if it takes a long time to write? Who compensates Apple for the programmers' time while that tool is being developed, tested, and debugged? What if the code they make accidentally has bugs that cause data loss on the device that simply were not exposed during QA testing?

Re:What happens if Apple cooperates, but fails?

[wierdling]

The United States tax payers are going to foot the bill for this if it happens. Apple is allowed to bill the F.B.I. for reasonable costs. So we get to pay for our own screwing.

reputation

[surd1618]

Apple's reputation is riding on their premium hardware and services, for which they charge premium prices. Their competitors are cheaper, and don't have the same quandary of keeping customers based on being better.

Re:reputation

[jonbryce]

Samsung's flagship products cost around the same as the equivalent Apple products.

Re:reputation

[surd1618]

But they don't have the exclusive software.
Apple made $17 billion revenue from apps

Oh really?

[Acid-Duck]

Y'all must of missed this one from 3 days ago:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

FBI wants less than China, but..

[dAzED1]

Maybe the rest of them can see that they, and Apple, have all done a lot more for China and they, unlike Apple, don't want to draw too much attention to it only to look like hypocritical oafs that would rather do China's bidding so that political dissidents can be silenced, than to do something where it almost (but not quite) would make sense to do something like this in a free society. Fark Apple, trying to pretend they have a moral high-ground here. Maybe we should just ask China for help hacking the phone, since Apple gave them the source code, back doors, and manufacturing of the device...

Re: Looks kind of bad

[thegarbz]

Only if that capability has the capability to decrypt the data. A back door is something that bypasses the cryptographic requirements of encrypted data. None such method exists, even if you are capable of loading custom firmware.

Not surprising

[yet another SanTiago]

Either the encryption is done properly and Apple is not able to decrypt it regardless of any court decision, or it is sham encryption, Apple is able to decrypt it (by say hacking the TPM containing the key) Apple knows it and it avoids the court decision as acknowledging ability do decrypt it would mean confessing to deceiving users about security of Iphones.

That is the reason why competitors are silent - either the court decision is irrelevant, or Apple is cheater.

Re:Not surprising

[gnasher719]

Either the encryption is done properly and Apple is not able to decrypt it regardless of any court decision, or it is sham encryption, Apple is able to decrypt it (by say hacking the TPM containing the key) Apple knows it and it avoids the court decision as acknowledging ability do decrypt it would mean confessing to deceiving users about security of Iphones.

The encryption is safe. Even if the FBI gets what they want they'd have to try 10,000 different passcodes. They want two features turned off: One is a growing delay after each incorrect password attempt. After a few wrong passcodes, you have to wait until you can try the next one. A delay of 1 minute would mean up to 10,000 minutes or a week day and night enterning passcodes. What's worse is that after ten wrong attempts all the data on the phone is erased. You can turn these two features on on the iPhone. You don't have to, but apparently the criminal has.

Had he used a six digit passcode, there would be a million combinations. You can take eight digits + letters if you want. Nobody can break the encryption without the right passcode. What the FBI wants is for Apple to make it possible to brute force the passcode.

Re:Not surprising

[yet another SanTiago]

When i wrote about encryption, i don't mean just the symmetric cipher, but the whole cryptographic chain. AFAIK, there is a randomly generated 256-bit key stored in some HSM (hardware security module) inside iPhone and user just enters passcode to open it. The limitation of password attempts is likely enforced by HSM, not by iOS (that would be lame). HSMs are supposted to be tamper-proof even from the OS.

If Apple can force OS update and that update could either extract real key from memory or from the HSM, or cripple HSM's ability to protect the key, then it is sham encryption.

Re:this is a criminal investigation vs two decease

[tlambert]

Ignoring the fact that this is a criminal investigation, Dead people have very little in the way of "rights"

Then they won't mind using the dead guy's finger to unlock the phone without a passcode.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[gnasher719]

So basically, if Apple can do it at all, then the backdoor already exists, and is already awaiting exploitation.

Absolutely not. To exploit this, you'd first have to write working iPhone firmware. You know, firmware that can boot the iPhone and make it run. Obviously firmware with the passcode security removed. That's difficult. Even say the Samsung engineers that built the firmware for the Samsung phones would have a huge problem doing that, because they can talk to the Samsung hardware engineers but not to Apple's hardware engineers.

Then comes the minor problem that this firmware must be codesigned with Apple's must secretly kept key. How do you get access to that? Let's take again Samsung's firmware engineers, because they are likely among the people in the world most capable of doing this. At this point, they would be stuck. They have no chance to build any firmware that an iPhone would even consider loading, because they lack Apple's firmware signing key.

Now if Apple _builds_ and _signs_ that firmware, then you do have an exploit that just has to find its way in the open.

Waitaminnit! Privacy is only a tiny part ot this.

[mileshigh]

Why aren't big USERS like banks not freaking out?

Authentication and tamper-proofing are built on encryption, too. Privacy is indisputably very important, but much of the modern world couldn't even exist without trustworthy authentication and communication. Those are built on the same technology (including encryption) as privacy.

For example, when bank computers are talking (between banks, or even just internally), they need to be 100.0000% certain who they're talking to and that the message received is the same as the one that was sent. It's flat-out impossible to do that on a large scale without encryption. Otherwise, they'd end up talking to impostors, or some "man in the middle" could just add a few extra zeros to that bank transfer. The same goes for control centers talking to hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors, traffic lights, etc.

If we establish precedents that could lead to more encryption backdoors, those will get out sooner or later, as surely as the air in your car's tires eventually escapes. Then you can watch the carnage when traffic lights show green on all sides, floods when dams open all their floodgates simultaneously, and the pandemonium when banks have to turn off credit card readers and ATMs. I'm not ready to go back to standing in line at the bank for cash, or wait for sales clerks to phone in every credit card transaction for authorization.

Really, a "security" organization like the FBI want to roll the dice on this? Newsflash: there are highly-motivated, well-financed bad people out there who will exploit any security weaknesses for financial and political reasons, or just for the hell of it. And they'll spy, bribe, blackmail, extort, kidnap, torture, and threaten families to get those backdoors if they're there to be had.

Re: isn't it obvious?

[ZeroWaiteState]

You mean like all the pedophile engineers at Belgian telecom, or the terrorist copyright-infringer Angela Merkel, or the gangbangers at Anmesty International? They have to be criminals if they're hiding something, right?

Mcafee says he'll do it

[kencurry]

In three weeks. Bet Tim Cook got a good chuckle from that.

Re: Waitaminnit! Privacy is only a tiny part ot th

[ZeroWaiteState]

That's the same point I've been making for a while now. If you can weaken encryption, then you can often use the same tools to weaken HMAC. That bit is why you can sleep comfortably at night without having to worry about your internet-connected appliances trying to murder you in your sleep; firmware increasingly is digitally signed to prevent forgery. Give one government the ability to turn on the microphone on any smart TV and you give it to all governments who have access to a legal process to compel it. USG couldn't kill the market any quicker if they tried.

Silence from Apple's Competitors?

[mschwanke97402]

Well, I would imagine that Samsung already scrapes all the data they can from their Galaxy phones running their customized versions of Android. You know the Chinese manufacturers already include the government mandated backdoor. So their silence on the matter is no major surprise. It is hard to tell someone you can't give them a cookie when they can see your hand in the cookie jar.

Google's recent statement is nice to see and a bit surprising as we all know they capture every single byte of your data for analysis in order to server you tastier adverts. On the other hand they'll never be asked to unlock a secure phone as they wouldn't need to actually unlock it...

Re:Let's look at a few great reasons to stay quiet

[poisonborz]

"someone is going to do something awful that involves encrypted communication. At that point, the corporations look bad." What? People do awful things with encrypted communication centuries. Tell me one event that would make general society and the media say "well, ok, the government can listen to all our communications from now on". It can never be justified. Frankly, setting up strong, practically uncrackable communication channels is too easy (and free) to not be the default.

Check your facts

[itsdapead]

the Error 53 thing has been disabled, and now, as long as you have an electronic copy of someone's fingerprint, you can pretty much unlock their device.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but:

If Touch ID on your device didn't work before you saw error 53, the feature still won't work after you update or restore your device. Contact Apple Support to ask about service options for Touch ID.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205628

Also see virtually every other site that reported the error 53 fix.

TL:DNR: Disabling Touch ID when an unauthorised repair is made was intentional and hasn't changed. Bricking the entire phone so you couldn't even unlock it with your passcode was a bug, which is what has been fixed.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[SuricouRaven]

It's encrypted, but with a very short key length: It's a four-digit pin, only 10,000 possible keys. The security is dependant upon trusting the hardware and firmware to do the auto-wipe after too many failures.

They are not American companies.

[mauriceh]

And, since this is an American legal matter, this is not any part of their business.
And, since China mainly wants the same thing as the U.S. government, they are against apple on this.
Voicing that could produce a backlash by some consumers, so they are better off keeping quiet on the subject.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

If you bothered to read any of the news articles, Apple currently doesn't have that capability. What the FBI is asking for is to update iOS on the phone with a custom version that removes the time delay between unsuccessful passcode attempts, the 10-try limit before wiping the phone, and a way to enter passcodes via the lightning connector rather than the keypad --- all of this so the FBI can brute-force unlock the phone.

What are you talking about..?

I said:

The fact that Apple even (seemingly) has the capability to assist in the decryption of the phone is appalling. Bad security.

And you say:

Apple currently doesn't have that capability. What the FBI is asking for is to update iOS on the phone with a custom version that removes the time delay between unsuccessful passcode attempts

And that's exactly what i described in my comment. If Apple has the capability to assist in the decryption of the phone. It doesn't mean it would need to be possible with an existing solution, it's enough if there is and/or has always been a known way to do it.

It's bad security when security measures can be bypassed one way or another. The ability to bypass the 10 try limit with the help of Apple effectively renders the encryption of all existing iPhones completely useless. 99.99% of the iPhones out there could be decrypted at will by anyone in the position to mandate Apple to provide assistance in doing it.

One thing is for sure now: Apple's credibility as a secure product has crumbled to dust. If it's not the encryption that's holding the government out of users' data but rather the rulings of rubber stamp courts, that's no secure product.

This isn't a 4th amendment issue, it's a 1st.

[bugnuts]

Apple is being compelled to create speech in violation of the first amendment. It's not an issue of if they can do it. Unlike previous cases such as the Elayne Photography case when a photographer asserted first amendment rights against photographing a wedding where the couple was gay, the photographer hung out her shingle as a business for photographing weddings. Gays are protected in the state where this happened.

In this case, Apple is in the business of selling iphones, not selling custom firmware for iphones. They can't restrict sale from gays, for example, but forcing them to create custom firmware for random customers is not their business. Not to mention, the FBI isn't exactly a protected class, nor is apple refusing based on the fact they're FBI. They're refusing because they won't do it for anyone.

There were other cases where a 1st amendment defense wouldn't work, such as lavabit where they were handed a piece of equipment and ordered to install it.

Re:This isn't a 4th amendment issue, it's a 1st.

[Aighearach]

The funny part is that the NY pen trap case that the FBI is citing goes into the exact stuff you say here; the order was legal because the phone company already used the tool for internal fraud prevention, and for customers who wanted to trace their own lines. The SCOTUS decision had a dissent that warned of this exact future problem; the majority ruling asserted that this wouldn't be a problem in the future, and that it was obvious that it wouldn't apply more broadly.

My prediction is that the SCOTUS will back up both sides of that by overturning this ruling, and saying that the old precedent already prevents it.

Re:The government voluntarily gave up their rights

[gweihir]

Why aren't, for something as important as the loss of 14 innocent people, the people / person responsible for resetting
the password criminally charged?

The people responsible are FBI agents (they did not reset the password, but they requested it to be done). In a police-state, members of the police are never charged with anything, unless it can absolutely not be avoided, e.g. if a policeman murders somebody in cold blood and unfortunately a citizen filmed that and has already posted it online and it has been seen by a lot of people. Other than that, forget about police ever being charged with anything in the US.

Re:soul of the business

[gweihir]

It also has a CEO that knows if things get too bad he will be one of those that go to the concentration camps for "sexual deviancy". It always helps if a threat is not only abstract. And yes, Apple does have a soul. Even a dark-gray one is far better than what most corporations and all governments have these days.

Re:this is a criminal investigation vs two decease

[gweihir]

Alternatively, they think they have a pretty good chance of showing that this order is not "lawful" at all. We call that a police-state where the police believes not to be bound by laws anymore.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[pauljlucas]

Except it would be assisting ONLY with suppressing the anti-brute-force measures and NOT with the actual decryption as you stated. If the phone is protected by an alphanumeric passphrase instead of an ordinary PIN, it would still take the FBI a while to brute-force it.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the difference between a 'backdoor' and a 'vulnerability'. The system clearly has a vulnerability, which is a bit bad, but then most systems have many vulnerabilities. This becomes a backdoor if Apple deliberately put it there in a way so that they could get in easily. This doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:Because they don't store user data in China?

[Aighearach]

Apple doesn't claim to protect the rebellion from the government, they claim to not be in the business of hacking phones or writing custom firmware to do so. They claim the data on the phone is very private and nobody can access it without the password, and the data on the cloud is less private but requires a legit government request according to local customs. Of course China can get access to data stored on servers in China. Duh.

Why try to shout BS when you knew you didn't have the details? Oh, right, you're just here to shout "China Scary!"

Re:Apple Should Unlock it.

[gweihir]

This person is rather obviously advertising a scam. Stay away.

Re:Because they don't store user data in China?

[Aighearach]

No, actually if you read slashdot you'd know that most of us do hate Apple, and yet Apple is in the legal right on this issue. They're still a elitist walled garden that I not only wouldn't be seen in, my stuff wouldn't even work there because I won't use proprietary toolsets.

I can hate Apple at the same time that I point out they're in the right on this case, that the cases the FBI cites actually support Apple if you read the rulings, and that this will get overturned on appeal. I can hate them at the same time I speak out in defense of their right to choose their own stinky speech, they shouldn't have to substitute the FBI's stinky speech for their own. I can hate them at the same time that I acknowledge that software is speech, even if I think that software shouldn't be covered by copyright. I can hate them at the same time that I recognize that they don't write custom firmware to hack phones as part of their business, and that they don't have or want to have the tool for use in their own internal processes.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[UnknowingFool]

One of Apple's arguments is that they don't really have the capability but they are being compelled to do so assist anyways. Another point is that if they could do what the government asks, it is not a good thing for a number of reasons.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[UnknowingFool]

The question again is whether Apple is technically capable of doing so. That might require Apple to devise a way to update the phone's firmware and software without the consent of Farook. Technically the owner of the phone is San Bernandino county if I remember the details of the case but it was Farook who set the password. Now if Farook set the phone to auto-update, that would far easier. That sets the precedent then that the FBI can ask Apple or anyone to lower the encryption safeguards set by any citizen.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[Aighearach]

So basically, if Apple can do it at all, then the backdoor already exists, and is already awaiting exploitation.

The difference is the same as the difference between:
The house has a backdoor.
The house has enough space between the support beams to design and install a back door, but you'd have to know where the wiring and plumbing is first.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.

Your signature is a tad funny in this context. :-)

Here's what I said in my original comment:

If Apple has the capability to assist in the decryption of the phone.

Without Apple's help the FBI would most likely not be able to brute force the passcode. If, however, Apple assists them by providing a custom ROM, they'd be able to bypass a core security feature that prevents brute forcing the passcodes. Brute forcing iPhones' passcode is trivial since who uses a passcode of any meaningful length in their iPhone? They'd have to enter it every 15 minutes or so if they want to use their phone. Entering a 20+ character passcode that often just to read your texts or browse the Internet is a huge nuisance. And iPhone users, after all, have been confident that there is a mechanism that prevents brute forcing passcodes anyway.

If it's possible to bypass the passcode try limit, it's huge. It's bad and it's hugely bad. It doesn't even mean that Apple would have to help the FBI at this point to lose a lot of credibility. Everybody thought it was not possible in any way, but it seems Apple has had this capability since day-1.

Before the iPhone 6 series phones were released, the default passcode length was 4 digits (numbers). I personally have *never* met anyone who uses alphanumeric characters in their iPhone passcodes. If the majority of passcodes in modern iPhones is between 4-10 digits, that'll take a fraction of a second or a few seconds at most to brute force on the phone itself. And if it's somehow possible to extract the passcode hash from the phone, it doesn't matter if you use even 15–16 alphanumeric characters.

Here's what Apple has said in their official statement:

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

If this isn't Apple being forced to assist in the decryption of the phone we live in different dimensions.

Re: The government voluntarily gave up their right

[Aighearach]

Silly rabbit, it wasn't anybody worried about protecting evidence or trained in that, it was a county health worker worried that confidential health department data might be on the phone. The standard practice is to reset the password... so that you can wipe the device, not so that you can preserve it.

Re:They are Collaborators

[Aighearach]

This is the statement that MS endorsed:

Reform Government Surveillance companies believe it is extremely important to deter terrorists and criminals and to help law enforcement by processing legal orders for information in order to keep us all safe. But technology companies should not be required to build in backdoors to the technologies that keep their users' information secure. RGS companies remain committed to providing law enforcement with the help it needs while protecting the security of their customers and their customers' information.

Just because they support certain government activities doesn't mean they would have to support other ones. Maybe in some countries that seems natural, but it doesn't work that way in the US. Companies, and people, take positions on each issue independently. It is not a requirement to join a team and then be on their side on every issue.

You seem to admit you don't understand the business case; what if customers have choice, and customers like privacy? Does that clarify the business case? Did German customers in the 1930s have lots of choice? Could they simply choose companies that respected their privacy, or was that choice not available?

Re:Never interrupt your opponent

[Aighearach]

In chess if your opponent dies during the game, the result is a draw. If you think you're winning and your opponent is trying to commit suicide, it is in your best interests to stop him; it might be his one way to save the game!

Re:This is like a person owning an "uncrackable" s

[Aighearach]

Can a court order compell a safe manufacturer to assist the authorities with opening a safe that may contain private papers belonging to the person charged with a crime, in this case a deceased person who can't provide the combination to open it?

According to the cases that the FBI is actually citing, the Court can only compel that action if the safe manufacturer already offers the service requested. If they offer the service, for example to living customers, or as part of a repair or warranty program, or internally for "refurbishing," then the court can compel it. If they didn't already offer the service, then they could not.

That's the NY case that appears to support the FBI... if you only read a one-paragraph short explanation without reading the ruling.

Apple losing would give many of them an advantage

[ukoda]

Non-US phone manufactures are not going to upset people by going on record but an Apple loose would be good form them. Sure if Apple is forced to put a back-door in so will the others, but only on USA sold product. Apple would have to back door all phones it sold world wide. The non-US phone companies probably sell more outside the US than they do in the US and on the world market they would have the advantage of being able to offer a secure phone against insecure US models.

Boasting about that advantage before it existed would be bad PR for them. This potential future disadvantage is also probably significant factor in Apple standing against the US government, it could cost then significant sales in future.

Re:Waitaminnit! Privacy is only a tiny part ot thi

[Aighearach]

Banks don't care about privacy, they care about contracts and liabilities and stuff like that that is not secret.

Customer confidentiality is not privacy; they are expected to protect the customers information from the general public, but it is assumed that it isn't private data and that lots of people at the bank and in the government are reviewing transactions as needed.

I've written code for a (foreign) bank interchange system, and I think you're engaged in magical thinking about the way the network communication is handled. They're way more focused on defining liability and having insurance that covers losses than they are concerned about actually locking down their communications and preventing any theft. ATMs are broken into frequently, and large sums are stolen from banking networks.

The code I was asked to write didn't have any encryption, and they laughed at me when I suggested it. Everything gets audited at both ends later, they can just fix the numbers. The same theft won't happen repeatedly, because it requires inside access, and they have to flee with the money before the ongoing internal audits find the discrepancy. That makes it manageable.

Nothing to do with competitors

[melting_clock]

The "backdoor" here is that Apple can push software changes to iphones without the owner's permission or authorisation. That should allow Apple to do what has been asked, i.e. removing the incorrect password limit and delay between attempts. It doesn't mean that Apple can break the encryption but the will definitely make it easily for someone to brute force it. As long as Apple maintains remote access capabilities to customer devices they will be open to this sort of court order.

Unfortunately, Google has similar capabilities with Android which gives them an interest. Most of the Android manufacturers do not have that capability. It is possible to root an Android device and lock it down in a way that blocks Google or install a custom ROM that excludes Google services and apps. Installing strong encryption and using a strong password, not some stupid 4 digit code, would make your device safe. Encrypting without closing the remote access hole is nothing more than the illusion of security.

Re:Looks kind of bad

[ubeatha]

I think the interesting point is that the FBI is asking Apple. Undoubtedly, other arms of the US government have this ability. NSA's Tailored Access group could do it. The case is explicitly about forcing Apple to do it. And that in itself is interesting. The US Government could do this but it wants to set the precedent that it can bully companies into doing it for them. Witch tells me it has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[thegarbz]

It's encrypted, but with a very short key length:

So what you're saying is it's user error for net setting up an appropriate length passcode?

To be clear I don't agree Apple should do it. In fact I'm dead set against it. But calling it a backdoor or calling it weakening the encryption is fundamentally incorrect.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[SuricouRaven]

It's more a usability limitation: Do you want to have to enter a fifteen-character alpha-numer-symbolic passcode every time you want to use your phone?

Re: Looks kind of bad

[ooloorie]

It's encrypted, but with a very short key length: It's a four-digit pin, only 10,000 possible keys.

The PIN isn't the encryption key.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[ooloorie]

A back door is something that bypasses the cryptographic requirements of encrypted data.

A "back door" can be many things: it can be a weakness in the cryptographic algorithms, but it can also be a weakness in they keyring or even just failing to clear memory somewhere. Apple's devices appear to have a weak keyring.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[ooloorie]

It's more a usability limitation: Do you want to have to enter a fifteen-character alpha-numer-symbolic passcode every time you want to use your phone?

No, that's not how it works. The PIN is not the encryption key, it is simply an identifier the user uses to identify himself to the device. The actual encryption key is a 256 bit key that you never see and that's inaccessible and inside the hardware.

PINs are secure as long as the hardware strictly enforces a limit on the number of authentication attempts; after that number of attempts, the system either needs to erase the keyring (and/or device), or it needs to switch to PUK or pass phrase authentication. Some hardware does this (e.g., SIM cards), but on Apple hardware, the limit can apparently be circumvented.

That's a shame, given how much Apple seems to have invested in special hardware to support encryption on their devices. http://www.darthnull.org/2014/...

Re: Looks kind of bad

[SuricouRaven]

I could have explained in detail about how the key management works, but I was trying to keep it brief. The important thing is that they have the phone, need the pin to access it, and security is dependant upon the phone being designed only to behave in a certain way.

Re: Looks kind of bad

[ooloorie]

You said It [the data] is encrypted, but with a very short key length: It's a four-digit pin, only 10,000 possible keys.. That's not "keeping it brief", it's simply wrong. The data is not encrypted with a very short key length. The data is encrypted with a 256 bit key.

Re:Waitaminnit! Privacy is only a tiny part ot thi

[mileshigh]

That may be the situation in your neck of the woods, but I assure you that most banks do take locking down their communications very seriously. I've informally heard of big messes that all the bank's horses and all the bank's men couldn't untangle.

All that goes double for the people doing SCADA (industrial system control and data acquisition) for hydro dams, power plants and other systems that could kill people or cause major disasters. They weren't always that careful, but they're now getting religion.

Re:Waitaminnit! Privacy is only a tiny part ot thi

[Aighearach]

If you didn't even read it close enough to know if I was talking about "my neck of the woods" or not, then how do you even know what the "situation" is that you're agreeing to?

I assure you that the banks in my area are much more precise in their communication and security.

I see a lot of proclamations from around the world about the security of dams and power plants, why is it that the security people point out that they are barely secured at all, and always complaining loudly about it?

Reading a bookshelf between the lines?

[dbIII]

I wrote what I wrote and not what you appear to think I wrote.
A lot of people, mainly on one side of politics, were calling it treason.
A bit over the top don't you think?

Your bit pretending that I condone his actions is something you made up yourself. What I do not condone is people who want to inflate a chess game to the level of treason.

Re:Reading a bookshelf between the lines?

[Aighearach]

You're the one who claimed straight out that I "pretended" you "condone his actions" when in fact I claimed that you introduced the claim into this context all on your own. And you did, it is totally off topic, and you chose to bring it in in the context of trying to blur the accusation into a false accusation. The real accusation isn't false at all. That is literally acting to support his illegal actions by confusing the public into thinking that they are false accusations of treason. If it isn't what you mean, don't do that act of trying to rewrite history in that way. You literally are supporting his actions. I didn't pretend that. Your response, defending your original statement, furthers your attempt to support violating sanctions against Serbia during the exact time period where crimes against humanity were taking place. You are on record above trying to conflate accusations of supporting that, with being innocent of "treason." Neither part has any connection to this situation.

I wrote what I wrote not what you made up

[dbIII]

Please don't let whatever baggage is upsetting you offline spill over in such a way.

Re:I wrote what I wrote not what you made up

[Aighearach]

You seem to have brought some baggage, I'm not the baggage guy. You'll have to carry it yourself, but you can store it wherever you keep your presumptions.

Re:I wrote what I wrote not what you made up

[dbIII]

The enormous pile of stuff you dumped while arguing about an analogy says otherwise and you are doing nothing with your denial other than demonstrating that you are even less worthy of respect.

Re:I wrote what I wrote not what you made up

[Aighearach]

You can't even identify one thing that I said that would count as "baggage." You'll have to carry it yourself, because it is entirely in your stuff.

When you want to make that sort of accusation, you need to be able to back it up with specific analysis; what words are you saying implied baggage? Without even any specificity of what you think is in error, you haven't even made the claim.

The idea of "baggage" in a conversation is a real idea, it isn't a general negative like "that stinks" or "you're wrong." It is a specific sort of accusation that is open to analysis, and yet you are unable to find it; before or after making said accusation!

Let's try to clarify the obvious then

[dbIII]

The purpose of the example was to show how out of touch and blatantly partisan such screams of "treason" are and had nothing to do with whether Fischer committed any crimes other than treason. The example was obviously not about Fischer but about those railing against him in such an overdramatic way. It's about showing that we cannot trust such overt and inconsistent drama queens.

The rest you have added yourself in a somewhat embarassing argument about an analogy.