Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Sides With FBI In Apple Spat (ft.com)
Fudge Factor 3000 writes: Bill Gates has now publicly stated that Apple should cooperate with the FBI in the San Bernadino terrorist's phone unlocking case. He states that it is for this specific case, but seems to miss the point that there are other law enforcement officials waiting on the wings with their requests should this precedent be set. The war against privacy escalates. Setting aside the actual practicality of unlocking the San Bernadino phone, the teams that are emerging on this issue include some pretty strange bedfellows: John McAfee and Bill Gates on the pro-unlocking side, and Woz, Edward Snowden and even some of the victim's families on the con.
the same Bill Gates who's companies latest offering backs up everly last secret it can find on your computer to server in the US?
Bend over more Bill, it's not quite far enough yet.
See, the billionaire class wants to make sure that we little people can be monitored and tracked.
The man is the founder of a company with a terrible privacy record and you are surprised? I am more surprised that he does not realize you cannot create a specific solution for this that is not also a general solution for all phones.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
.
It comes as no surprise that Bill Gates gives privacy so little weight, with less privacy users have less choice and control.
Shocked I tells ya! Bill Gates for president!
But you can't buy a moral conscience.
BTW Thanks a lot for Windows 10.
Windows doesn't have a backdoor. Windows is the backdoor.
Not that his opinion matters nearly as much as the others(he's still loaded; but he's more busy playing the Hunter S. Thompson of tech than being a tech leader these days); but I thought that McAfee's position wasn't so much 'pro unlock' as "Me and my hacker posse will hack the shit out of it!"; which is a vote in favor of getting the contents of the phone(not that anyone is really against that, if there were some non-problematic way to do it); but not obviously a vote in favor of the feds having the right to force Apple to make it so.
Microsoft has the resources to reverse engineer Apple's protections and come up with a version of Windows that would run on iHardware. If Billy G wants to suck Uncle Sam's dick so badly, he should pony up and get on his knees!
Main street is viewing it differently than tech world. People fear security more than privacy.
Yeah we all know that once law enforcement gets access to something they NEVER ask again. The disengenuousness of people claiming this is only about one phone is astounding.
Couldn't the FBI just clone the iPhone and try brute forcing the 4 digit pin on each cloned image? Run through 10 iterations, wipe the image. Reload image. Try the next 10, reload the image. Repeat until code is cracked. It's a manual process, but could use interns.
FBI gets info, encryption standards remain unbroken and secure (to the best of everyone's knowledge.) Win/Win?
This argument is a sham and a shameless power grab by the powers that be. We are talking about someone who had the forethought to destroy his personal phone and computer hard drive to avoid the collection of incriminating evidence, yet he did nothing to obscure the $0.99 iPhone 5c that was issued to him from the local government. Does anyone really think he left any evidence at all on that device? Highly unlikely. He knew this device had no expectation of privacy (issued/controlled by government) and he made no attempt to destroy it (not like he fear the consequences of destruction of gov't property), so why would he have used it for any purpose related to illegal/questionable activities?
Sadly this is very accurate. Everything MS is doing via Windows lends itself to this. Microsoft is complicit in the espionage machine operations, probably so that they are treated favourably in matters involving government. I wonder how much goodwill MS will retain if it's found later that they provided information on their own users to law enforcement. I mean, reporting child pornographers is one thing, but if the entertainment industry ever gets to take all the pirates to court it will be Microsoft handing in the evidence.
So it seems the Captains of (tech) Industry fall prey to the same partisan squabbles that keep the legislative branch impotent much of the time.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Why doesn't Apple simply have the govt. fund their security auditing of the iPhone?
If they can crack it, then the FBI gets what they want in this case and Apple can then fix whatever holes they found in the next version of the iPhone.
It's an easy win-win.
I am sure that China will wait till they have a clear terrorism/criminal case, ask Apple to give them the same software they give the FBI, then make a copy of it and use it on every single dissident.
The San Bernidino phone SHOULD be cracked - by the government, not a private company. Apple should have nothing to do with the cracking.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
law enforcement officials waiting on the wings
Is this some alternative phrase to "waiting in the wings"?
The Gov't can not compel a contractor or potential contractor to perform work without compensation....
since they are directing Apple, without contract for services, and without a contracting officer,
they are in violation, and the individual making the request is subject to sanction for committing a federal crime.
Funny you say that, because I remember back when Apple started down the path of selling glorified spyware, Microsoft (for all its faults) was actually considered one of the "good guys" with regard to privacy. "They may be greedy, cheating bastards, but at least they have the decency to respect our privacy" was the common talk -- right here on slashdot!
Imagine that. Not easy, is it?
Isn't it a violation of the EULA to install OS X on non-Apple hardware?
And Apple has no qualms about selling out anyone's privacy to the Chinese government in order to maintain access to the Chinese market.
The "walled garden" wasn't created to describe Microsoft....
If Apple has done it's job correctly and provided the feature that it has advertised, it should not be possible for them or anyone else to decrypt the phone.
Apple's response should be; 'Not possible. Prove us wrong.'
That Apple has chosen to argue privacy and morality rather than stating not technically possible suggests to me that it is possible and they have failed to deliver what they advertised.
Love it how were are pretending like there really isn't a backdoor for the NSA in every non-open major OS (Windows, OS X, iOS & Android).
All Writs Act.
Personal privacy is at a historic low do to security reasons.
all of this is just a show, a distraction to keep the wheels of the machine turning. when you are more concerned with what people of prominence say rather than formulating your own ideas and conclusions you are no longer free.
The ruling class has scared you into submission using a "terrorist" force that has no air force or naval force (so im quite confused as to how they are going to attack en-mass on this side of the world) which means that you are more likely to die in a car accident than to die by terrorist motive.
people die, it happens and as a species we have only become more efficient in doing it. so as society crumbles, we allow those who have decided that they are in charge to distract us with boogey men across the world and yet no one sees the disenfranchised dying around us because we cannot even provide them with basic medicine, food and shelter.
This world makes me sick, distract your selves some more and well see how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
It's old vs. young. The youth in America trust for-profit companies more than the government and the young have some fantastic association of themselves with the devices they bought from a store.
Apple's main argument is one of conspiracy and conjecture - if we do it this one time (with a Judge's order) then we'll have to do it whenever the police ask, and the keys will fall into the wrong hands and anyone can break into an iPhone.
It's an iPhone. It's not your soul. It's not even your DNA or your fingerprints. Breaking open one phone does not cause the end of civilization because you know what?
The iPhone 7 is coming out soon.
I sure it is a coincidence that Microsoft is forcing Win 7/8 users to upgrade to Windows 10, which touts its higher security. Don't worry, if you have private information you can use the Microsoft recommended product BitLocker, made in the USA and subject to US laws. I'm certain there aren't any backdoors. I'm glad that Microsoft will share Office 365 users info with government agencies to protect us. After all, the FBI would never be abuse its power, like sharing accessing info on political opponents to discredit them. Pay no attention that Microsoft was somehow vulnerable to 'FREAK' encryption flaw (http://www.cnet.com/news/windows-vulnerable-to-freak-encryption-flaw-too/#!) - nothing to worry about here. I'm sure glad Microsoft is providing free email services like Hotmail. I'm sure Microsoft has the highest standards in protecting Hotmail users info and the times it has shared private information has been completely justified besides "you agreed to the service agreement".
He disputes so in a video in Bloomberg..
Bill Gates, co-founder at Microsoft and co-chair at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, addresses his view of Apple's battle against an FBI court order to unlock an iPhone belonging to a shooter involved in the San Bernardino, California terror attack and the need for a balance between privacy and government access.
Clippy: Hey! It looks like you are trying to violate U.S. citizen's Constitutionally-protected rights! Would you like help?
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
It is really better[for everyone] if they bribe apple to do it?
I completely understand Apple not wanting to do this, because there are far more ways it can end badly for them than positively, but I ultimately suspect that the only way they will ever see the end of this is if they try.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Does Bill Gates understand the case (and encryption technology) or not? This is not about Apple having the data and refusing to give it to FBI. Apple has no data and no key. It's about Apple refusing to create a software facilitating guessing weak passwords that can the be used on old iPhones.
You may have a point, but given that Apple isn't objecting on these grounds I'm driven to believe that their corporate lawyers don't consider that a strong argument. Not to mention that "It would cost us money!" wouldn't play well in the press. This is Apple, they have money to burn...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I feel like Apple's argument is suffering from the same problem as the "Black Lives Matter" movement. Both are noble causes, but Michael Brown was a terrible example of police violence on an innocent man. Likewise, putting your company out there over a phone linked to two known terrorists doesn't seem well calculated. The privacy concerns aren't that important to the general public because the owner of the phone is already dead. If I were Apple I think I would have picked a different poster child for my "privacy theater".
Which families of the victims are against unlocking the phone besides Carole Adams? According to this article, an attorney representing some of the families will be filing court papers in support of the FBI's position.
"Velasco said the phone could reveal other extremist plots or that other people were involved in planning the San Bernardino attack.
"The only way to find out is to open up that phone and get in there," he said. "A lot of the families of the victims, we're kind of angry and confused as to why Apple is refusing to do this."
Of course Windows has a long tradition to cooperate with spying agencies.
It appears to me that Microsoft is selling itself to secret U.S. government agencies. Who tried to kill the excellent TrueCrypt? The old original TrueCrypt web site pushes people toward a Microsoft product.
Can Microsoft be trusted? Here are some articles:
Windows 8: NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered (Aug. 22, 2013)
Windows: NSA "backdoor" mandates lead to a computer-security FREAK show Quote: "Microsoft Windows OS vulnerable to hackers, thanks to National Security Agency requirements." (March 6, 2015)
Windows: NSA Built Back Door In All Windows Software by 1999 (June 7, 2013)
Windows 10, Microsoft hiding what it is doing: Microsoft has no plans to tell us what's in Windows patches. Quote: "Each update is a black box, and it's going to stay that way." (Aug 21, 2015)
Windows 10, Microsoft takes even more control: Windows 10 is spying on almost everything you do -- here's how to opt out But, of course, Microsoft can change the spyware to avoid blocking. (July 31, 2015)
Microsoft can't be trusted: How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again? (June 17, 2013)
Microsoft releases EXTREMELY buggy software: Microsoft Kills Many Critical Flaws, Some 0-Days, Un-Trusts One Wildcard Cert It is likely that there are many bugs Microsoft hasn't yet found. Are Microsoft products intentionally made insecure? (December 9, 2015)
I don't think the entire concept being fought over is some brand new idea, it's a classic idea with the obligatory "with a computer".
So how has this been handled in the past? If you buy a brand new top of the line "uncrackable" vault say for a bank or casino in Vegas... and refuse to open it for police, they just... make do on their own right? Spend a few days or weeks with hammers, chisels and drills until it's open?
Nobody makes the vault company drop by and show you the secret access trick, am I right?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Nice argument, but that's not what happened. Apple already made the contents of the iCloud account available to investigators, as they were ordered to. This is entirely different. They're being asked to build software that doesn't exist to subvert a security feature in iOS.
It's more like going to a safe company and asking them to build you a key that unlocks every safe. It's more complex than that, really, but it's less wrong than your analogy.
"John McAfee and Bill Gates on the pro-unlocking side, and Woz, Edward Snowden and even some of the victim's families on the con."
Well, crazy as McAfee is, he's no Woz, Snowden, or anonymous grieving party who should be left alone by the media.
All Writs Act.
But the point is interesting. Newer laws supersede old laws, so if there is actually a federal law that specifies that work cannot be compelled without compensation or bidding and such, then the All Writs Act is probably constrained to only apply to trivial amounts of work that might be performed to further an investigation. Otherwise the government could cite an ongoing investigation and just order Boeing to give the government some jets without compensation... to help with the investigation.
Forking the code base, changing iOS and running it through a QA cycle before trying it out on the phone is more than just ordering someone to allow access to equipment or unlocking a door. Conscription is really contrary to the freedoms we enjoy so there should be a tendency to limit its use as much as possible.
What seems to be missing in all of this media-fueled discussion on this topic is that the iPhone doesn't operating in a vacuum. Assuming that the couple got their marching orders on this phone (which is unlikely since it was a work phone not a personal one), someone had to send those marching orders. That means that the Feds have totally failed to identify the source. Either that or the fact that our international surveillance capabilities have been totally borked in the last few years that they no longer have the capability to find the source or can't legally find the source. And then there's the other possibility that the Feds are hoping to make the case that no marching orders were given and the couple had no connection to terrorist groups and this was some sort of spontaneous attack thus justifying further erosion of civilian rights.
False. FAR is for executive agencies. This order came from the judiciary, which is not a executive agency at all.
From Apple's Open Letter:
"Second, the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? "
That's what I'm referring to - breaking into an iPhone leads us to recording conversations. No judge in the US would ever use this case as precedence to tracking locations.
If the FBI stood up before a judge an showed just cause and got a search warrant for a communication device that was used in the commission of a federal crime, then Apple is WRONG and should cooperate *for this phone*.
Absolutely not. The government has the warrant, the government can try to execute the warrant. They cannot compel someone else to do their dirty work for them. Slavery is a bad thing, remember?
"...some pretty strange bedfellows: John McAfee and Bill Gates on the pro-unlocking side..."
Actually, John McAfee is not on the side of forcing Apple to unlock the phone-- he's against that. He is on the side of don't force them to do it because he and his elite crew of hax0rz will do it for free with no need to bother Apple or use that all-writs thing.
And this solves the problem, doesn't it? Give it McAfee, he will screw up and erase all the data on the phone, problem solved.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Follow the case would you. There isn't newer law that OVER-TURNS the old law.
The only real protection against such government intrusions is technological, not some wimpy legal precedent. Since the iPhone 5c apparently can be unlocked after the fact with the help of Apple, it is not secure. That problem isn't going to get fixed by legal posturing, it's only going to get fixed by fixing the phone hardware and software.
Apple should investigate whether or not they can restore the password (the hash of the password) for just this one user. This assumes they have backups that cover the relevant time period. I'm sure it's not completely trivial, but it's probably a lot less work than rolling out a one-off OS. If so, then the FBI could then take the phone to a trusted Wifi, plug it in and let it back up to iCloud. Apple has already turned over the 6 week old backup that's in iCloud and could easily turn over the new data too.
is why I don't have any Microsoft products in my home. And that I must begrudgingly use them at work.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
He's refuting he said that he supports the FBI.
He has very slightly backed off, claims that people have misinterpreted his position:
(see the "update:" in this gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-... )
But here is Gates' actual quote from the Financial times article; what do you think-- was he misinterpreted?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Why can't the Icloud password be rolled back? I know that's not something they do for everyone but surely it's technologically possible. more possible than what the FBI is asking?
I am SO shocked that the man behind the worst privacy environment in the history of modern computing would come down on the side of the FBI.
Shocked, stunned, and completely amazed.
Not.
The same Bill Gates of _NSAKEY fame?
Are you REALLY still feeling warm and fuzzy about putting everything into Microsofts cloud, and believing Windows 10 isn't really spying on you, and that Microsoft aren't fundamentally aligned to sell out your private data at the first opportunity?
Glad to see Bill is still a nutter. I side with Apple.
The biggest problem is that people are reacting to the headline - not the back story.
1) This was the terrorist's WORK phone. He tried (and failed) to destroy his personal phone - and the FBI have all of the data from that. If he didn't destroy the work phone, there probably wasn't anything important on it.
Close, but no.
He tried, and succeeded, in destroying his personal phones:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
The couple took pains to physically destroy two personally owned cellphones, crushing them beyond the FBI's ability to recover information from them. They also removed a hard drive from their computer; it has not been found despite investigators diving for days for potential electronic evidence in a nearby lake.
Farook was not carrying his work iPhone during the attack. It was discovered after a subsequent search.
So, the question is: given that they went to great lengths to destroy the phones and hard drives that they used in planning the attack, why in the world would anybody think that this phone they didn't think were worth bothering to destroy would have anything on it?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Spat - a petty quarrel. This legal battle may set precedent that determines the course of security for the foreseeable future. It is hardly a "spat".
Apple isn't objecting on these grounds
You don't play that card on the first round.
Where do you want Bill Gates to go today?
You don't need "that" phone. You need to get any iPhone and you can debug it and get whatever access to it in general way that will apply to similar hardware/software, most likely just by changing single byte in machine code instructions. It would cost time/money though. Apple already has access to it though through their own personal backdoor,
No. The whole point is that "their own personal backdoor" does not exist.
so why should they be immune to court orders? No business or person is immune to it. They can only (try to) refuse to provide general access software, but every time they will get court order to provide data from specific phone, they should be legally required to comply with court order.
Again. Apple is not being asked to "provide data from the phone"; they're not even being asked to decrypt the phone. They are being commanded to write new software to the FBI's specification.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Just ask U2 how they did it
No, a good lawyer plays ALL his cards UPFRONT. This Matlock style last second cropping up of evidence to get your client off you see on TV is not how these things work.
If you are making a motion or responding to something you put ALL of your arguments into your filings because each of these arguments must be individually dealt with by the court and you won't have the chance to go back and amend your response without a good reason. Your best chance at prevailing is at the first strike, going back later and trying to add additional arguments when your previous ones have failed is usually not allowed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The more Bill opens his mouth these days, the dumber he sounds. His support of faux, pop-science non-sense like Bostom's "Super Intelligence" betrays a massive inability to understand 1.) the cutting edge of CS, and 2.) the constraints of basic/modern computing -- as is the case here. Allowing someone to circumvent one system means allowing others to circumvent it later, without fail. Imagine how much money an Apple hack tool would be worth on the open market. Imagine how much that'd undermine Apple's model -- no more locking of devices, no more message security, no more spam prevention, etc. It's all based on the same cryptographic assumptions, after all. And Microsoft shows this, too -- it's core values are still hugely hostile to the customer. Fuck Bill.
I can see Gate's lack of concern about privacy rights and the notion that a customer 'owns' the software or computer he just bought. But if he had any working brain cells he'd have to see the long-term damage to U.S. tech companies... if back doors become the new normal, nobody's going to want to buy our crap anymore, if the competition does not have back doors.
Going a step further, if the tech sector suffers losses, that's a big impact to the tax base, and the Feds lose big time.
"In an interview with Bloomberg, Bill Gates says he was 'disappointed' by reports that he supported the FBI in its legal battle with Apple, saying "that doesn't state my view on this.' "
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2...
Or you're next inline for one of his famous vaccines....
640k of security is enough for everyone
Yes, the government can compel Apple to write code. The government can compel Ford to make a truck that gets 30MPG, compel a mining company to dig another shaft to let air into a mine, and make me pay for health insurance I do not want. If you think the direction the country is going in is to have more freedom than the past, you are sorely wrong.
Case in point - the government's suit against Microsoft and their inclusion of Internet Explorer bundled tightly with Windows. The terms of the settlement included Microsoft having to divulge all internal APIs and allow 3 people to have access to all their code. Microsoft wrote a ton of software to isolate IE from the OS in order to minimize exposed APIs.
In many other cases, companies have had to write scripts, etc. in order to search their systems for data.
What is the extent of the government's power? Well, we have three branches of government that figure all of that out for us. Currently, all three agree with the FBI. When the abuse is too much, we have the right to petition and make changes. But Apple, in this case, is on the wrong side of history.
Bill, retire already. Go play golf.
The only reason the FBI wants Apple's help, is because a brute-force attack (usually the final, losing move) happens to be feasible (because it's just a phone, and nobody has made a phone that doesn't have a shitty UI for data-entry, so nobody uses good passphrases).
Change one thing (improve UI (not saying it's easy or someone would have done it by now), have removable-media keys, or $YOUR_IDEA_HERE) and the brute-force attack becomes just as infeasible as we usually think of such things. Whatever precedent is established, is eventually going to be obsoleted.
It also doesn't matter because the phone probably isn't going to have any interesting information, so the stakes are low. (And they're going to remain low for most peoples' phones, until phones become decent terminals.) If this had been about a desktop PC instead of a handheld one, the FBI would have already given up, because of an invention called The Keyboard. (Yes, I realize some phones have keyboards, and they're better-than-nothing(!), but even so, I doubt many people are entering decent passphrases with 'em.)
If there is any serious privacy issue here, it's just the usual reminder that you only get privacy when you try to have it (never by default (*)), and part of that involves thinking about the parties that you think are on your side (e.g. your PC's or OS's manufacturer) being coerced into working against you. I think it's hilarious that people are debating whether or not Apple should pay attention to the loaded gun that someone has put in their face. Under any other circumstances, you assume that whoever has a gun pointed at them, is going to do whatever they're told. If Apple successfully resists, fine, but you would never count on that anyway, so it's never going to be part of your computer's defense.
Apple's resistance doesn't matter, and the FBI's coercion is assumed to succeed -- even if it doesn't succeed this time (though it probably will).
(*) Yes, I realize Europeans disagree. You think you have privacy because of privacy laws. In America, we realize that most laws are irrelevant and instead we think about a lawless adversary's capabilities and it's the capabilities that we address whenever we're serious about anything. (You people and your civilization! We would never fall for that old trick! ;-)
You do realize that the game is "Make scum like Hillary Clinton look good enough to win an election." Bashing trump simply ensures the victory at this point in the game. That does not mean she will win, but look at the choices now? Oh yeah.. Game Over!
FWIW, other Republicans like Cruz and Rubio are just as scummy as Clinton. Sanders may not be scum, but he believes in Utopia, so is a delusional fool who never studied a lick of history.
Doesn't he have have like a 160-180 IQ and pretty good poker skills? I doubt he missed something so obvious unless his mind has deteriorated over the years. Maybe he is saying you have to pick your battles on these things sometimes, which seems reasonable enough. Apple and Google and MS can make a stand against the FBI, but making it against a terrorism case might not have been the most tactful approach. Either way the law seems to say if Apple can get that data, they have to try or prove it's just too darn hard. The alternative is Apple ensures it designs systems that it honestly can't get into (without perhaps an active wiretap and login) if it really wants that level of data security for it's users. The precedent that technology overrides law is more dangerous than the idea that courts have the right to make corporations "un-hide" data. Apple, like an US business has a legal obligation to abide to court ordered data requests. I don't see how, if they have the capacity, they can argue they have any right to decline. Honestly, corporations that can decline to hand over data to the courts is the more dangerous precedent. It's a core principle of the justice system to be able to demand data as evidence for due process to work right. Encryption is little more than a fancy term for hiding your data. Apple has a secret file cabinet that it doesn't read, like a bank with a lock box. When asked to 'un-hide' the contents of that container, if they have the capacity to do so, they must. Why would there be any different interpretation. Will Apple plead the 5th instead? I don't know how hard it would be for Apple to do this, I don't know their systems at all. If they can do it, they really have to by law. It's a precedent that was set long before computers ever existed. If you have record you need to do your BEST to legally abide by the court order and provide them. That means providing them in readable format, not purposely printing them in very fine font, not purposely damaging the data or 'losing' it. These are all concepts that apply to physical documents too. You can't obstruct an investigation by dragging your feet in compliance because you don't like the law. You change the law with votes, not by breaking it unless you're ok with being charged with the crime you're committing and ideally when you know you can garner mass public support. So again I ask, why did Apple pick a terrorism case to make this stand against?
Is that the same Woz that wants to be a citizen of Australia...
* the country that deports refuge babies?
* the country that bans the press from covering off shore refuge camps?
I guess he's siding with Snoden who put his chips with Russia...
* the country the persecutes LGBT people?
* the country that is supporting the regime that is creating a bunch of these refugees?
*BTW* this has nothing to do with encryption, just illustrating the point that single issue agreement doesn't make *bedfellows*
Gates did create lots of back door crap for the Chinese Government. It was required for MS to do business and sell Windows in China.
The sending people to jail issue then becomes a question of whether his submission to the Chinese Government, is the responsible aspect of people being jailed? I'm sure that I could find examples you would agree he is indirectly responsible for.
The FBI is asking for something fairly significant from Apple: for them to make a custom iOS build that will only work on this singular phone, that will do three things: disable the phone being wiped after 10 failed guesses, eliminate any wait time between guesses, and allow for passcodes to be entered via USB, so the brute force can be automated. That is a pretty significant chunk of software, and only Apple can produce it, since they are the only ones that can digitally sign iOS files.
But the FBI isn't asking Apple to create a backdoor; that is at best misleading, at worst, an outright lie. The backdoor already exist, because Apple already didn't live their (very recent and convenient) mantra of user privacy. The backdoor is that iOS software can be updated via USB with no user interaction - that's there and an existed long before this case. What makes this case unique is that it is specifically an iPhone 5C, which lacks the secondary encryption chip that every other iPhone since the 5 has had (as in, Apple intentionally cut out the key component to protecting user privacy for this specific model - living that privacy mantra indeed). Without the secondary encryption chip, the security is left to the main chip and iOS and can be manipulated as the FBI has requested. Every other iPhone, however, can NOT be exploited this way, as the passcode guesses are handled by the encryption chip directly, and it can not be patched via USB with no user interaction. So if this was an iPhone 5, 5S, 6 or 6S, this wouldn't be an issue, because it what the FBI is asking would be impossible.
It's hard to argue that it's a slippery slope case either, since the technique will only work with a phone that came out in 2013, and since the custom build of iOS will ONLY work with the serial number of the phone in question, the FBI can't really re-porpose the software after the initial use.
TL;DR: The FBI is asking a lot, but only to use a backdoor Apple already created and has since closed on all phones since. Apple is playing fast and loose with the verbiage, trying to spin the backdoor as something of the FBI's creation when they did it
Forcing OEMs to install Windows, forcing Shops to remove competitive applications, forcing shops to remove advertisements for competitors, forcing vendors to hide competitive software, and countless other examples of "Predatory Monopolistic Practices" has put MS in the first place for the Most Successfully sued for Anti-Trust company in History.
Court records are on the US Department of Justice, several State supreme court cases (see Iowa), and finally German and EU courts.
You think Apple and Google don't mine your cloud storage for advertising metrics? Unless you still use a flip phone without data capabilities they have some info on you.
In the customer letter that Apple released http://www.apple.com/customer-... they said
"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."
If the phone is locked how can Apple install a new operating system on it?
The commentary about it being pro-unlocking vs. anti-unlocking is inaccurate.
It's really pro-FBI Compliance vs. anti-FBI Compliance (or if you want to use stronger language, pro-Backdoor vs. anti-Backdoor).
When it comes to allowing the FBI access to the data, note that almost *all* parties involved (including Apple) *does* agree that the FBI should have access to the data. In fact, Apple has done quite a lot to try and get FBI access to the data, including providing any available iTunes Cloud backups to Farook's phone.
The problem is the *how* -- meaning, *how* should the FBI get access to that data, and to what extent can the FBI compel Apple to provide the data by having Apple compromise the security of the iPhone itself.
Furthermore, in terms of the "two sides", the summary provides a very inaccurate portrayal of the two sides of this argument. If you read thru John McAfee's quotes, he actually *agrees* with Apple, and states that Apple should *not* be compelled to comply with the FBI / court order. (What he then stated is that he could get access to Farook's data *without* requiring Apple to create the backdoor, which is what he was arguing.)
Also, to say that "even some of the victim's families on the con" is also inaccurate. In fact, there has only been *one* victim's family (specifically Carol Adams -- http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/m...) that has been on the record stating that they think Apple should not be compelled to comply with the FBI, not "some".
EDIT: Gates actually says that his quote was misinterpreted, and he does *not* necessarily side with the FBI -- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Yup. I saw an update video here which interestingly enough also details that the FBI *ISN'T* just looking for access to one phone as they currently claim, but that they have court-orders in-progress for twelve other iPhones (unrelated to San-Bernardino).
Gates doesn't seem to think he said what people are saying he said. He was quoted today saying "I was disappointed because that doesn’t state my view on this."
Nuanced? Or freaking out about the blow-back?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Go back to curing polio.
Assuming FBI head James Comey is telling the truth when he says he's not trying to set a precedent, I side with the FBI and Bill Gates on this case.
Any lawyers out there? Is there a way for Apple to comply with this particular request from the FBI, and in a later case, hold the FBI to their statement that they're not trying to set a precedent?
So this is as good a place as any in this thread to remind some of the difference between espionage and surveillance. The simplest way I've heard it explained is that surveillance tracks who you call and when you call them. Espionage, on the other hand, listens in on your conversations.
Whenever people say things to the effect of, "it's just meta-data," please explain this comparison to them and point out that meta-data is surveillance. It doesn't have to be full-on espionage to qualify as an invasion of privacy.
It's sad to see Microsoft has tied themselves so closely to the income stream they must be generating from the meta-data (aka metrics) Windows 10 collects. Whether it's from advertisers or surveillance agencies, I can't say, but to stick to their guns so intransigently in the face of such withering public criticism is an indication how much that income must mean to them... They're figuratively hoisting themselves with their own petard.
Sir Gates' latest comment simply confirms to me what I already believed.
and close the loophole that lets them load a new OS image on the phone without the user's key.
Then they couldn't even comply with this request.
I do realize that I'm contributing to the noise associated with Gates.
Gates has never demonstrated that he's skilled or knowledgeable about anything unrelated to accumulating money, so why would anyone care what he thinks? Report what Bruce Schneier, an independent and recognized expert in security and technology, thinks instead.
Maybe so, but they aren't the only one holding back information.
Why would encryption not be protected by the first amendment?
They have NO SHAME, & no problem misquoting people to "sell their agenda" (which IS often paid for by 'concerned parties') - this goes for your ADVERTISERS TOO who fund them especially...
* YOU KNOW - the ones that infected the HELL out of people worldwide MILLIONS OF TIMES tracking us like cattle (which their kind feels we are) to use the MOST DANGEROUS SCIENCES OF ALL ON THE WEAK MINDED AMONGST US (ala sociology, the psychology of societies with AMAZING parallels to psychology of the individual which COMPOSES said societies they work their "jedi mind tricks" on ala marketing techniques like "JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON" & be "part of the 'winning' team" which is really TONS OF SOCKPUPPETS for the ILLUSION of the "majority"...)
They just don't give a shit WHO they toss "under the bus" as long as its AD VIEWS galore!
(Do I personally believe King Billy, whom I call that out of respect NOT ridicule, is so stupid he'd just offer an opinion on something as complex as this MINUS deep consideration? No - no way: That's just NOT his way!)
APK
P.S.=> Wake up America - before it's TOO late: They're keeping you STUPID playing video games & watching 'reality TV', the WWF, & HOOKING YOU ON HEROIN vs. reading GOOD solid books to educate yourselves vs. their bullshit to be able to think critically (imo, the ONLY reason we are allowed to learn to read @ all? They couldn't have a TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY minus 'we cattle' being able to read technical directions)... apk
If FT's claims are based on the interview material they show in the posted video, they're making a very liberal interpretation. As far as I can see, Gates only made a few specific points:
Overall, he seemed to take a lot of care to avoid taking a clear stance with Apple or with the FBI and framed the whole situation as though it was an important legal question that should be settled by due process. The claim that he said "technology companies should be forced to co-operate with law enforcement" is misleading.
Confused about the issues? Don't be! Here's my easy one-step guide to taking sides on this issue.
Ask yourself one question: are you a douchebag?
Y: FBI
N: Apple
Seriously? I don't like him, I don't like his software & how MS set back technology for years through anti-competitive behaviour but Gates is NOT an idiot. He isn't 'missing the point', he no longer runs a technology company, he made his Billions & ran, as such he can say whatever he likes regardless of the implications for his old company, the technology landscape in general & privacy. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Gates would come out in support of his friends in high places, he isn't going to ever have to worry about the implications & he's demonstrably shown in the past that 'freedom' is not a word in his vocabulary unless it is "i'm free to make as much money as I can & do whatever I like regardless of the law, the constitution or people's freedoms"...
Besides the fundamental basic premise that this sets a precedent in making 'insecure phones' (the only one who should be able to unlock my data is me, thank you very much) you're missing the point that the request from the FBI has yet to be shown to be constitutional. Apple is fully in their rights to contest the order in court, until such time that all appeals have been exhausted, up to including the Supreme Court than NOTHING is 'constitutional' or 'unconstitutional' for that matter.
The FBI could get a judge to issue an order for you to be sodomized until you give up your passwords/bank accounts/documents etc., the order is 'valid' on its face. We could argue all we want that it is 'unconstitutional' but unless you can afford to hire a lawyer & make appeals & be prepared to fight all the way to the Supreme Court the order isn't unconstitutional.
This is ultimately why you also need 'precedents', so that the lowest judge on the totem pole, the lowest policeman etc. knows that their actions can result in 'censure' or other acts of consequence against them. Unfortunately 'precedent' isn't always all its cracked up to be & as the people in the Supreme Court change their opinions can change such that something that was unconstitutional even 20 years ago could be made constitutional (or vice-versa) by the latest Supreme Court ruling.
Personally, I believe that a Supreme Court ruling should never be up for 'reinterpretation', regardless of how non-sensical or against current 'public opinion' people may find it. For example, the Constitution says 'all MEN are created equal', as reasonable as I am in suggesting this could reasonably interpreted to be read as meaning 'every human' this goes against the original actual meaning of MEN...if society believes it should say 'all humans are created equal' than it should be very easy to pass an amendment to have it interpreted as such or changed to be read as such. As soon as you allow Courts to 'interpret the meaning of words' or 'what the government meant to say' then law is entirely open to whomever is holding those 9 Supreme Court positions at any time, making it a political appointment as we've seen.
Does this potentially make it much harder to get society to change in a direction we might want it to go, sure, except that if it is something so obviously fundamental (as the above example is) than it should be DROP DEAD EASY to get an amendment passed. If it isn't super easy than whatever the open question is being debated clearly can't have widespread support.
It just goes to show that privacy is a personal thing and everyone has different levels of personal privacy. No single law suits all people.
dear tfa - did you do that deliberately?
we (mostly) all know and understand the old latinate legalese in re pro and con, but we all also know that the meanings of the word "con" has changed, in current use, and are no longer "polite".
therefore, dear author, pray tell - was that a deliberate con there?
You don't need "that" phone. You need to get any iPhone and you can debug it and get whatever access to it in general way that will apply to similar hardware/software, most likely just by changing single byte in machine code instructions. It would cost time/money though. Apple already has access to it though through their own personal backdoor,
No. The whole point is that "their own personal backdoor" does not exist.
Of course it exists. Changing software remotely without device owner permission is backdoor.
They are not changing anything remotely. The whole point is that the FBI physically has the phone.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with changing software by remote access. This is about breaking into a phone that they have in front of them and have opened up to directly get to via the physical access ports.
...
Again. Apple is not being asked to "provide data from the phone"; they're not even being asked to decrypt the phone. They are being commanded to write new software to the FBI's specification.
...Maybe, but public perception is different...
Exactly. That's the point I've been shouting about. Public perception is not in line with the actual facts.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Bill Gates opinion ceased to be relevant years ago. Why is this even a debate?
No, that is not what this is about.
Really.
Apple may or may not be able to remotely change this or that software, or alter this or that firmware, and reflash this or that ROM remotely-- but that is not what this specific issue is about. This specific issue is not about remote access.
Look, the FBI wrote a clear and specific statement of what they want Apple to do. It does not involve remote software updates. Period. Some other issue may be about remote software updates, but not this one.
There seem to be so many people say "well, what the FBI specifically, clearly, and directly asked for is that, but that's not how I would do it, I would do it this other way, and that would be really easy; so that must what the FBI actually wants even if it isn't what they said, and Apple must be lying, and I know that because if they did it my way it would be really really simple."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
They're being asked to build software that doesn't exist to subvert a security feature in iOS.
"Build" might be an exaggeration. The FBI only need the OS to have the max_number_of_retries=10 line commented out and sign the new version to this device. The right person could probably knock it over in an hour.
Let's not pretend this is more complicated than it is.
And Bill turns back to the dark side yet again..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Clearly, the people on Slashdot are on the side of privacy over all else.
But how does illogical, hyperbolic reasoning like this (and other similar alarmist posts) keep getting modded up?
Tim Cook is now protecting the gays? And somehow if you're for the FBI being able to access a phone, with the owner's permission and under a warrant and followed up by a court order, then why would you want a PIN anyway?
As Tim Cook said recently, "You probably have as much private information on your phone as you do in your house." Maybe - and the police have full, legal, and acceptable procedures for going into someone's house and looking for evidence.
The idea that something that's been created in the past 1 or 2 years is now the one and only thing that is protecting civilization is an argument only the very young can make. It's a phone. If being caught being gay is a threat to your life, don't put it on instagram.
No, it's like going to a safe company and saying "hey - disable that mechanism for this safe that causes it to self destruct."
"That's just like what we make other safe manufacturers do, and what we have safe deposit boxes do, and what we have for all telecom equipment. I know you're the best safe company in the world and we just have this little old court order and it's part of your responsibility for being an American company (and by the way, can you onshore some of those profits you've been squirreling away in China and perhaps think about hiring some Americans to build the safes)"
Or, I suppose for the members of the Slashdot community, it's like saying "hey, Apple sucks and you're all a bunch of losers and we want to control your lives by screening every pixel on your monitor and we want to kick your dog while we go through your desk which will cause the end of civilization"