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.

Comments

Is that

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Is that

[bondsbw]

Indeed, the company that uploads the entire contents of your device to its cloud service and calls it a "backup feature".

Oh wait, I thought you were talking about Apple for a minute. Carry on.

Re:Is that

[shaitand]

There is nothing anonymous about meta-data it compiles into a very unique and identifiable fingerprint. Can we all cut the crap please.

Re:Is that

[Ol Olsoc]

Windows 10 does send information back to Microsoft, but nothing personal aside from anonymous telemetry data. It's not stealing documents, it's not stealing photos, it's doing the same thing OS X does, it's doing the same thing Android does, it's doing the same thing Ubuntu did.

Oh fucking bullshit.

If you can actually read, Microsoft very plainly and explicitly says that they scrub your identifying data after thy get your telemetry. So why would they tell you they scrub it if they do not have it?

Seriously, how much to you get paid to lie about this shit? It's to the hpoint where the shilss are denying What Microsoft says they do.

Of course he does.

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the billionaire class wants to make sure that we little people can be monitored and tracked.

And you are surprised?

[thaylin]

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.

Re:And you are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS also earns hundreds of millions, if not billions, per year from government contracts.

As Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Re:And you are surprised?

[tlhIngan]

Err, can't you? Since only Apple has the private key necessary to sign iOS firmware updates, AFAICT that means that Apple could release a nerfed firmware that would run only on an iPhone 5c with Sayed Farouk's phone's hardware ID, and refuse to run on any other device, and nobody would be able to modify it without breaking its signature.

I understand there is also a principle of legal precedent to consider, but from a technical standpoint I don't see how it's impossible.

It's more of a barrier to entry.

Right now, Apple has to develop the firmware. And while it's easy to disable the 10 PIN check, the FBI wants additional development to be able to programmatically guess the PIN.

Once that is done, you have basically a master key. It doesn't matter that the FBI has a nerfed version that only works on one phone. One it's out, the barrier to developing it for other phones Is a lot lower - "We just want what you have given the FBI, just with this hardware ID". And so on.

And then there's a whole case of cyberattackers wanting to look at the firmware and find ways to break it - through jailbreaking if need be. Imagine the havoc caused if this firmware was released as part of a jailbreak tool for iOS.

In fact, the precedent for the All Writs Act is if something is already done, then law enforcement can ask for it to be done as well. Since the telephone company already uses pen registers for their own internal investigations (fraud, etc), then the FBI, local LEOs and others asking the phone company to put on a pen register on a specific line can do so as well. After all, the difference between the phone company and LEOs is who the data goes to in the end.

And the FBI doesn't want static data. They want live data. Let's say they used GMail and other services - they could ask Google for the data, but that requires a warrant. They could ask Apple, then use the GMail app on the phone in question and get the data without a warrant. Sure, it's probably not admissible, but if you really needed to know, you could either subpoena Google later for an "official" copy of the evidence, or just find other evidence.

And one final note - if you're comfortable with LEOs accessing your phone, then why bother putting a PIN on it? Or do you have crap on your phone that you don't want others to see?

Tim Cook knows about privacy - if nothing more than to protect those who have yet to come out of the closet. Which even in these modern times still brings up punishments as severe as the death penalty in many countries. Even in the first world many people are unable to cope with learning their son/daughter is gay.

So yeah, the phone owner's life could literally be on the line.

Bill Gates was always about controlling people

[QuietLagoon]

From his time as Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates was all about removing choice, and making computer users use Windows software by making deals with PC OEMs.

.
It comes as no surprise that Bill Gates gives privacy so little weight, with less privacy users have less choice and control.

Re:Bill Gates was always about controlling people

[_UnderTow_]

... I'm more interested in how Apple and Google move forward with their OSes to prevent this from even being a question next time.

This. The thing that bothers me the most about this whole thing is that Apple declared that they couldn't unlock our phones, that with the new OS and default encryption your data is safe, when it clearly isn't. IMO, they should open the phone for the FBI if they have the capability, then fix whatever is needed so that they actually CANNOT comply in the future.

NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[peter303]

Main street is viewing it differently than tech world. People fear security more than privacy.

Re:NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[sbaker]

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.
2) The FBI already have his texts, IP address lookups, voicemails and phonecall meta-data from the telco's - so this is only stuff like photos and documents stored inside the phone.
3) The FBI already have an iCloud backup from 6 weeks before the attack.
4) If they hadn't screwed up and changed the iCloud account's apple id - they'd have a recent backup too - and this would be a moot point. They screwed up.
5) If this was so important - why didn't they demand it back in December when they first got the phone? Any information on it now will be horribly outdated.
6) We already know that this was not a big ISIS plot or anything like that. It was a 'lone gunman' kind of a thing...so it's unlikely that there is anything on the phone that would incriminate anyone else who isn't already incriminated.
7) If they succeed - you can bet that Apple's next phone will make it impossible to circumvent the security with an OS upgrade by putting more stuff in ROM.

Knowing those things makes it very clear that they are using a high-profile case to demonstrate a capability (both on behalf of Apple - and on the behalf of the legal system to compel Apple).

The reason to do this is to provoke a debate that they hope will produce either laws or a legal precedent that they can apply to future cases - there is no other reason to fight Apple and public opinion.

The reason MOST people are agreeing with the Fed is that they didn't take the time to look at the facts.

Re:NBC poll 52% for FBI, 38% for Apple

[Fire_Wraith]

Yes. The problem with this (and many other polls) is in how you phrase the question, and the degree to which you explain the issue (or not).

For instance, if I asked people, "Should Apple comply with a legally issued search warrant?" most people will answer yes. If I instead ask them, "Should Apple give the U.S. Government unfettered access to everyone's iPhone?" people will likely answer more negatively (I wish I could say all would, but I don't have that much faith in humanity anymore).

Beyond that though, I think part of the problem is that the average person doesn't understand why "unlocking a terrorist's phone, with a warrant" is a problem. Apple has no problem (morally speaking, technical challenges are another matter) with unlocking a single iPhone. What Apple objects to is giving the government a key to disable security on ANY iPhone, because past evidence shows that they'll start using it anywhere they want to, not just on this one particular case.

Sure, Billy Boy.

[Lunix Nutcase]

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.

The US is not the only country.

[gurps_npc]

Anything Apple does for the US, it will be required to do in all countries it sells. That includes China.

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.

Re:McAfee?

[OzPeter]

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!";

I thought McAfee's position was more along the lines of "Look at me! Look at me!" with the idea that he could say any old shit, get the attention he craves and then not have to deliver anything as no-one in their right mind would let him near that phone.

Re:I don't get it ...

[tranquilidad]

Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company.

Perhaps Apple doesn't want the liability if they mistakenly delete all the data the FBI wants.

Perhaps Apple doesn't want to set a legal precedent that companies will result in ever increasing demands to break their products in the way the government desires.

Perhaps Apple is taking a principled stand.

I'm starting to see their point.

[mark-t]

I can see merit in Apple cooperating, but the biggest concern I would have about it is what happens if they are unsuccessful? What of a bug causes unexpected data loss? This isn't exactly a situation where they can get multiple chances because the crack is only supposed to be for one specific iPhone. What happens if developing this tool takes really long? Does Apple get paid for their time while this is being developed or do they only get paid upon completion? If the latter, if they find nothing on the allegedly decrypted phone, will the Feds refuse to pay? If the former, will they sue Apple because Apple cannot necessarily prove that their effort was entirely bug free?

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.

Re:It's not Tech v. Main Street

[MachineShedFred]

It's not conspiracy and conjecture, it's "legal precedent" and it's an actual thing. Once it's happened in a single instance, that single instance can be pointed to in future cases until it's refuted by a higher level judge. Which, in this case, would mean either the Federal Appeals Court, or the United States Supreme Court.

It's how the whole legal system has worked for 225+ years. And you can bet that there are hundreds of phones in evidence lockers with assistant District Attorneys and assistant US Attorneys lining up to get a court order to have Apple unlock them, depending on how this plays out.

Re:you people are idiots

[SecurityGuy]

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.

And that

[mitcheli]

is why I don't have any Microsoft products in my home. And that I must begrudgingly use them at work.

Re:Conspiracy and Conjecture

[Geoffrey.landis]

The point that you are missing is that the precedent to be set is that the government can make Apple write software.

This isn't about breaking into a phone, it's about exactly how much the court can compel them to do It's not "use your key to unlock this door". It's "write new software to this exact set of specifications that the FBI has written."

can the court compel Apple to write code? If they can, what else can they compel people to do?

Re:Taking sides: problem solved! [Re:Is that]

[Austerity Empowers]

FBI doesn't want to ask for volunteers or buy a zero-day/jailbreak/exploit. It wants the power to compel a manufacturer's engineers to break their own security. "Break this phone or go to jail."

Which is why the summary is so wrong that it hurts the brain, and while I understand slashdot editors aren't exactly professionals, they should have the dignity to remove that comment. Bill Gates wants cooperation with big brother, McAfee wants policework. There's a huge difference between them.