Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Said To Be Working On an iPhone Even It Can't Hack (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this story at the New York Times: Apple engineers have already begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone using methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts. If Apple succeeds in upgrading its security — and experts say it almost surely will — the company would create a significant technical challenge for law enforcement agencies, even if the Obama administration wins its fight over access to data stored on an iPhone used by one of the killers in last year's San Bernardino, Calif., rampage. The F.B.I. would then have to find another way to defeat Apple security, setting up a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple.
I find it hilarious that security efforts are not being driven by the government but to protect people from the government.
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
In a perfect world maybe, but you're not considering the real world where few lives will be saved, but the vulnerability will be abused constantly.
Except that it ISN'T the SOLE intention. The sole intention is to give US citizens a secure method of communication. Just like the interstate's sole intention is to let US citizens travel safely across the country. Just because an enemy or terrorist or undesirable can use these too doesn't make it less stupid. Interstates and secure phones aren't treasonous since they can't have intentions since they have no souls.
this is because the fbi screwed up on purpose and refused to use a very easy way to get the data to try and break American freedom to privacy
Why does apple get headlines for doing what they should have done in the first place? Anything else is a broken, insecure device. If the vendor has a backdoor, it's not secure, whether they allow the government to access it or not.
in a perfect world countless lives would be saved by limiting the speed of cars to 20kph but no one wants to do that either. I am agreeing that the risk/reward outlook favors encryption by a wide margin.
Than some stupid phone.
Anne Frank had something to hide from the government
You know what, I don't actually care if it is theater if it keeps people talking and thinking about security, for a change.
Someone had to do it.
People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. An overzealous government with unlimited reach and power is what so many have died for, paying their lives as the cost of liberty for their children.
A free-thinking libertarian once gave me a great acid test for weather or not laws should exist: Would the existence of such a law have helped the colonies overthrow King George III or would such a law have helped King George III keep hold of the colonies?
In my opinion, there are really three things here that have to be considered:
1. What you have
2. What you know
3. What you are
What you have is the information on the phone. This information on an iPhone is encrypted, and would take unimaginable amounts of time to reverse, but it is reversible.
What you know is the key to reverse the information. What you are includes the thumbprint that can also be used to "mimic" what you know (the key).
The government through a warrant has the absolute right to search and seize what you have: The encrypted data.
The government does NOT have the right to what you know (5th Amendment).
The third one: "what you are" is tricky. It only works in this case of the phone has been left ON, and has been unlocked in the past 48 hours using the key. From what I believe: due to the 13th amendment, the government can not force you to enter your fingerprint, because of a catch 22. You have not been found guilty (yet) of a crime, and doing so would constitute "involuntary servitude".
I don't think it would serve us well either to have all of our information readily accessible without any privacy protections either. What happens when China wants this information to find out who has been preaching Christianity in China, or Saudi Arabia wants to know who has gay thoughts?
Our iPhones have such intimate details about our lives and so much information, I wonder if it would not server us well to classify that information as an extension of "what you know".
I suspect that Tim Cook as an LGBT individual, has an intimate, proximate, and/or cultivated personal interest, with historical and current backing, in personal privacy. In these particular circumstances, it would express itself as the importance of data privacy on a personal device.
If I had to guess, it could come down through the ranks indirectly as unstated support from the top.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Would you be willing to give a copy of your house keys to the local police department? Afterall, if everybody did that, then lives could be saved by letting the police enter suspects' homes on a whim. In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The security "war" is not longer about country versus country, but about "the people" versus the government.
The problem is it's not just this phone. It's the 12 others they have on stand by, it's the 175 NY has lined up and ready to go -- for starters. The other problem is there is no guarantee breaking into this phone (and enabling the government to break into any other iphone) is going to save even one life. Is it worth compromising the phone's security (and enabling all kinds of fraud) on the off-chance that some information it contains may help the government prevent a death?
This couple purposely and specifically destroyed their phones and computers before going on their rampage. Do you really thing they left incriminating evidence on the guys's work phone?
Ask yourself, what is the price of freedom? If you want to live in a world where your every move isn't monitored and recorded by untrustworthy people who seek to capitalize on every little weakness you may have, perhaps the risk of a death here or there is an acceptable price. The question boils down to, would you rather live as a slave or risk death living as a freeman?
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
I don't have an iPhone, why should I care? Apple didn't care when the Indian government went after Blackberry.
Learn from the past:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I RTFA this time. It, like so many other other articles, missed the actual legitimate issues of the case. Every time you read an opinion that says Apple should "unlock the phone" or "decrypt the phone" misses the point that Apple must create software which doesn't exist. Whether Apple should do that or not is itself an interesting discussion, but the real issue here is whether government agencies should be able to force software companies to create hacking software, especially when the software company isn't accused of breaking any law in the case.
I don't have any issue with the idea that a government agency should be allowed to create hacking software. I wouldn't object if the NSA had required Apple to sign a software update created by the NSA for the purpose of hacking into the phone. In fact, I think that's what the government should do. However, I'm very troubled by the fact that most people are in favor of Apple being forced to unlock a phone when that's not what is really going on.
Compulsion of speech is an issue that has been supported in food labeling laws and denied in other cases. Creating software is fundamentally different than providing existing information. I believe creation of software is a form of speech, and I think the courts have upheld that viewpoint, so this case is really hinging on whether a judge under "All Writs Act" has the authority to force someone, not even someone accused of a crime, to create something new.
I think it is important in this discussion to understand how the software the government wants Apple to create would work. Apple updates happen automatically for phones which automatically connect to a known wifi access point. Those updates don't just get pulled from Apple though, the phone creates a code which is encrypted with Apple's public key, so that only Apple with it's private key can decrypt. The update is then provided to the phone, with the code provided by the phone re-encrypted so that only the phone can decrypt it, and only then is the update, signed with Apple's key, loaded into the phone.
If the government wanted to, they could require Apple to provide source code to their existing software and the government could modify it and either ask Apple to sign it or require Apple to provide its private key. However, by requiring Apple to create the hacking software, they're introducing an idea that software companies cannot refuse to create software when required by the government. Once someone does something for a government official, often that's taken as a reason that the government can require them to do it again. (See In re Boucher - case citation: No. 2:06-mj-91, 2009 WL 424718)
Apple had asked that the request be sealed, thus kept secret and not able to be used as precedent but the Department of Justice refused and thus made their request both public and able to be used as precedent. If they succeed in forcing Apple to create hacking software they get access to the information on this phone, but more importantly, the hundreds or thousands of phones they'd like to access are much more likely to be accessed by forcing Apple to repeat the process over and over. Apple doesn't want to be in the business of creating hacking software for the government. Much of law enforcement would consider this a victory, but I think the FBI is hoping to lose this case as a general might be willing to lose a battle, in order to win the bigger war. By losing the case, the FBI gains public support that they can use to pressure Congress to create laws forcing software companies to build in backdoors. Such a thing could be done securely, so that it wouldn't open the software to hackers. I have zero faith that Congress or software companies actually would do it in a secure way, but that's not the reason I am against the backdoor. Encryption is math and the math is known and freely available to anyone who searches for it. The ability to create securely encrypted software is something that can't be made to disappear, but it can be made illegal to do in the US. By d
"This couple purposely and specifically destroyed their phones and computers before going on their rampage. Do you really thing they left incriminating evidence on the guys's work phone?"
Its interesting to consider that by leaving their iphone in the situation they did, this terrorist couple may end up doing far more damage to US society than their shooting spree...
Because it does depend on the OEM - as Apple is showing the only way to solve this issue is in the hardware because it is too easy to bypass software based solutions.
So there isn't much Google can do with Android itself (now the Nexus hardware is another story, but that's not Android).
So what? The Magna Carta was written 800 years ago, and we still value many of the principles it contains. Much of the beauty of the Constitution is how well engineered it is, and how much of its framework still works and applies today, including the 4th and 5th. The fact that the founders couldn't foresee our technology is irrelevant. What you don't seem to understand (most people, actually) is that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant people rights.
It states that these rights preexist, AND EXPLICITLY STATES THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO INFRINGE UPON THEM.
Whether we are to be secure in papers in our houses, our strongboxes, or letters, or text messages is simply a game of semantics. These are all communications we intend to hold privately ... and therefore the government has no right to them.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
In a perfect world maybe, but you're not considering the real world where few lives will be saved, but the vulnerability will be abused constantly.
Especially since they immediately demanded to violate those rights 12 additional times in order to break the encryption of 12 more iPhones -- none of which had anything to do with the bogyman of the week, terrorism.
This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or protecting Americans. The FBI decided us using our right to privacy was making their jobs annoyingly difficult, so our right to privacy, in this situation, simply has to go.
"There are simply no comparisons to be made and the writers could never have comprehended the technologically advanced world we live in today."
Bullshit. I can teach 65+ year old biddies from the ghetto how to repair laptops in a couple of weeks, yet they still can't program a VCR to save their lives. Teaching the founders today by analogy would take about ten minutes, and they'd then look at you and go "You sir, are a fucking moron."
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You missed the point of the test:
A law that would explicitly enable the revolutionaries to stand up to King George III would be a law that would help the colonies overthrow the King.
"We want guns and cannons and stuff!"
"Okay. Free guns and cannons for all colonists!"
"BOOM BOOM BOOM! We're FREE!"
--Yes! Thats why the second amendment was written. We have a right to bear arms, specifically so that we can overthrow an oppressive government. So that a "militia" can not be overruled and out-gunned by its government. In modern times, its unimaginable how a citizenry in the U.S could overthrow its government, but surely it would be easier with arms than without.
What about a law freeing the colonies of taxation?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. No taxes then."
"Yaaaay! This king RULES! No revolution!"
-- This isn't a good law. Taxation is a form of procurement we exercise as a nation. Eg. we can not procure national defense independently, or pay for a healthy system of courts independently. When the government purchases goods or services, we all collectively purchase them without a choice. Taxation and government procurement is under force, so it should be used sparingly. To put a point on it: No taxation would have hurt the revolutionaries, so no.
What about a law giving the colonies a voice in Parliament?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. You can have some seats."
"Cool. Sounds fair. No need for revolution."
A voice in parliament would have absolutely helped the revolutionaries, and with careful negotiation and a strong bargaining position, the war could have been shorter, or avoided entirely. This would have been a good law, and it would have helped the revolutionaries. Yes.
An overly oppressive law could also help the colonies to overthrow the king, by strengthening the resolve and numbers of the opposition.
"This king sucks!"
"Oh yeah! Well I claim primae noctis on all marriages in the colonies. You also have to pay your own way to England. You can't get married otherwise. We'll kill you if you don't comply."
"Let's kill him!"
This is a bad law for so many reasons. It would not have helped the revolutionaries because it would have strengthened ties to England due to the children, it would have drained the colony of females who could not afford the trip back, and (to humor you) would have resulted in many deaths due to the inability to pay for or survive the Atlantic crossing. Bad law, no.
Does timing matter? Couldn't the same law have different effects during different stages of the revolution? Consider something which, early on, would be non-controversial and "nip in the bud" revolutionary activities. However, if enacted after the colonies were already in revolt, this same law would be seen as oppressive and instead fuel rebellion?
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"Ben who?"
vs.
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"FUCK YOU!"
At no point would such a law have helped the colonies, No. This isn't a good law.
Is this really a good test? Wouldn't the most oppressive laws imaginable actually pass, because they would incite revolution? Should the gov't really pass crazy laws simply for the purpose of provoking the public?
None of the laws you have proposed would have helped the colonials, save for the voice in parliament which would have been a great law at the time. Yes, this is a good test. The goal isn't to incite revolution, the goal is that the will of the governed reign over the will of their government. Laws should enact the peoples choices and beliefs. The colonists wanted freedom and liberties, their government didn't want to give it to them.
spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!
http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
f the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Exactly, it's really not an exaggeration to say that if the FBI gets their way, when the "just for this phone" (a bald-faced lie anyway) software eventually leaks, dissidents in totalitarian countries will be MURDERED because of it.