Godfather Of Encryption Explains Why Apple Should Help The FBI (bgr.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Famed cryptographer and Turing Award winner, Adi Shamir, has an interesting if not surprising take on Apple's current legal tussle with the FBI. While speaking on a panel at RSA Conference 2016 earlier this week, the man who helped co-invent the vaunted RSA algorithm (he's the 'S' in RSA) explained why he sides with the FBI as it pertains to the San Bernardino shooter's locked iPhone. It has nothing to do with placing trapdoors on millions of phones around the world," Shamir explained. "This is a case where it's clear those people are guilty. They are dead; their constitutional rights are not involved. This is a major crime where 14 people were killed. The phone is intact. All of this aligns in favor of the FBI." Shamir continued, "even though Apple has helped in countless cases, they decided not to comply this time. My advice is that they comply this time and wait for a better test case to fight where the case is not so clearly in favor of the FBI."

Comments

What a crock

[zieroh]

What a crock full of shit.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

And from someone who really ought to know better.

What this tells me is that being the "Godfather of Encryption" is not mutually exclusive with being a dunce on operational security.

Waiting for a future, better case would sure end up looking foolish when the government argues, "What's the problem? You agreed to do this exact same thing before, in the San Bernardino case..."

Re:What a crock

[Corwyn_123]

What a crock full of shit.

You're so right, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He's probably on the FBI's payroll, considering the feds had once paid off RSA to weaken RSA encryption to begin with.

Re: What a crock

[Desler]

Only if you're an idiot. It's only about the one phone until precedent is made.

Re:What a crock

[rtb61]

Well to be accurate he is on the payroll of Weizmann Institute of Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... So rather than being on the FBI payroll he is more likely on the Mossad payroll and actually spends most of his time specialising in "Differential cryptanalysis is a general form of cryptanalysis applicable primarily to block ciphers, but also to stream ciphers and cryptographic hash functions. In the broadest sense, it is the study of how differences in information input can affect the resultant difference at the output. In the case of a block cipher, it refers to a set of techniques for tracing differences through the network of transformations, discovering where the cipher exhibits non-random behaviour, and exploiting such properties to recover the secret key." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ie breaking encryption. So yeah, self serving dick wants to make his life easier, so basically what ever he says, do the fucking opposite and do not trust anything from him.

Re: What a crock

[nytes]

No, it's about the other 14 iPhones the FBI has lined up behind it, and the 175 iPhones New York city has after those, and so on.

Re: What a crock

[breakermelvin]

Adi locked down Murdoch's Sky TV decoders. They had previously been hacked every 12 months or so. This doesn't make him a bad person. BDS I guess would boycott someone from the WI.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do the victims' families stand to gain? As Mr. Shamir has pointed out, the criminals are dead. It's not like the FBI is going to find evidence to put them on death row.

Re: What a crock

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

One day , just think from the victims families point of view . it's just about one iPhone data .

You say that as if there wouldn't be victims of government overreach.

Re:What a crock

[Pseudonym]

Well to be accurate he is on the payroll of Weizmann Institute of Science [...]

History, it seems, is not without sense of irony. My, how things have changed in the last 30 years.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only one opinion. Ron Rivest, the R in RSA, disagrees with Shamir over this one. As the S in the abbreviation, Shamir is the man in the middle.

Re: What a crock

[AHuxley]

AC re 'it's just about one iPhone data ". Its about been conscripted to create a portable master key for a generation of US phone products. Once created, a generation of hardware and software is open to anyone who can buy or ask for or use the same keys. A generation of phones are then at risk.
"‘Take this tool and put it on a hard drive, send it to the FBI,’ and they’d load it onto their computer,” http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/f... (March 2, 2016)

Re:What a crock

[Shoten]

And from someone who really ought to know better.

What this tells me is that being the "Godfather of Encryption" is not mutually exclusive with being a dunce on operational security.

Waiting for a future, better case would sure end up looking foolish when the government argues, "What's the problem? You agreed to do this exact same thing before, in the San Bernardino case..."

Should he know better? I'm not sure. On one hand, Shamir is really good at math. But math has almost nothing to do with Constitutional law, which is what this is really about.

There's a big difference between who can create/build a certain technology, and who should be trusted with knowing how and when to use it. A lot of people conflate the two, but they are incredibly different skillsets.

Re: What a crock

[Shoten]

Only if you're an idiot. It's only about the one phone until precedent is made.

This.

And Apple's statement to this effect has already been proven true...for there are multiple cases where the FBI has asked for "just this one phone" to be unlocked in this manner. There are literally more than a dozen parallel efforts, in addition to this one particularly high-profile one, to get this to happen.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

One day , just think from the victims families point of view . it's just about one iPhone data .

Fuck the families of the victims, and fuck you for your sheer stupidity.

The families of the victims do not have a right to compromise the privacy of others
in order to provide themselves with emotional comfort, which is all they will ever get because
their family members who were killed are dead and will remain dead.

The people who matter are those of us who are still alive. The troubles of those who are
dead are OVER.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to be able to tell victim's families that it is better to risk letting a guilty person go than to risk harming an innocent person. It isn't easy to do so, but it takes strength to preserve rights.

Re: What a crock

[plover]

Shamir is also being disingenuous when he said, "even though Apple has helped in countless cases, they decided not to comply this time." Apple's cooperation in the prior cases was in recovering unencrypted data. They have never provided a way to decrypt data when they don't have the keys, or recover keys locked in the secure enclave.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. If all of this aligns in favor of the FBI means the FBI directing local law enforcement to RESET the damn passcode their trying to break on the phone in question, then this 'Godfather of Encryption', is off his fucker rocker.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

>He is most likely on the Mossad payroll
>so basically what ever he says, do the fucking opposite and do not trust anything from him.

I think you both are Mossad and therefore anticipated by doing the opposite of what he says is the same as what you want me to not do. The opposite of what you want me to do is what also you want me to do. That red apple sure looks delicious but once you take a bite then it becomes you. It is good enough to know the FBI had to ask Apple for the option of decryption tools. What we will likely see is a custom ASIC that will just piggyback ontop of another existing semiconductor of a dismantled iphone...like one of those shitty Apple logic boards from back in the 80's and 90's.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, knowledge of math has nothing to do with right and wrong.

Re:What a crock

[Solandri]

Yeah, because MGM vs. Grokster and Capitol Records vs. Thomas-Rasset did so much to advance the cause of filesharing rights vs IP law.

You want a good case which burns away irrelevant fluff and centers the issue solely on the principles at stake. If you pick a bad case, the court could decide against you based on that fluff, inadvertently setting a precedent which influences the balance of those principles. The principles at stake in this case (or what people are hoping this case will be about) are an individual's right to privacy and a company's right of self-determination against government coercion, vs. the government's duty to keep society safe. Here are the flaws I can see with this case:

• Privacy rights and the 4th Amendment aren't relevant. It's not the shooter's phone. The phone belongs to the San Bernardino County government.
• The shooter was indisputably guilty of the crime. You want the test case to highlight how the power the government is asking for could be abused, not one which validates the government's argument. That way the rights violation is real while the benefit the government is arguing for is hypothetical. Not the other way around.
• Even if you argue that the shooter's privacy is somehow relevant, he's dead. It's questionable if or to what extent privacy rights survive after your death. If we're going to have a test case about privacy rights after death, I'd rather it be of an innocent guy wrongly accused by the government and his reputation consequently smeared. Not some guy who was indisputably guilty.
• The shooter was a terrorist, and his victims were innocent. I wish this weren't a factor, but it is. The best way to get a guy off a murder charge is to convince the jury that the victim deserved to die. The polls showing a slim majority of Americans supporting the FBI in this wouldn't be coming out that way if this were the FBI asking Apple to help it break into some grandmother's phone because she might have poisoned an axe murderer who hacked her grandkids to bits.
• The strongest argument supporting Apple in this case is that the government cannot coerce an individual or company to do something against their will. Well, the exceptions to that in general law are pretty much all tied to a state of war or national emergencies. People can be drafted into military service. Stores' inventories can be confiscated for redistribution as the government sees fit. This being a terrorism case comes uncomfortably close to meeting that criterion.

Waiting for a future, better case would sure end up looking foolish when the government argues, "What's the problem? You agreed to do this exact same thing before, in the San Bernardino case..."

All the points I listed above can be used to refute that argument. That's why this is a bad case. Heck, even the recent New York case (defendant is a drug dealer, but he is the phone's owner, and he didn't kill anyone) is a better case.

Re:What a crock

[Greyfox]

Perhaps you'd rather listen to Darrel Issa take NPR's David Green to school on the subject?

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

And this phone contains what elixir to undo the terrible murders?

Re:What a crock

[Zontar The Mindless]

So you didn't just fall off a potato wagon, either? Amazing coincidence, that. :)

It's not even "wrong"--it's *disingenuous* to a degree which resulted in near-instant coffee spatters on my monitor and a "HORSESHIT" tag for the story about 10 seconds later.

Re: What a crock

[Zontar The Mindless]

Not to mention that the victims are dead, we already know who killed them, the killers themselves are also dead, and cracking an iPhone is not going to bring any of them back to life.

Re: What a crock

[Zontar The Mindless]

Harsh, but true, nevertheless.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the families of the victims, and fuck you for your sheer stupidity.

Some of the families of the victims have already come forward and stated that they care more about their freedom than the contents of this phone. Fuck him for trying to use people against their will. Respect to those that can stand for their principles even in a time of terrible stress.

Re: What a crock

[WarJolt]

But the math does say you can build a secure phone where only the owner has the key. Ask anyone who's ever lost a bitcoin wallet. Apple chose to retain that key making it a political issues, not a technical one.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

That article (and theory) is wrong. Apple could easily write a very small patch that would run on 1 phone (tied to the unique ID). And then just like every other OS update, it's signed by Apple's secret key. If anyone changes 1 or more bytes, the phone won't accept the patch. It will never run on any other phone.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

While that's true, that's not what the prior two posts were discussing, nor does Apple have "the keys" in this case.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?
Damn, I'm stuck on a really hard crypto mathematical problem and was considering hiring a lawyer to solve it.

Ohh well.

Re: What a crock

[Kkloe]

It is not going to do the dead terrorists any harm either as they are dead.

Re:What a crock

[Aighearach]

Specifically:

...Apple has helped in countless cases...

is horseshit. This idiot should learn the basic facts before opening his trap. I read court filings on this just in a past few days (widely reported) that include the information that Apple has never provided this type of assistance.

There are currently over a dozen cases where the government is attempting to use the All Writs Act to force Apple to do this sort of work; all of those are pending and under challenge or appeal.

Zero is not "countless" even for small values of countless. ;)

Re:What a crock

[Aighearach]

Should he know better? I'm not sure. On one hand, Shamir is really good at math. But math has almost nothing to do with Constitutional law...

This involves primarily two things; philosophical identity, and equals/not equals. Both of those are taught to mathematicians. Identity is simply the concept that a thing exists. We're talking about an abstract thing, specifically a set of actions that together are the "help" that the FBI wants from Apple. Then, we have equals/not equals. How many times has "help" that the FBI asks for been done? None.

It is exactly counting that he no longer comprehends. I recommend that he get a brain scan to check for tumors. A formerly great mathematician can no longer tell the difference between "zero" and "countless." That implies a potential medical emergency.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Zontar the Mindless indeed. It's not about the rights of the dead. RTFA. It's about the FBI using the "do whatever we tell you to do" Writs Act to let the executive compel someone to do something with a review by the legislature violating the separation of powers on which this country is foudned, and about introducing a backdoor which criminals, terrorists, and governments can walk through whenever they choose. Read moar. Lern moar.

Re: What a crock

[Aighearach]

They're currently asking for this help on over a dozen iPhones, it is only one phone per case but it is not and never was about a single phone, even before any new precedent. Indeed, this weeks ruling from NY went into that and the inaccuracy of the claim that it only involves one phone.

Re: What a crock

[easyTree]

I guess there's the sense that mental dexterity in one arena translates well into others.

Hmm. Appeal-to-authority says something differing from what's apparently good sense. Maybe we're wrong? Waiiiiit...

Re: What a crock

[easyTree]

One doesn't need a motivé for inaction. On the contrary, one needs a motive for action.

What is the motive here?

Re: What a crock

[easyTree]

Associative memory is scary. When I see your name, I cannot help butt think of butts.

Re: What a crock

[easyTree]

Uhh... the victims" families appear to fall within the set of currently living people and therefore according to your position, they matter too.

Re: What a crock

[dissy]

One day , just think from the victims families point of view .

You mean the families that ALSO say it is wrong for the FBI to have the ability to decrypt iPhones world over?
http://news.slashdot.org/story...

it's just about one iPhone data

Repeating a lie, that you are damn well aware is a lie, over and over will not make it any more true.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, their right to privacy. Not their right to infringe on others privacy.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only one opinion. Ron Rivest, the R in RSA, disagrees with Shamir over this one. As the S in the abbreviation, Shamir is the man in the middle.

So you're saying that this is a man-in-the-middle attack?

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think you both are Mossad and therefore anticipated by doing the opposite of what he says is the same as what you want me to not do.

It's a smoke screen?
Double bluff.
It's an "XK Red 27" technique!

Re:What a crock

[WaffleMonster]

What this tells me is that being the "Godfather of Encryption" is not mutually exclusive with being a dunce on operational security.

My guess he realizes Apples argument is nonsensical gibberish.

My data is only secure so long as someone does not create a tool after the fact to compromise it... What kind of bullshit is that? Why is this technically ridiculous position worth defending politically in front of millions of people scared out of their minds of terrorists and whom do not know jack about underlying technology?

The FBI is laughing their assess off right now at the stupidity of the tech industry. Apple is succeeding in re-railing the train Snowden derailed.

Waiting for a future, better case would sure end up looking foolish when the government argues, "What's the problem? You agreed to do this exact same thing before, in the San Bernardino case..."

To wit the answer must be: "We re-architected our security hardware and no longer possess the *capability* to circumvent query limit and delay."

Any other answer is an indication data stored on the iPhone was never secure in the first place.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're completely wrong.

APL had complied with releasing cloud storage data to the FBI over 50 times already. Even in this case, they GAVE them the password to the cloud storage - how could the fbi supposedly lock themselves out by resetting the password?

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no secure enclave on the phone in question.

Do a bit of research before commenting please.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

What about them?

The fbi is willing to let APL control everything in this particular case: Fbi gives them the phone, they get the user data off, they return the phone in its original state. The method used can be destroyed before anyone else can use it.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, you're the fucking idiot.

They have freely provided cloud data to authorities without so much as a peep about privacy over 40 times already.

Re:What a crock

[JaredOfEuropa]

It is about more than just laws, principles and precedent. It really is about operational security, as well as the kind of oversight (or complete lack thereof) we have on the application of cyber-surveillance by government institutions. As Apple have said:

"The notion that this is something only about opening one lock or that there is some degree of locks that can't be opened with the tool that they're asking us to create, is a misnomer," Sewell added.

Apple evidently worries that the FBI will keep whatever tool Apple creates, and use it to break into other iPhones in other cases. Those cases are most likely not always legit, and there is a further risk of the tool getting into the hands of others. At best that will be allied secret services, but who knows. The point is: giving this tool to the FBI ultimately compromises the security of every single iPhone out there, or so Apple claim. It is the same as using encryption with the governent having a back-door key, and we should not want that, for the same reasons.

Re: What a crock

[Kkloe]

See if they had any communication with people that helped or being incited by others, and before ppl say something about freedom of speech, yes its good to have that, but not to use it so that people may get hurt

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the NBA hasn't already cracked the encryption of the iPhone. We are at war against terrorists and this story about a fight between tech companies and the government could be a smokescreen intended to hide the truth. Kinda like how Turing and British intelligence kept the cracking of Enigma encryption secret so the Nazis would not retool the machine. Would make spying on terrorists a whole lot easier if they believed the devices they are using to coordinate their Ops is secure. We don't want terrorists to make their own devices for communication.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, there's a big difference between complying with a court order to hand over to the FBI data you have, vs. helping the FBI to get access to data they already have but is encrypted.

Re:What a crock

[Plumpaquatsch]

Let's first see evidence that the FBI and San Bernardino County didn't deliberately destroy or hide evidence to force the whole issue. There are reports that SBC paid for Mobile Device Management software, but claims that they didn't put it on their phones because supposedly the users could just remove it (which sounds bogus to begin with). With MDM software it would have been extremely easy to get at all the information on the phone.

Anybody willing to blow a whistle here?

Re: What a crock

[tburkhol]

But the math does say you can build a secure phone where only the owner has the key.

No, the math says the phone is secure if only the owner has the key.

Apple chose to retain that key making it a political issues, not a technical one.

Again, not quite. Apple wrote the operating system that allows the owner sole access to the key, and they can rewrite the OS to violate that exclusivity. Whether they can be forced to retroactively modify their OS to expose their customers' private data is the political issue.

Re: What a crock

[buck-yar]

So what is that NSA meta data program for then?

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done Scoop

Re: What a crock

[mrbester]

That's a fishing expedition. The FBI *thinks* there *might be* some other information on that phone. Given the amount of time that has passed, I *think* that this information, if it even exists, *might be* out of date and useless.

Re: What a crock

[silentcoder]

He's Allice, she's Bob.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

The very beginning of that sentence made it very clear he was making a general statement about what Apple has and has not done. Read the comment you're responding to before commenting, please.

Re: What a crock

[tburkhol]

the victims" families appear to fall within the set of currently living people and therefore according to your position, they matter too.

How do those families benefit by viewing whatever data is stored on the phone? Or maybe better: what data could be stored on the phone that would benefit those 14 families to a greater extent than the harm done to 700,000,000 iPhone owners?

Stored data I imagine might include a manifesto, might include the text of messages exchanged with co-conspirators, might include a map to a buried nuclear bomb set to go off in 24 hours. A manifesto is not very useful. Potential co-conspirators can already be identified from meta-data available by subpoenaing phone records.

That leaves the buried nuclear bomb. That bomb has been the motivation for all of the NSA, CIA, and FBI's invasive surveillance, not just back to 2001, but for as long as those agencies have existed. It may or may not be a figment of their collective paranoia, but the argument is powerful and irrefutable. There might be critical information about an imminent, catastrophic attack stored anywhere, therefore, immediate, unfettered access to everything might prevent massive damage and casualties. There might even be critical data steganographically encrypted in Suzie's lolly, and we won't know for sure until we take it away and test it. We have the 4th amendment to enshrine the security and privacy of the individual over bogeymen invented by the state.

Re: What a crock

[BlueStrat]

The fbi is willing to let APL control everything in this particular case:

Wrong.

Look up the actual court order.

The text of the court order instructs APL to place the tool on a hard drive and give it to the FBI to use.

Are you stupid or are you a shill?

Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, and as often as not, correlate strongly. Particularly when the shills work for government.

Strat

Re:What a crock

[AmiMoJo]

Apple doesn't want there to be a precedent set that says the forced creation of software to crack their own phones is not an undue burden. If they lose then any future security improvements they make won't get them off the hook, the court will just say "you did this to yourself, now expend the necessary resources to undo it".

It's a shame they didn't do it properly in the first place so that their claim of not being able to unlock the device was actually true. Then there wouldn't be a risk of this happening to them.

Re:What a crock

[shawn2772]

To wit the answer must be: "We re-architected our security hardware and no longer possess the *capability* to circumvent query limit and delay."

They probably already did this in the 5S and later. The 5C does not have the "secure enclave" chip, which means there is no secure hardware on the device, all of the security is implemented in software.

Also, it should be pointed out that the signed software approach is quite secure against anyone who doesn't have the software signing keys, or the capability to compel the holder of the signing keys. That's actually just fine if the goal is to defend the data from access by private snoops (e.g. spouses, even technically sophisticated ones, corporate espionage, etc.) and criminals.

Consumer devices will never be secure against state actors with unlimited funds and sufficient motivation (e.g. NSA, GCHQ, Mossad, etc.), so really the only cases where the approach is inadequate are cases where (a) the owner of the signing keys (Apple) wants the data or (b) a government with the power to compel the owner of the signing keys wants the data. Apple has no reason to prevent their own ability to circumvent (though they do need to protect against use of this ability by rogue employees), since they know their financial interest is strongly on the side of securing the data, and legitimate companies generally do not expend effort on securing data against law enforcement officials of democratic regimes that have due process and rule of law.

Indeed, although the 5S and the 6-series probably do make it impossible for Apple to comply with similar demands for those devices, I really doubt that was the rationale for adding the security chip. I'm the lead engineer for similar components on Android, and while I've been pushing to include a secure element chip for some time, the rationale has never been to keep US courts from being able to compel access, it's always been about strengthening security against corporate espionage (which signed software solutions do address, but not completely) and to make penetration costlier for oppressive governments and intelligence services. I say "costlier" since they can't really be kept out completely.

I'm not certain that the secure enclave actually keeps Apple from being able to comply with this sort of request, either. I expect that the software in that device is also field-upgradable, since there are compelling practical and security reasons for enabling upgrades. Bugs are always a risk, and being able to fix them is a really good thing. But if the software can be upgraded, then it can be "upgraded" to remove security features. This can be limited in various ways; it's common, for example, to have secret keys burned into hardware which simply cannot be extracted by software because the software never has direct access to them, and any security that derives from the secrecy of such keys can't be subverted by software changes. But brute force mitigation possibly can be upgraded away, even with the secure enclave chip.

The bottom line here is that these are really hard engineering problems. Not that it's hard to design so that key components are non-updatable... that's easy. But it's also very risky, because it leaves you without any options when said components turn out to have problems. I think it's flat wrong to characterize Apple engineers' failure to secure the 5C against Apple as any kind of incompetence, which is your clear implication.

Re: What a crock

[arth1]

That article (and theory) is wrong. Apple could easily write a very small patch that would run on 1 phone (tied to the unique ID). And then just like every other OS update, it's signed by Apple's secret key. If anyone changes 1 or more bytes, the phone won't accept the patch. It will never run on any other phone.

What I think you and many others fail to understand is that once Apple signs the firmware for the San Bernadino phone, they have created precedence, and the TLAs will demand that they do the same over and over again for any number of other phones. Or even for a general firmware patch pushed through to all users.
If Apple no longer can choose what they sign and don't sign, it's the feds running the show. It's as bad as handing the feds the signing key, but even a bit worse from Apple's point of view, as they have to provide the work too.

Re:What a crock

[Applehu Akbar]

At the next data security conference, let's poll the experts on this question. Let's see what percentage of FBI supporters we get.

Re: What a crock

[CODiNE]

FBI is saying to Apple "Just the tip baby, I swear".

Re:What a crock

[c]

On one hand, Shamir is really good at math. But math has almost nothing to do with Constitutional law, which is what this is really about.

US Constitutional law, specifically. Shamir is an Israeli, so it's natural to expect that he's going to balance the rights of individual Americans versus the state a wee bit differently than those who have to live with the consequences.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Hudson, he's Hicks.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. the Supreme court routinely rejects cases until they get one that they can issue a meaningful ruling on, and hte precedent is in the text of the ruling, not the thumbs up/thumbs down. Your basic premise is a lie.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

The math is not the evil that the mind may construct. But, the evil mind may use math to construct it's plan.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because we all know jihadis use their work-supplied phones to communicate with their bretheren, and NOT their own personally-owned phones that they DESTROYED

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, why did all give the Chinese the OS codes? You argument is not logical. Give the ability to compromise everyone's phone to the ultra capitalist Chinese, but not to their own government? It don't make sense, but they did it. So, now, who has the ability to force feed your phone? The ability to view you greatest secret photo of the secret sauce, and your addition of pickle juice, to create the latest food frenzy, not someone who has to ask for a warrant.

Re:What a crock

[GLMDesigns]

My gut reaction is to agree with you. But this is a constitutional issue, a legal issue. This may not be the incident to build a case on. Although - if we win on a case like this - where there is no doubt about the guilt and that the individuals are dead; then it would be close to an iron-clad precedent.

I can see the point he's making - that this particular case is not the best one put all your chips on.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used the same MDM software that SBC does (MobileIron) and the user can easily remove the MDM software from their phone. Both Google and Apple have left ultimate control of the device in the hands of the user. The way MobileIron recommends "forcing" users to keep the software installed, is to block access to company resources unless you use the MobileIron proxy to access them. So you have to make changes to make sure that if a user uninstalls the software they lose access to email and other company resources.

Thoughts from MI - https://www.mobileiron.com/en/smartwork-blog/reactions-san-bernardino-county-debate

Steve

Re: What a crock

[tsqr]

Actually, you're completely wrong.

Actually, he's nearly correct. He would have been completely correct if he'd said it this way: How many times has the kind of "help" that the FBI has asked for in this case for been done? None. Releasing cloud storage is not remotely (heh) similar to writing new software to bypass the password entry protection.

Re:What a crock

[tsqr]

Let's first see evidence that the FBI and San Bernardino County didn't deliberately destroy or hide evidence to force the whole issue.

I'd be interested in knowing what this evidence that destruction or hiding didn't happen, would look like. If you could find someone who could credibly testify that evidence was destroyed or hidden, great; that would be evidence that it did happen. But what would it take to satisfy you that this didn't didn't happen?

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont get it. nsa broke ios years ago, as well as android.
actually, i do get it. the never ending pursuit of limitless power.
imagine the next target...

Re:What a crock

[waTeim]

RSA again huh? Aren't these the guys that purposely set their algorithm to use an inferior random number generator by default thus showing that they are complicit in the NSA shenanigans? Answer: Yes.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Slashdot is full of government-hating tinfoil-hat-wearing nerds. They hold the government up to impossible standards and in the process common-sense situations like this become ideological battles.

There should be no ideological battle here. By all accounts the FBI has the legal right to access the contents of this phone. If you want to make sure that the police does not abuse its powers, make it more difficult to grant a warrant in the first place. But once a warrant has been granted, the request is legal, period.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

We use MDM software on our phones. It involves installing a profile and and app.,then you register the device with the online service. It's a simple matter to remove the MDM. Not sure how you can prevent a user from removing it short of threatening their employment. And, like us, we are only required to use the MDM if we want access to corporate wi-go and internal systems via our personal mobile device.

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

See, if this was about the FBI having the right to the data you might be correct.

It is in fact about whether the FBI can compel apple to write software for them. And once apple does this they can be compelled repeatedly. And whether it is undue burden for that to happen.

Additionally, Apple is saying that it has been established that code is speech and that the government would be compelling Apple to violate it's rights by forcing it to speak.

Re:What a crock

[nine-times]

It's not just about Constitutional law, but also about security principles. My sense of his argument is that he's saying, "You may want to put up a fight some other time, but in this instance, you know that they're guilty, so you should do what the government is asking." In other words, "Security is important, but in this one instance the person should probably be authorized, so build a new backdoor into the system for that person that allows them to circumvent your security protocols."

If this guy is any kind of security expert, he should know that it's a bad idea to build in backdoors that are permanently excluded from going through security protocols. Honestly, sometimes you want to build some way to circumvent a security measure in case of an emergency, but any such method to circumvent security should fit into a larger security scheme, and it should have its own security measures to disallow abuse. Simply introducing an uncontrolled backdoor is irresponsible.

Re: What a crock

[jedidiah]

Some of the victims families have already stated that they don't want the death of their loved ones to be used as an excuse to undermine the Bill of Rights.

So you can't play the "but the victims" card.

Re: What a crock

[x_t0ken_407]

You mean, like this victim's family member?

http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/m...

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Fanty. He's Mingo.

Re: What a crock

[Kkloe]

it is just a complement to other intelligence gathering?

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY.
The dudes and the people are fucking dead already. There ain't nothing more to be done about it. And there aint nothing worth anything on the damn phone either.
Move the fuck on.
The people who are alive are the important ones, the alive people have privacy rights, and you cant jack them from them just because you've got worthless dead people who have no rights (other than to not be sodomized and fed to pigs) that you can trample all over.
Fuck that government apologist and schemer Shamir, he should know better. Sounds like a Jew, for which he and his people should know better about what happens when you give government power over people like that.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! This is not about unlocking a single phone, its about setting a precedent that would be used to unlock any phone that the FBI (and any other "law enforcement agency"... including local police) wants to unlock.

I believe that everyone has the right to privacy, including one's data that is stored on personal devices. No one ESPECIALLY law enforcement or government agencies should be able to get that data without the device owners permission, or be allowed to try to force the device maker to weaken the security of their devices to help said agencies access such data.

What this is really about is how close to Orwell's 1984 do we want our country , our world to get? I say that we have already gone way to far down that path and now must start fighting our way back to gain back our rights and our privacy!

Re: What a crock

[Kkloe]

yes, might be, as all information you might gather for whatever reason, might it be about weather, frogs or paint, something "might be" useful

Re:What a crock

[torkus]

This surely beats a car analogy at least.

On a slightly more serious note, just because someone has the background to create an encryption system (micro-scale security) does not mean they have the background to speak towards privacy or macro-scale information security.

Obligatory (bad) car analogy:

Would you trust Charles Goodyear (patented vulcanization) or even Henry Ford to write traffic laws? While bad analogies are bad, the underlying point is that having tangential knowledge gives you nearly zero USEFUL knowledge and insight to the relevant topic.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

My data is only secure so long as someone does not create a tool after the fact to compromise it...

Not someone, Apple. Only Apple can create such a tool, because they have to sign the code. If anyone could create it, then the FBI wouldn't be demanding Apple do it. So, stop using terms like gibberish and bullshit when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Re:What a crock

[WaffleMonster]

They probably already did this in the 5S and later. The 5C does not have the "secure enclave" chip, which means there is no secure hardware on the device, all of the security is implemented in software.

There is a lot of confusion on this point. 5C does not have secure enclave for touch but keying material is still protected by the application processor. Access to the encryption key is mediated by hardware even for 5C. The OS has no direct access to it.

Indeed, although the 5S and the 6-series probably do make it impossible for Apple to comply with similar demands for those devices,

My understanding they still have the ability to change query limit and delay parameters even for current hardware which is essentially all the FBI wants.

Consumer devices will never be secure against state actors with unlimited funds and sufficient motivation (e.g. NSA, GCHQ, Mossad, etc.), so really the only cases where the approach is inadequate are cases where (a) the owner of the signing keys (Apple) wants the data or (b) a government with the power to compel the owner of the signing keys wants the data.

I completely agree with the premise preventing physical access to secrets to determined adversaries is a fools errand... You can still run side channels, STMs..etc etc. Anyone who seriously tried to go there would probably end up buried in export restrictions.

In this specific case Apple has claimed publically they don't have access and can't give LEA access. Given relative simplicity cutting off this method of attack by not allowing security parameters to be modified after the fact I don't think it is unreasonable given expectations Apple itself has set.

Re:What a crock

[WaffleMonster]

Not someone, Apple. Only Apple can create such a tool, because they have to sign the code. If anyone could create it, then the FBI wouldn't be demanding Apple do it. So, stop using terms like gibberish and bullshit when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I take it for granted everyone here knows iPhones will only run firmware with a valid signature.

This does nothing to address my point dependency on future action/inaction on the part of Apple is unnecessary and insecure. It also runs counter to public statements apple has made about their own capabilities in this regard.

This episode clearly demonstrates why the unnecessary dependency is a really bad idea. If there was no evidence Apple was capable of complying there would be no court order and no massive International news story doing nothing but unnecessarily undermining the cause of security, privacy and freedom.

Re:What a crock

[WaffleMonster]

Apple doesn't want there to be a precedent set that says the forced creation of software to crack their own phones is not an undue burden. If they lose then any future security improvements they make won't get them off the hook, the court will just say "you did this to yourself, now expend the necessary resources to undo it".

I am not aware of any precedent in US law that allows people to be legally compelled to produce things they don't have or can't reasonably be expected to produce.

Further I fail to see how FBI asking Apple to do something it is reasonably capable of doing would set a precedent that companies must now provide what they are reasonably not capable of providing.

If anything this is a good thing as it sets a precedent for technology companies to make sure they architect their systems without unnecessary dependencies where security can be compromised by court order.

What this International front page title fight between Apple and the FBI does do however is provide plenty of cover for all the hawks on the hill to open a new front in the crypto war by working legislation that might undermine everyone's security, privacy and freedom.

Re: What a crock

[easyTree]

Yah; I'm totally with you.

In my arbitrarily-chosen opinion, the whole thing is theatre. If they wanted to, they'd have coerced Apple behind closed doors; therefore, I conclude, there is some benefit to doing the whole thing out in the open.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't this kind of thing usually done without fanfare - these types love secrecy - for themselves.

Re:What a crock

[golgotha007]

While this guy may know math, he clearly doesn't understand policy. His opinion on matters outside his area of expertise is irrelevant.

Re:What a crock

[macs4all]

There should be no ideological battle here. By all accounts the FBI has the legal right to access the contents of this phone. If you want to make sure that the police does not abuse its powers, make it more difficult to grant a warrant in the first place. But once a warrant has been granted, the request is legal, period.

Not to "Godwin" you; but everything the Nazi's did was LEGAL, too.

Re:What a crock

[macs4all]

Yes, I know I misused an apostrophe. It has been a long day.

Re:What a crock

[macs4all]

My guess he realizes Apples argument is nonsensical gibberish.

Hmmm. The over TWO DOZEN Amicus Briefs filed in support of Apple would tend to disagree...

Re: What a crock

[macs4all]

i dont get it. nsa broke ios years ago, as well as android. actually, i do get it. the never ending pursuit of limitless power. imagine the next target...

Depending on the number of "years ago", that could be completely irrelevant to an iPhone 5C running iOS 9.

Also, from what I have heard, the NSA doesn't exactly like to share with other Agencies.

Re: What a crock

[macs4all]

Yeah, because we all know jihadis use their work-supplied phones to communicate with their bretheren, and NOT their own personally-owned phones that they DESTROYED

By the way, all I ever hear about the other phones was that they were "smashed to bits"; but what does that REALLY mean?

What I am getting at is that there is every chance in the world that at least ONE of those phones' microcontrollers/flash memory was not actually "smashed" (epoxy IC packages are QUITE robust!), and with BGA packages (that have no "pins" to break), it wouldn't be that hard for someone with the Gummint's resources and budget to do some forensics on THOSE phones (which, as you allude-to, are probably the phones with the REAL data).

But yet, NO ONE brings up the other phones, other than they were "Smashed to bits". Wonder why...?

Re:What a crock

[rtb61]

Sometimes music is useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., they sell out themselves and who they were would hate who they have become, not matter how much they try to hide that from themselves.

Re: What a crock

[Zontar The Mindless]

You're attempting to argue with the point you think I made.

Alas, that's not the same as the point I actually did make.

Re: What a crock

[KenHansen]

I am not aware of any precedent in US law that allows people to be legally compelled to produce things they don't have or can't reasonably be expected to produce.

We're in a brave new world - a few years ago people were arguing that there was no way the government can compel a citizen to buy a product

Re: What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple wrote the operating system that allows the owner sole access to the key, and they can rewrite the OS to violate that exclusivity.

Actually they designed their hardware so that neither the owner nor the OS has direct access to the key. For newer phones (assuming their implementation isn't flawed) Apple can't rewrite the OS to get the key. Strictly speaking they can't even get the key in this case, but for the iPhone 5/5C they can remove the protections against brute-forcing the PIN. The owner only has the key by virtue of physical possession of the phone, even the owner is unable to remove the key from the phone.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume that Apple are most interested in principle that the government can't force them to do something against their will, which you concede is the strongest point if favour of their case. Terrorist actions are nowhere near a "state-of-war" or a "national emergency", and the government seems to all too frequently use the "but terrorists" argument to justify their actions. If Apple can successfully defend this case, then there will be no justfication for the government to try to coerce them into action except in actual cases of war or national emergencies.

If Apple want to fight mostly on the issue of the government forcing them to do something they don't want to, then this doesn't seem like a bad case at all.

Re:What a crock

[Plumpaquatsch]

Let's first see evidence that the FBI and San Bernardino County didn't deliberately destroy or hide evidence to force the whole issue.

I'd be interested in knowing what this evidence that destruction or hiding didn't happen, would look like. If you could find someone who could credibly testify that evidence was destroyed or hidden, great; that would be evidence that it did happen. But what would it take to satisfy you that this didn't didn't happen?

I'd be content with a oath before an federal judge or US Congress by all persons involved in the case that it didn't happen. If the FBI isn't willing to do something that takes so little effort, they obviously have something to hide.

Re:What a crock

[Plumpaquatsch]

PS: At while they are at it, they should also swear that they actually believe there is even remotely helpful evidence on the phone.

Re: What a crock

[Cinnamon Beige]

This is the sort of thing that shows why you sometimes should think about the precedent more than the current case. Here, it may be that if Apple agrees, it avoids risking a bad precedent being set, and it could probably get an agreement that the tool remains in their hands. (And, done right, they would then have a strong defense if the FBI tried to insist that no, Apple gives them the tool.)

This would all be safer if they were arguing that the FBI is asking for the impossible or the practically impossible, since there is a lot of motivation out there to keep the law from being capable of compelling anybody to do that. A law can be horrible for merely the reason that it sets bad precedents. (Equally good would be if Apple was complaining about warrant issues but presumably the case would have gotten tossed out on its ear if those existed; IANAL but as I recall they're actually obligated to insist on the formalities there...which is why them keeping the tool might be safe.)

Re:What a crock

[KGIII]

On top of that, you're still (as near as I can tell) very much correct. When the AC said "only Apple" they're making a huge assumption that the ability to sign things in the name of Apple has not found its way into the hands of people who are, quite specifically, not Apple. It seems to me that making such an assumption is borderline retarded.

Re: What a crock

[KGIII]

I don't know if they're correct but I've had people tell me that I'm pretty bright. I don't have much specific domain knowledge but I've read a whole lot of links (including the official documentation, as in the tech docs) and I'm not actually sure that it'd be all that easy to get into an iPhone with the secure enclave, at least not without Apple's help.

If you add to this that people can use really long passwords and then just use a fingerprint (on the newer models) then I'm not really sure they can get in at all. There's no brute forcing that 52 (I think was the maximum) character password. It's just not gonna happen before the heat death of the universe. That's something like 3.56648779139e+123 possible combinations, you've got ten tries.

I have thought of one way. Maybe... At some point, they're sending some sort of signal that's saying to delete a key. Get some practice phones, find that signal, and figure out how to interrupt it. Then, maybe, the OS will let you have more than ten tries. I have to wonder if there's another method that might be done on the bus between points. It sure as hell isn't going to be easy.

Re:What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't Apple just crack it and give it back? I did not hear of the Apple making that offer and I did NOT hear of the FeeBEEs asking.The thing is the FeeBEEs want to crack any phone whenever. I agree when you are dead you have no rights and don't need any.

Clearly...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone should take away his Turing award, because he's obviously not smart enough to prove he's human.

I disagree

[jtownatpunk.net]

Once the tool/method is created, it exists. Even if the tool never leaves Apple, they could be compelled to use the tool in future cases. Tool.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken in your logic.

The fact that the tool could exist means that the design of the iPhone is itself compromised, so they could be compelled, or somebody could unlawfully construct a version on their own.

That means you need to concern yourself with a real secure design instead of fighting over this issue.

Don't sacrifice a Queen to save a pawn.

Re:I disagree

[jtownatpunk.net]

Of course. Because once you snap your fingers and improved security is added to the next version of the product, it will magically propagate backwards through time to the millions of devices that are currently in use.

Re:I disagree

[mattventura]

But the tool wouldn't work on newer iPhones. I think maybe what the guy is trying to say is that it would make a better test case if Apple truly had no way into the phone.

Re:I disagree

[hawguy]

But the tool wouldn't work on newer iPhones. I think maybe what the guy is trying to say is that it would make a better test case if Apple truly had no way into the phone.

how would that be a case at all?

FBI: Apple, we need you to unlock this phone.

Apple: We can't.

FBI: No really, do it. Babies might die and stuff.

Apple: No, really, we can't, here's why.

FBI: Oh ok. Well you shouldn't have built a baby killing phone.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you think that? Nothing will ever make those iPhones secure. They have a hole in them. It may be difficult to breach, but it's always going to be there, waiting.

Those phones should be considered vulnerable and replaced.

Re:I disagree

[dsmatthews9379]

The capability to create it already exists at Apple and so if they do make it, use it for this case and destroy it afterwards, you just end up back at the start, where the capability to create it exists and they are no more or less likely to be coerced into doing it by any other party. They shot themselves in the foot when they indicated so publicly that they could, but would not do it. Furthermore if you claim that they can't make and then securely destroy such tools you are also claiming that they can't securely do anything and the iPhone isn't secure. You can't have it both ways. Anyway the phone can be cracked, it would just cost a lot more money than if Apple did it. All Apple has to do is take the phone into a clean room with the equipment needed, get the codes, hand them and the phone back to the FBI and then completely destroy the contents of the clean room. Apple just do not want to do it because it devalues their product in the eyes of those who have secrets and naively believe that no other party can crack the iPhone.

Re:I disagree

[exomondo]

Can't this problem be mostly circumvented by using a secure password instead of a 4-digit passcode that can be easily brute-forced? And obviously this password can be accessed via a fingerprint using TouchID for convenience.

Re:I disagree

[Ol Olsoc]

Of course. Because once you snap your fingers and improved security is added to the next version of the product, it will magically propagate backwards through time to the millions of devices that are currently in use.

You never had a windows forced update bro? Trivial to install a backdoor with an update.

Re:I disagree

[bitingduck]

The capability to create it already exists at Apple and so if they do make it, use it for this case and destroy it afterwards, you just end up back at the start, where the capability to create it exists and they are no more or less likely to be coerced into doing it by any other party.

That shows a profound misunderstanding of how the US legal system works. Once they've done it, then the probability of them being coerced again is identically 1. If the gov't is allowed to compel them to produce software, and especially produce particular features, then the government can:
a) repeatedly compel them to recreate the software to crack existing phones that can be cracked by that method. Then apple effectively has to either maintain a team to keep recreating and destroying the software (good luck hiring people who want that job. seriously tiresome) or keep the software intact and protect it. But they can't do that, because once it gets used in an actual criminal prosecution then the defendant will have the right to see the software. And every defendant it's used against will have that right. So then it's out.
b) compel them to create a permanent backdoor in all future versions (the precedent for government compulsion of particular features having been established, despite CALEA's wording to the contrary. And they can do it secretly through the FISA court, and it will be 5-10 years before we hear about it publicly. In the meantime, people will find the holes and exploit them (aside from NSA and FBI exploting them).

The technical possibility of that particular phone being hackable by sideloading a custom system is almost irrelevant to the case. It's the legal precedent that's important.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should just give up and not bother? You can still learn from past mistakes even if you can't undo them.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Apple basically said that the design is not secure once you have the device (which makes sense I guess).

You might as well give the FBI its way and figure out a method to make it better. Why get a false sense of security.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, Apple wanted to keep this whole thing quiet and even filed a motion to do so. The FBI are the ones making a huge fuss about this and now Apple has no choice but to doggedly fight their corner, even if they didn't want to at first.

Re:I disagree

[WaffleMonster]

Once the tool/method is created, it exists. Even if the tool never leaves Apple, they could be compelled to use the tool in future cases. Tool.

If Apple really cared about security they would do the following:

1. Admit they screwed up, announce their system is vulnerable and apologize to all affected users.

2. Fix vulnerability such that security of users systems no longer hinge on whether a circumvention tool exists.

Customers should demand security live up to advertising and stand alone without unnecessary conditionality.

This particular fight is suicide for those who care about security and privacy for obvious political reasons. Neither does this make sense from a technical perspective because the government isn't asking for the creation of a vulnerability it is asking for assistance exploiting a KNOWN VULNERABILITY that has no business existing in the first place. Denying the problem exists as Apple is attempting to do with its confusing rhetoric does nothing to make anyone any more secure.

Now thanks to this one incident we have congress working legislation to create a commission which undoubtedly will lead to pushing legislation which if successful god knows will in no way serve to advance the cause of security, privacy and freedom.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong, the writ asks for remote access to the phone after apple applies the necessary patch. There is no release of the code. This whole thing is a pathetic load of lies from apple. The patch itself is very likely trivial to produce, only needs the right signing. The article is right, this is a terrible case for them. The request is legal, the guy was a horrible criminal, hes dead, and it wasn't even his phone, and he signed away any privacy with respect to it.

And the principles are bs too. Puplic court orders are exactly when privacy should be invaded. It allows us to look in safes, bank accounts, property and computers of criminals, and it should also apply also to phones. It allows the public to see what is going on -- this is the check and balance. What you should be against is _secret_ _illegal_ spying on phones that can't be examined by the puplic and could easily be nefarious.

By confusing the two you, and apple, are hurting the cause.

Re:I disagree

[tburkhol]

2. Fix vulnerability such that security of users systems no longer hinge on whether a circumvention tool exists.

If the FBI can coerce Apple to build software and use the auto-update system to apply it to particular devices, then the FBI can coerce Apple to create security vulnerabilities and distribute them through auto-update. Your device may be perfectly secure when you buy it, but the FBI can force Apple to make it insecure.

The precedent they're asking for will require a court order for that coercion. FISA is technically a court capable of issuing such orders. Various AGs have made the argument that, because data is easily destroyed, they should be able to collect it all, as long as they promise not to look at it without a court order. That is, that they can pre-emptively compel compliance with court orders they might get at some time in the future.

That last step gets to be done under the cover of national security. Whatever companies are compelled will not be allowed to argue in open court. It will just happen, be rumored by people dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists, and eventually disclosed by some poor soul forced to spend the rest of his life hiding in foreign lands.

Now thanks to this one incident we have congress working legislation to create a commission which undoubtedly will lead to pushing legislation which if successful god knows will in no way serve to advance the cause of security, privacy and freedom.

Personally, I hope they will legislate in favor of privacy. If they don't, the rules will at least be formalized, and I will have the option of finding open source alternatives, distributed outside of US jurisdiction, that are actually secure. Been there, done that.

Re:I disagree

[nine-times]

The fact that the tool could exist means that the design of the iPhone is itself compromised, so they could be compelled, or somebody could unlawfully construct a version on their own.

I was under the impression that the method of circumventing security in this case would still require that Apple push or side-load some kind of software change that would need to be signed by Apple. If that's the case, it's not quite as simple as "somebody could unlawfully construct a version of their own."

However, I do agree that part of the solution here is that Apple should modify any upcoming iPhone versions to disallow this kind of attack. If Apple is simply unable to assist the FBI, then they can't be legally compelled.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

unless Apple can somehow limit the tool to decrypt only that phone

They can, they can code it to only work on that phone based on the serial number, and if the FBI tried the change the hardcoded serial number, then it would no longer work as it would break the cryptographic signing of the code.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't really matter that the tool would be trivial to produce (though perhaps not quite as trivial as you are assuming), it still means that Apple is compelled to do work for the government. Why should they be forced to work for the government?

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple didn't screw up. That phone is (as far as we know) only vulnerable to an attack by Apple (or some other party if and only if that party has obtained Apple's signing key), and only if the user has a short PIN that can be brute-forced. As perfect security is impossible, we have to accept some compromise, and as the FBI can't break it without Apple's help, then we must conclude that what Apple implemented was actually pretty good security.

Apple have already fixed this "vulnerability" in newer iPhones, although we can't can't be sure they are completely secure from attacks by Apple itself, and Apple is working to make the next versions even more secure.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's being paid by the US government, that's why.

Sometimes the dromedary's proboscis

[pem]

needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp.

Re:Sometimes the dromedary's proboscis

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. "What a crock of shit" +5, and "Keep the camel's nose out of the tent however you have to" 3 minutes later downvoted to troll. A real literate crowd here.

The Judge...

[Etherwalk]

The case is in front a former AUSA (i.e. lots of experience on the government side), but she went to Williams College for undergrad which means she's probably one of the more intelligent federal judges--making her likely to read and understand the tech industry's briefs. (About half of federal judges are really smart and went to top schools; about half of them may not be as smart but have been successful politically. They all have a good measure of experience.)

Ultimately, of course, the case is likely to get appealed, and if the loser at the 9th Circuit level decides it is a good test case, they will appeal it to Scotus.

Third Eye Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

For being so smart, he has absolutely no common sense.

There won't be a better test case

[penguinoid]

If you comply once, then you greatly weaken any objections to complying again.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[mysidia]

If you comply once, then you greatly weaken any objections to complying again.

If Apple wants to strengthen their objections; they should probably initiate a process of rotating/replacing their code signing keys on new/existing devices with an emergency software update.

Then once the vast majority of devices have updated, initiate the process of expeditiously destroying the previous key material.

At that point, they will be incapable of signing a custom firmware which the old device will recognize, because the required secret keys no longer exist.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point, I didn't hear any objections from your mom last night. So feel free to call me "dad" from now on.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary points out that Apple has complied many times. The whole point of the argument in TFA is that this is a lousy test case for sudden non compliance.

However, it is an excellent publicity stunt by Apple.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[Anonymous Coward]

Comply to a court order? What's wrong with that? If a judge orders it, then it's worth complying to, otherwise we have chaos.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[plover]

The summary is very misleading. Apple's compliance has only been in recovering unprotected data. They have never provided access into the Secure Enclave to recover the keys, and have never recovered data encrypted by those keys before.

The FBI hopes that by whipping up national hatred for these mass murderers it will spark a public outcry in favor of forcing vendors to provide defective encryption, U.S. government access to escrow keys, or other back door. Many Americans have been taught by the fear-mongers running the talk radio business to be so craven that they'll agree to any violation of anyone's rights because 'terrorists'.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[marka63]

Only if they want a contempt of court charge. While they are allowed to challenge orders they are not allowed to take steps which would prevent them doing what the court has ordered now that they are subject to a court order.

If you routinely destroy all correspondence after x days, you won't be in contempt if the court asks you for something that has been destroyed. If you destroy it after you have been asked for it you will be.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[marka63]

Not necessarily. It's one persons opinion. This is why there is a appeals system.

Re: There won't be a better test case

[Anonymous Coward]

>If you comply once, then you greatly weaken any objections to complying again.

So black people should have stayed at the back of the bus? Rosa Parks wasn't the first. It was just the better test case than any of the others such as Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, Claudette Colvin, or Mary Louise Smith

Re:There won't be a better test case

[dwsobw]

And they are not ask to give access to it here either.
The FBI wants a firmware for this particular device that allows it to brute force the passcode used to access the encryption key.
Now the firmware is (afaik) signed, so there is nothing stopping Apple to create a firmware that checks that it runs on that device and only that device (check for something that is not changable and uniquely identifing a iPhone, my bet would be an ECID/CPU id or similar).
That said I am still against Apple beeing force to write such a firmware, but I am doubtful that there are actual technical problems that can not be solved without compromising other iPhones.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Americans have been taught by the fear-mongers running the talk radio business to be so craven that they'll agree to any violation of anyone's rights because 'terrorists'.

I'm seeing some analogs here between phone encryption precedents and gun control advocacy.

Re:There won't be a better test case

[Anonymous Coward]

Also precedent is about getting there first. This is literally what the word means:

      "LAW the doctrine that requires a court to follow decisions of superior or previous courts"

Notice the sequence involved here. Once you've established precedent you cannot "wait for a better test". If you try you either have to overturn precedent (not impossible but it usually requires a higher court to do so), or you have to try to establish precedent on a related matter and justify that on the basis that it's different enough than established precedent, that new precedent is justified. Either way this is a dangerous move. The FBI wants you to try this! Really, do this and be the stupid.

My guess is that Adi Shamir is not a lawyer (ASINAL) but thinks that because he's a smart guy, he can outthink the lawyers. Bad move Adi.

Totally BS argument.

[BarbaraHudson]

The perps are dead, so there is no need to decrypt their phones in that case.

This is just fishing for information on other people, and it's pretty naive, since they destroyed 2 other phones. Would you use your company phone to plan a terrorist act?

Also, the phone isn't Apple's property. Let them go after the entity that owns the phone.

Re:Totally BS argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's iPhone design is flawed. That's the real security problem. The simple fact that Apple could release an OS update that would allow them or anyone else to try all passcode combinations is a huge design flaw. True security should not rely on us trusting that Apple would never do this. I fully expect Apple to release a future iPhone that will not allow software updates to weaken security as the current design does. Once they have this new design they'll market it as the iPhone that even Apple can't break into! It's a total blessing in disguise and will make Apple another fortune in phone sales.

Re:Totally BS argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right. they're dead. they were lone actors not "terrorists". the case is closed as it pertains to the dead shooters. but supposedly the phone MIGHT have evidence to charge their neighbor or whatever who supposedly bought, many years ago, the firearms that were used on some sort of (possibly trumped-up) weapons charge.

Re:Totally BS argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should get the records from the gun stores in the area and the shooting ranges as well.

Re:Totally BS argument.

[harperska]

FYI, the current design is already the future design you are looking for. All models that have touch id use hardware encryption, and can not be hacked with an OS update. The only reason Apple could hack the iPhone in question in the first place is because it is an older model.

Re:Totally BS argument.

[blindseer]

There are different laws that prevent law enforcement from gathering firearm purchase data. If you really want to see a legal shit storm then piss off the NRA for creating a de facto gun registry.

Re:Totally BS argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Apple can - and *have* updated the firmware in the encryption chip (changing the behavior of the pin lockout). So no, the current design isn't the future design he is looking for.

The one thing about security

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the significance to be secure.

once the FBI gets their hands on this a copy will secretly be made under secret court order and kept from public eyes indefinitely. It will bolster further secret court work against other tech companies.

Even if this were not to happen, you can bet your ass a copy will be made anyway. Somewhere, somehow.

Our freedoms and expectations of privacy will be reduced even further from the little we think we have to an expectancy of good guys have nothing to hide is 100% the norm.

An invasion of privacy is existentially invasive and terribly creepy.

wasnt RSA paid to backdoor by nsa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't NSA pay 10 mil to get RSA backdoored? Is anyone involved in RSA really worth listening to anymore?

Re:wasnt RSA paid to backdoor by nsa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes:

http://www.cnet.com/news/security-firm-rsa-took-millions-from-nsa-report/

Re: wasnt RSA paid to backdoor by nsa?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that you got voted down for posting that. I guess this site is just full of statists now.

Re: wasnt RSA paid to backdoor by nsa?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing cold fjord got some mod points.

Re:wasnt RSA paid to backdoor by nsa?

[beastofburdon]

I'm betting this person received a large portion of that.

Adi "IANAL" Shamir

[nimbius]

Adi:
no one has argued the case isnt firmly in the hands of the FBI, or that they arent entitled to prosecute it. What we're highlighting and opposing is the biblical retribution with which the government seems intent upon pursuing this cases. the entire purpose of unlocking the phone at this opportune time is to create a precedent so that, in future endeavours and cases there is no point at which "favour" is ever questioned. the purpose of forcing apple to unlock this phone, or any device for that matter, is to create a legal standing by which any other device the government sees fit can be unlocked for any reason, however remote.

the facts stand: both killers are dead. their motives were known. their accomplices were known. their method is known. this is more than enough to convict a corpse.

Re:Adi "IANAL" Shamir

[plague911]

You just said the purpose is never to get into any phone period but only to set precedence. Which is bullshit. Maybe they actually want to get into this fucking phone or another one for a very obvious fucking reason. How .much of a dick sucking blithering purist retard do you have to be to not realize there is obvious value to actually getting into this specific phone. "their accomplices were known" That's the kicker. some yes maybe, not all.

Re:Adi "IANAL" Shamir

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I know *you're* not an accomplice? You certainly seem to have the mindless, blabbering aggressive black-and-white perspective typical of dangerous extremists and fundamentalists.

Your passwords, please. All of them. Now.

Re:Adi "IANAL" Shamir

[LordWabbit2]

You're an idiot.
Maybe they actually do need to get into the phone, if so why did the FBI reset his account password so that even Apple could not get into his account and unlock his phone? They are using this specific case ("Oh my god Terrorrists!") because they are betting on public sentiment and morons like you to set a legal precedent that they can then use to beat the shit out of anyone who does not decrypt data for them. If you think the FBI are doing this for any other reason then you obviously ate wall candy as a baby (ie. lead paint, since I doubt you would figure it out).

Re:Adi "IANAL" Shamir

[plague911]

Obvious reason is obvious, A) Somone fucked up, or B) No one trusted Apple to do the right thing and protect the data. They are using this case because they actualy have a very fucking obvious reason to need this data and everyone but the most ardent purist neckbeard filth and apple fanboy finds sympathetic to their obvious need.. The day you die is a day that no one will notice.

He's not thinking of the big picture

[mark-t]

It has nothing to do with placing trapdoors on millions of phones around the world...

Yes, actually it does. And here's why:

If Apple goes ahead and does this, what happens to the code after the FBI has used it? What guarantees can possibly be made that the code will not get leaked? (if recent events have taught us anything, it is that secrets eventually get discovered) If Apple develops this code, and this code should *EVER* make its way outside of Apple, where some particularly tenacious individual might figure out how to modify it to attack any phone and not just a single one....even if the guilty party is caught and all appropriate punishments are given, the damage will have already been done, and be completely irreparable, not only for Apple, but also for every single iPhone owner in the world

So yes, the FBI is asking Apple to put backdoors into every iPhone by writing this software.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think the FBI can't write the thing on its own? It's only asking apple to do it now. You wait, when the judge says no, apple does not have to make the software, the FBI will just say, ok, well, then provide us with the keys and one or two people to help us integrate our team. The software will get made, and instead of Apple having it on hand, it'll be the FBI.

Think it through. This is happening one way or another.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[Akili]

This is admittedly conspiracy-minded, so your mileage may vary, but I had a thought about this particular approach that I was reminded of by your post.

Let's say Apple does create the tool, and through some hypothetical (read: impossible) means they successfully avoid leaking it. What's to stop an organization like the NSA using their own techniques to break the phones, then hinting - if exposed - that they obtained the process from Apple in some backchannel way? There's really no practical way for Apple to prove a negative in this scenario.

As this is now a matter under public scrutiny, if Apple was forced to cave, the public would know it. So now any other organization with the skill to break the security of the phones, but doesn't want to reveal that they have that ability, have some pretty deep plausible deniability. It only works if Apple creates the tool, though.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[mark-t]

If they could, then they wouldn't be asking Apple to do it. Also, if a judge says Apple doesn't have to do this, what incentive would Apple have to help someone compromise its product in a manner that Apple themselves cannot be compelled to do in the first place?

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[dwsobw]

The code leaking would not be a problem as long as Apple's signing key is not also leaked.
If the signing key is leaked iPhones would anyway be compromised (well hello there NSA).
Now, I do not see any technical issues that prevent Apple from creating a firmware that just runs on this one device (check for ECID/CPU ID/...).

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[Rockoon]

If Apple goes ahead and does this, what happens to the code after the FBI has used it?

It doesnt matter what happens to it. it doesnt matter if the FBI then deletes it. It doesnt matter if the FBI then keeps it. It doesnt even matter if the FBI puts it on the pirate bay later so that every hacker has it.

Asking questions is not an argument. For instance, "If apple doesn't go ahead and do this, is this shitty insecure phone more secure?"

The problem remains that the devices are not secure. Full stop.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[mark-t]

The signing key is immaterial.... or do you think that jailbreaks are signed with Apple's official key?

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[mark-t]

Fair point....but that is like taking something like cancer, and instead of focusing on trying to prevent it, complaining that humans are vulnerable to it in the first place. Nobody can do anything about the devices that are already in existence, and playing the blame game over it accomplishes nothing.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[dwsobw]

Yes I do, kind of.
I do not have an iPhone so I can not verify, but wikipedia [1] claims that a jailbreak "[..] loads Apple's own kernel initially.". So I assume that it also loads the initial signed firmware first, which would presumably implements the passcode wipe (after x failed attempts) and the update to a new signed firmware. So you need an Apple signed firmware to run anything on an iPhone. It might be possible to exploit the running OS and turn it into anything you like, but booting is only possible to an approved firmware. The interesting thing now is if you can exploit the boot/passcode screen already and if so if you can then override the firmware's decision to wipe the passcode (I doubt the last part). That also makes perfect sense, because otherwise the FBI would just install some jail-breaked firmware version themself, since they just want to brute-force the passcode.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think the federal government doesn't have the resources or the people to crack and get into every single phone that's been made?

My money would be on the nsa having, I don't know, tens to hundreds of people working on this all the time. If I were them, I would just buy the phones in bulk, mess with them until you crack them and get the process down...then repeat the next time a phone comes out.

They might not be able to get into a phone quickly (which means it might be hard to scale), but I have no doubt in my mind they can get into this phone and any cell phone or device.

I kind of suspect this is a little bit of a ruse to make people think their phones are more secure than they really are.

I don't think they're doing it to set a precedent either. Each time they break into a phone, they could just lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction) about how they did it. So, there has to be another motive here. I would guess that Apple and the government are on the same side. For apple, they get to look like they're standing up against the big, bad government and they also make it look like their phones are some kind of paragon of security. For the government, they get to give people the impression that they're dunces, with no clue at all what they're doing. That would benefit them because it's always to their advantage for people to think they're stupid. ...But, I could be wrong.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[Rockoon]

Nobody can do anything about the devices that are already in existence

Wrong. The owners of these devices are able to destroy them, thereby eliminating their problem.

Re:He's not thinking of the big picture

[mark-t]

Of course.... and you can avoid getting cancer by killing yourself now.

There's an expression that involves a baby and bathwater that comes to mind here....

Question...

[CloudDrakken]

Who said your constitutional rights go away when you're dead?

Re:Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone except copywright lawyers

Re:Question...

[nytes]

I've never heard of a dead person pleading the 5th.

Re:Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of a dead person pleading the 5th.

I've never heard of a dead person on trial.

Re:Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get out much, do you?

At least two popes have been put on trial, and Cromwell was also executed after his death, though I suppose he MIGHT have been sentenced beforehand.

Re:Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

None of which have jack shit to do with US law you fucking moron.

Re:Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've never heard of a dead person pleading the 5th.

"Are you considering the question, or are you just dead?"

Re:What a crockA

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

His contributions to encryption and privacy can not be underestimated, but it seems everyone has their faux pas moments. The implications with this approach are a bit similar to those of torture; it may be used "just this once", but then again, you can only sell once the core values of a democratic society.

Encryption isn't flawed, iPhone security was

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand how everyone gets fired up over this issue, but I believe the iPhone's current design for securely logging in is flawed. Why? Simply because it's possible for Apple to modify the OS to permit all possible keycode combinations to be tried in a brute force attack. What Apple needs is a design fix where they can honestly demonstrate that they can do absolutely NOTHING to make getting into the phone easier. That's true security. This is why cytologists release their encryption source code for the public to view. For one, it demonstrates that there are no backdoors in the logic, but more importantly it demonstrates that even with full access to the source code you don't gain a significant advantage in decoding an encrypted message. Apple's problem is that they protected the phones very secure encryption password using a flawed password protection scheme (the numeric passcode entry that's totally software driven). Apple needs to change the current design such that new software will not create an easy way to try all possible combinations. In my mind, the iPhone has a security design flaw that Apple will likely fix. This new iPhone will have a killer feature that'll make Apple a fortune as they market it as a phone that even they can't unlock!! That's where we're headed.

Re:Encryption isn't flawed, iPhone security was

[Anonymous Coward]

they already marketed this ones security as one they can't unlock.

they've already made a fortune selling iphones. and regardless of how bad or good they secure it will continue to make a fortune selling them.

Re:Encryption isn't flawed, iPhone security was

[jmccusker]

Well, they lied then. If Apple's prior idea of security was based on trust then it's not truly secure. A new design will allow them to say there was a design flaw in prior iPhones that has now been fixed. They will do this and sell a ton more because of the security.

Re:Encryption isn't flawed, iPhone security was

[Anonymous Coward]

My interpretation of that is no-one can get the encryption key out of the secure enclave including Apple. However if the OS contains a backdoor it might listen in and copy it as the secure enclave passes the key to either 1) the flash chip or 2) the OS in order to decrypt the drive. That means there's still a risk if the OS has been replaced or exploited. I'm guessing the next version will pass the key direct to the flash chip without passing through the OS.

What a bunch of ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone think Apple has to create anything new? They already have the ability to do what the FBI wants. It's not a backdoor, it's not something they have to use on every phone...it's a simple code adjustment to turn off the poison pill and can easily be pushed to this one single phone. In fact, it can be built specifically for this one phone and it will only work on the one phone. Due to the way Apple already does their updates, they do this already as it is. They don't do mass updates to apps and iOS to all phones. each phone is unique and has it's own nonce. that's all Apple needs to match this code up to.

This isn't a technical issue. It's about people's opinion's on whether these douchebags have rights still and whether this actually violates them.
***Spoiler Alert*** They don't.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[hawguy]

Why does everyone think Apple has to create anything new? They already have the ability to do what the FBI wants. It's not a backdoor, it's not something they have to use on every phone...it's a simple code adjustment to turn off the poison pill and can easily be pushed to this one single phone. In fact, it can be built specifically for this one phone and it will only work on the one phone. Due to the way Apple already does their updates, they do this already as it is. They don't do mass updates to apps and iOS to all phones. each phone is unique and has it's own nonce. that's all Apple needs to match this code up to.

This isn't a technical issue. It's about people's opinion's on whether these douchebags have rights still and whether this actually violates them.
***Spoiler Alert*** They don't.

You don't seem to understand how slippery slopes work.

It's not "just one phone", and never was, it started at one and only one phone, because you know, terrorism, we need to read the phone of just this one terrorist and Apple won't help us! Then "Well there may be a dozen others that we'd like to break into". Then "Law enforcement agencies possess hundreds, or even thousands of phones they'd like to break into". And somewhere between "dozens" and "thousands", it becomes too unwieldy for the government to wait for Apple to unlock each one, so they'll require the tools to do it on their own.

And once they've proven that they can force Apple to create software at their bidding, they'll easily be able to force Apple to hand over the tools they need to decrypt phones at will. And really, there's no end to what they can force Apple to hack into their phones.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[epyT-R]

No, this is about setting dangerous precedence. If the phone is cryptoed properly, apple cannot break it without brute forcing.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Pseudonym]

You don't seem to understand how slippery slopes work.

If the FBI succeeds on this one, there will be a point in the future where some prosecutor argues in court that nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their smartphones, in part because society at large was okay with how this case went down.

The frightening part is that the argument might work.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[tacokill]

You forgot the last step which is the most insidious: wash, rinse , and repeat with any other US based company at will

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Bing Tsher E]

Nobody does have a reasonable expectation of privacy on their work phone.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

The company does.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Space cowboy]

I do. But then I work for Apple.

Apple pay the bills on my phone, but it's my phone.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[ljw1004]

Why does everyone think Apple has to create anything new? They already have the ability to do what the FBI wants. It's not a backdoor, it's not something they have to use on every phone...it's a simple code adjustment to turn off the poison pill and can easily be pushed to this one single phone.

FBI is also asking for the ability to enter PIN codes over the lightning cable or over bluetooth. This functionality isn't present at all. Apple would have to invent a new handshake/protocol/whatever for it.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone were to break into your wife/girlfriend/teenage daughter's phone and spread whatever they find across the internet, would you shrug and let them go about their task unhindered without the slightest negative emotional reaction on your part? If not, then there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

... these douche-bags have rights still and whether this actually violates them.

I think Apple Corp. are douche-bags too but I'm going to argue against anyone who claims it's "this one, single phone". Because the next writ from a judge will say every phone every LEO sends to Apple, thus making Apple do mass surveillance of their customers for the police.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[dwsobw]

That is what this is actually about. The FBI wants to be able to brute force the passcode, but the iPhone can (potentially) wipe itself after 10 (?) failed attempts.

Re:What a bunch of ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst is they've already snowboarded halfway down the bloody mountain. They outright *stated* that there's hundreds of other phones they want to do this with as soon as they get this one cleared.

Is it still a slippery slope argument when people are already greasing down the slide?

Re:Tim Cook knows backdoors

[Anonymous Coward]

homophobe

Only reason you kids are upset

[Anonymous Coward]

Is because you are scared government will come after you for your child porn/ drug dealers phone number.
The actual truth is they could give two shits about you. You are nobodies and being narcissist.

Re:Only reason you kids are upset

[epyT-R]

ad hominem attack.

The culture at the fbi has become tyrannical. They want to be the next KGB. I'll pass.

Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to spy on law-abiding citizens grants an enormous economic advantage to those in power. They can do the financial equivalent of insider trading with impunity, and rake it in. That is just one way of many.

Strong encryption gives the poor some leverage against the rich; a chance to reclaim and protect some of the wealth that they generate through their labor. I guarantee, the rich will never abide this. Even if Apple wins, subsequent political and technological maneuvering will ultimately result in strong encryption available to the rich, but not to the rest of us.

This case is a lot like the presidential election: no matter who wins, we lose.

What if the sequence of events is different?

[Provocateur]

"Shoot to kill, sir? Are you sure?"
"Orders from on high."
"But then we can't grill em for more info"
"Yeah, but we'd be able to access encrypted iphone inpho"
The plot sickens.

Re:What if the sequence of events is different?

[Plus1Entropy]

This is actually pretty chilling.

Smart idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just file this one away in the ""Smart" people can be idiots too" file. He's a math guy, why does his opinion matter?

Adi's correct

[ErnoWindt]

It's all posturing on the part of Apple and its tech buddies. The FBI nailed it: it's a marketing ploy. If anyone really, really want to crack an iPhone, they'd do it. Apple's not going to stop them.

Re:Adi's correct

[bill_mcgonigle]

If anyone really, really want to crack an iPhone, they'd do it.

Like the FBI?

Re:Adi's correct

[AchilleTalon]

Well, if you read the fine article, you are certainly aware that the iPhone and iOS are having a loophole in first place and it isn't the fault of the FBI. That's what Apple is struggling to avoid people knowing their iPhone are not what they claim they are regarding the security. The Apple performance is mainly a smoke screen in this case.

Re:Adi's correct

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true, the FBI would have zero reason to ask for a backdoor and use the loophole.

Re:Adi's correct

[tacokill]

Nothing prevents them (or anyone else) from doing exactly that right now. They are more than welcome to bang away on the phone as much as they want and if they get in, nobody will say a peep and all is as it should be.

The problem comes when the FBI compels/orders Apple to build a 2nd operating system. Forcing and compelling people and companies who are not accused of a crime is un-American and that is why this is going to court. Wanna compel Apple? Fine, go to Congress and pass a law like CALEA. But lets be clear.....a law forcing Apple to do what the FBI wants does not currently exist and that's why the FBI is relying on the All Writs Act to force Apple to do it.

Nobody has ever suggested the FBI (or anyone else for that matter) is prohibited from hacking the phone. They aren't. They are more than welcome to use whatever resources they have to hack it. But those resources do not include Apple, the company, or any of it's employees or tools unless allowed by law.

Re:Adi's correct

[Anonymous Coward]

By and large that's only the case in the older version of iOS on the device in question; newer ones are even more locked down.

- WolfWings, too lazy to login to /. for far too long.

Re:Adi's correct

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine another instance where a manufacturer has been requested to manufacture new tools to interface with products they have created to "solve" a solved crime. It's completely novel.

Re:Adi's correct

[AHuxley]

Re 'If anyone really, really want to crack an iPhone, they'd do it"
Its always about the next case and getting US brands staff used to been conscripted by the feds. The NSA does not want their skills listed in open state or federal court.
The next 100 or 200 phones on federal or state AG lists might have some individuals with the ability to hire real legal teams. Questions about evidence and finding their own experts to cross examine in open court are never good new for decades of hidden technical methods and big brand support.
The new ability of a gov official to legally say in open court that the big brand was conscripted to unlocked the phone blocks a lot of the more interesting questions.
The neat part is as the gov forced the workers at the private sector brand to break the encryption, methods, skills can stay a gov secret too :)
What was parallel construction will now be direct to open court with no questions about the origins, methods, fruit of the poisonous tree, color of law or NSA help.
No gov sector expert can talk to the topic as it was a private sector product and service. No private sector staff can ever talk as they are now working for the US gov and that is a secret.
Thats why the demand is for a tool to load onto their (US gov) computers. Its a tool for city, state, county, parish, federal use. Then contractors, other nations, their contractors and anyone who can afford to buy the services of ex staff or former staff.

Field Trip! Arlington Cemetery

[Anonymous Coward]

So, pose this one to your congress critters.

1) Take a field trip to Arlington (it's close by Washington DC and hey, it makes a great photo op).
2) Ponder the fact that many of those white markers out there died defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
3) Ponder the fact that your justification of "it may save a life!" in support of privacy reducing legislation ignores the lives already given.
4) Consider your vote can either defend the principles of those who have given up their lives or your vote can leave yellow stains on the markers.

then its unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what you are saying is that this extra evidence is not even required as it is an open and shut case. I say they should strike now when there is no legal precedent. The absurdity of this case further aids them.

Charles Babbage weighed in?

[birukun]

Cool! Now, where is the link to his statement?

"The FBI should be given the method to crack iPhones" - Abraham Lincoln

has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Has nobody thought to just use the dead guys finger and unlock the phone? My friends girlfriend did that to him in his sleep. Why is this a problem?

Re:has nobody thought

[AchilleTalon]

Obviously you haven't follow that case very carefully. The iPhone isn't locked using fingerprints, it uses a 4 digit password. And before you ask why they just don't try all the combination, after 10 trials the iPhone may have been setup to delete the data. In addition, there is a delay between each trial which render this method unpractical unless you remove the delay and the 10 trials limit, which is exactly what the FBI is asking Apple to do for this iPhone by flashing a new firmware on it remotely. Yes, this model doesn't require the user to authorize the firmware to be flashed. So, that is totally possible to do. And why do they ask Apple and aren't just do it themselves? Because the firmware must be signed with Apple's private key otherwise the security chip in the iPhone will block the firmware execution.

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly you actually seem to be one of (very) few people who has been paying attention...

It's interesting because when this issue first came up here, the Slashdot community was seemingly almost 50/50 and perhaps even leaning toward the FBI's side, just a tiny bit, and with some well thought out technical details (like, basically the heart of what they're asking for is just Apple to sign something with its key, a key that absolutely "already exists" and could potentially be obtained by anyone, public or private, foreign or domestic, benevolent or nefarious).

By now it seems most people have been indoctrinated by the rabid privacy activists ad pro-Apple crowd and will ignore any and all facts.

Personally, if someone (especially someone in authority, with significant resources) has possession of my computer or phone and it's not physically destroyed, I would have no realistic expectation of privacy. Anyone who does is deluding themselves. Locks are primarily there to keep out honest people, curious prying eyes, or small time thugs. Apple is trying to pretend that nobody could possibly access this data unless they do it, which might be good PR in some circles but is blatantly false. The FBI is trying to pretend there's actually something useful on the phone (which is unlikely) and assert their authority for search and seizure so that this issue will stop interfering with their legitimate investigations into (sometimes deceased) criminals. Both are kind of right and kind of wrong.

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not related in any way to cold fjord, are you? Your pro-governmental-power-to-do-anything is eerily similar and more than a little disturbing.

In short: You're wrong. As well.

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

In no way is it right for the Government to have unchecked ability (and precedent) to require a 3rd party to be forced by the government to aid in an investigation even if it presents an undue burden on the corporation or society at large (ala undermining everyone's privacy). Your argument about not having a right to privacy is bullshit and your own argument underscores the reason for Apple to implement even stronger security measures in the future. People like you who don't respect privacy will eavesdrop on any manner of content as long as they feel like they can get away with it. This is why we need the most secure and unadulterated encryption standards for even our most basic of information. The idea that, because someone has it we can't expect our device to be safe - so therefore we must surrender all rights to our privacy and allow the government unchecked ability to demand companies decrypt our personal information on demand. You must not be an American because we have an ingrained desire to have freedom for freedom's sake. The very idea that we would give up our own privacy purely because " Locks are primarily there to keep out honest people" is so absurd and unfathomable to most Americans as to be almost a taboo suggestion.

Before I go let me spell one thing out for you since you seem to have missed this introductory lesson when you first arrived on the internet. Hackers are an enterprising folk who aren't stopped by things like hidden constants or secret back doors only answering to one private key. They have, and will again in the future, compromise such systems for purposes NOT beholden to the better world at large. Not even those entities we entrust with securing and attacking our enemies electronically can protect themselves from the same threats they themselves pose. Security at its best is a ticking time-bomb waiting for some unforeseen calamity to break down the barrier of encryption we all rely on for our daily lives. Adding in backdoors or deliberately allowing the government to demand a company implement such a thing only serves to weaken the very foundations we all rely on. You think hackers are just ignoring the link between you and your bank as you check your statement? Do you think they are turning a blind eye to the vital information, encrypted and exchanged between our power plants, police stations, hospitals, military facilities? So much of our daily lives relies on information being kept secret even from those who created it. We may only be talking about a single phone today but the precedent it sets CANNOT be underestimated, especially in the US legal system. Say Apple says "Ok we will decrypt this one phone for you but ONLY because it was a terrorist and this will never happen again", it might as well be talking to a wall. The next judge will look at Apple's refusal to decrypt and say "You didn't seem to mind doing it last time?". Legal precedent is so undeniably powerful in the US legal system and I feel like most people on the FBI's side haven't taken into account just what it means. Abstracted out, legally the Gov would be able to demand any company weaken the security of their products when so ordered. This extends far beyond Apple to every single service you use over the internet.

Most people say "If you haven't got anything to hide why do you care if your privacy is violated". The answer is simple: We may not have anything to hide, but we have everything to lose. Freedoms are almost never taken away en masse. They are taken out slowly, piecemeal. So slow you forget the last time each one went and think "Well its just this one time". I don't have to quote you Martin Niemöller for you to get the picture I think. Our privacy and personal freedom should be of much higher priority than any criminal case. I would rather let a thousand murders go free than lock one innocent man up, and most of our founding fathers (of the USA ofc) would agree with me. We've lost sight of what it truly means to be American I believe and that freedom comes with benefits as well as conse

Re:has nobody thought

[Plumpaquatsch]

Obviously you haven't follow that case very carefully. The iPhone isn't locked using fingerprints, it uses a 4 digit password.

So what's the evidence for that?

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, I arrived on the internet long before it even was "The Internet" (and likely before you from the sound of it; I've actually used punch cards). Later I got all excited about Phil's Pretty Good Privacy when it was first released, and even bought a T-shirt. However, in the years since then, I've found that your point is true:

"Hackers are an enterprising folk who aren't stopped by things like hidden constants or secret back doors only answering to one private key..."

Guess what the phone in question ALREADY allows (though not even necessarily intended as a "back door" in the first place)? Flashing the firmware without user intervention, if only you can sign with the right key, which Apple already can, and anyone who could sufficiently infiltrate Apple could possibly obtain. As such, ANY argument that assumes such phones are actually secure is invalid. You're essentially arguing to maintain the illusion of privacy where in fact there is only a relatively small barrier in the first place.

I assert that while "There (may be) absolutely no such thing as a completely secure backdoor" there may also be no such thing as an absolutely secure front door either, especially in consumer technology where convenience, and security against small time criminals is typically much more important to the user than privacy from determined and targeted attackers with physical access to the device, and even more so, ones with a public, on-the-record, order to do so.

Not only that, dis-allowing the US government from this type of access publicly, encourages things to move further into the shadows again. If the government is allowed to access the data, but only with a court order, signed warrant, etc, on the public record, then we have relative transparency and can more easily watch for abuses. (The "devil you know") If they are denied such access publicly, then other means are much more likely to be formulated behind closed doors by a few well-meaning, but ethically challenged individuals ("the devil you don't know") which is potentially worse for privacy over all. Instead of the FBI simply saying "we got a court order to unlock the phone, got the data legally, and found that person Y conspired with person X to commit this mass murder, therefore we can charge person Y with a crime" we could end up with "we just happened to be following person Y because... um.. they go to the same Gym as person X, and we stumbled across this evidence of a crime." I prefer the former.

Further, the US is still (despite rumors of its demise) a government elected by the people. We're in charge. We need rule of law, and when abuses are discovered here they actually tend to get publicized, the public becomes outraged, and overreaching programs actually get shut down. That's a hell of a lot better than many other countries that would simply make the whistle blower (and their friends and family) disappear before the sound of the whistle even stops ringing, and clamp down on their state run media to prevent the information from spreading, and block it with a great firewall, and track down anyone expressing an opposing position and find excuses to make them go away too. No amount of data-at-rest encryption on an iPhone is going to stop such a corrupt system if it ever gets that far.

As such, if we truly can't trust our own government, we need to work on fixing _that_ problem rather than simply assuming the worst and spending so much effort focusing on the minutiae of iOS devices. That sort of thinking simply leads to paranoia. The more that is done legitimately, on the record, in accordance with the rule of law, and in the public eye, the less temptation there is for officials to find other means to accomplish what they might honestly feel is a noble end (e.g. catching terrorists and bringing actual criminals to justice for their heinous crimes).

Yes, there must be balance, and oversight, and yes carte blanche back-doors can be abused. I don't think that's actually the core of this particular argument tho

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I don't know, maybe because it's an iPhone 5c for starters?
It DOES NOT HAVE a fingerprint sensor, at all!

And this got modded up? Really?
Admittedly, it being a 4-digit pin may be speculation, but is very likely. The part about not being locked using fingerprints is as absolute certainty in this case though.

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

The evidence that it isn't locked using fingerprints is that it is an iPhone 5C, which if you had bothered reading anything about this, you'd know. I don't know if there is evidence that it is locked using a 4-digit PIN, all I've read about it indicates that the FBI would use this tool they asked Apple to create to brute-force the PIN, so I'd assume from that it would be a 4-digit PIN, but even if it is a bit more complex, that doesn't automatically rule out it being able to be brute-forced.

Re:has nobody thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they have access to the (dead) fingers of the alleged perpetrators, it seems obvious if you're not an idiot.

Apple Is Right

[JimSadler]

There is ample and conspicuous proof that the US government can not hold information securely. Given a method to break into Apple phones, it is quite likely that the information would be exposed to the world and ruin the sales of Apple phones. Further, any defense team would have to be allowed to hire experts to opine on whether a real decoding had taken place and whether the decoding was accurate or to what degree errors occurred. Over time, that means that quite a few people would be exposed to that decryption software.

He just made the case against ...

[jxander]

Apple should stand firm for the EXACT reasons listed. This case very much is slanted towards the FBI.

If Apple wins, they'll set the strongest possible precedent. If they lose, deniability is built in: we lost because the case was so obviously slanted, we'll bring a case to court again if a less slanted case shows up.

misdirection & befuddlement ?

[swell]

Are we being played? Let's consider motivation behind this controversy:

#1 Apple would like customers around the world to believe they can trust iPhones. This belief is worth billions to them.

#2 The FBI would like citizens to believe they are working within the law and they really want to catch terrorists. Polls show that the majority of Americans are eager to trade privacy for security so this bit of theater makes the FBI look good to them. Additionally, criminals may relax their security measures thinking that they are safe.

Thus there are great benefits to both in this affair. Both parties have already won the 'dispute'. The possibility that they pre-arranged the 'dispute' is an elementary deduction. It's quite possible that Apple or someone has already hacked the phone and nothing interesting was found. That's irrelevant to furthering the goals of both organizations.

analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

i think apples situation is like that of a person asked to wear a mike in a sting operation. the person doesnt have to do it, but they may be offered an incentive, if they are at risk of prosecution. otherwise, someone has to volunteer to be miked. the code that apple would write is not free speech, its ACTION, as the speech results, if used, in immediate action at the electronic level. thats not speech, thats action. the govt may believe it has a free writ to compel people to act, but if that action is potentially detrimental to the person acting (gangster may shoot him if he finds the mike), the person can reasonably refuse to cooperate. apple writing the code will likely harm the millions of customers apple relies on, and thus also hurt apple. real world harm, economic suffering. no one should be forced to participate in their own suffering or demise.

a left hand exists for every right hand.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is inevittable... FBI would ask Apple for tools to open a Iphone Slip6 Plus. They will spend more time in court proving that they have a right to ask as well that such tools exist in the near future. Somewhere...in a sunny neighborhood highway far away...a Delorean will reach 88 miles per hour.

Dont be afraid of the Green Knight.
>dont sacrifice a Queen to save a pawn.

No fool like an old fool

[shanen]

What he said is precisely why the FBI picked this one. I think he was plenty smart in his youth, but now Shamir is just another silly old fool. Does he seriously think that the FBI won't use every wedge issue to outlaw encryption? After all, wanting to have ANY secret from the government PROVES you're up to no good.

When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. By circular definition.

Alternative argument

[Anonymous Coward]

The people are dead - they don't CARE about (nor even have) constitutional rights.

Bad call

[CTU]

Here I go into this thinking he said that so there be a reason to make better ways to encrypt data and force better security. Although heck John Macafee went and explained how the FBI could and does hack into other phones which does not involve forcing phone security to take a shit. This is not about safety this is about power to spy on people.

And to Adi Shamir...TURN IN YOUR GEEK CARD!! You clearly are a moron who does not care anymore.

Re:here's why it's a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is not simply asking them to hand over the encryption keys, but to write and deploy code on its behalf. That would make Apple an agent of the government; if it can do that, it can make any company such an agent. What's to stop the government from commanding Apple or Microsoft to deploy code that allows them to listen through a computer's microphone? Or how about vendors of "smart" TVs: can the government command them them to install cameras and microphones in all their new models, which the government can turn on as it sees fit?

This is not a question about encryption at all, it's a question about making a private company a government agent.

Wow

[easyTree]

Wow. It's as simple and self-contained as that. Glad to have that cleared up. Go about your business folks, there's no ongoing concern of this becoming the widely-available weakest link to anyone hoping to target apple users in the future.

Engineers

[jemmyw]

One thing I find confusing is that everyone talks of forcing Apple to make a new version. But it isn't Apple but Apple engineers doing this work. Does the court have the power to tell Apple to fire it's operating system developers if they don't comply?

Say it to a woman

[Anonymous Coward]

... they comply this time and wait for a better test case to fight ...

Time to change the tone of the message: "Comply this time and wait for a better mugger to fight". I don't mean to dismiss assault victims or glorify Apple, but when the issue is, who is victim (the customers), saying "Comply this time" is the wrong place to start. In particular, when Apple has always helped the FBI before.

Re:Say it to a woman

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupidest...counterargument...ever.
You could have at least tried for a car analogy and something that carries the weight of law, like comparing it with submitting to a breathalyzer test when you know you're drunk off your ass and stand no chance anyway versus when you just used Listerine moments ago but are perfectly sober.

Also I'd like to hear more about this "victim" part. Exactly what harm has been done to customers by complying with court-ordered searches (often even public-record ones)? When there is reasonable evidence to suggest someone is guilty of a crime, and a judge agrees to allow it, I'm not sure how searching for evidence linking them to the crime, using established and legal methods, with oversight, somehow makes them the "vicitim."

One could perhaps argue that Apple is to some extent a victim, because international press blows such crap way out of proportion "oh, noes, the eeeval US is spyyying on us all! We will never buy American products again." (ignoring the fact that other countries, most especially China, do the same or much worse and without the oversight, and no one apparently cares). In any case, that might cut into Apple's profits a bit, so one could reasonably argue that they are harmed by it. The dead terrorists.. not so much.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"The phone is intact"

[Plumpaquatsch]

The shooter destroyed everything with evidence on it. This phone was untouched. Guess why.

Re:"The phone is intact"

[uniquegeek]

To bring this important legal question into the public eye?

Re:"The phone is intact"

[Anonymous Coward]

because breaking encryption was the whole reason for this false flag in the first place?

Re:"The phone is intact"

[Plumpaquatsch]

To bring this important legal question into the public eye?

Which one? That you can't get evidence from a broken phone? At least the shooter knew - else he wouldn't have destroyed all his devices with evidence on it.

Not Guilty

[nbritton]

The people killed are not guilty, they were killed before the court could adjudicate the matter. In the USA you are incident until proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of your peers.

Let's not forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

that this cunt (or at least the people currently heading the RSA group) took money to weaken RSA encryption.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/after-nsa-backdoors-security-experts-leave-rsa-conference-they-can-trust

umm.. not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is .. American law works on prescient. And if the FBI wins this case to 'unlock' whatever.. for reasons they deem good.. it will blanket to the populace and change future legal proceedings.

Re:umm.. not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

> American law works on prescient.

We already knew that.

RSA

[Cornwallis]

That's the group that sold-out to the NSA, right?

Let them make precedent!

[Anonymous Coward]

And then maybe one day they'll stop! Honest! They'll be nice!

Come ON. Even if there was *no* good use at all, potentially, ever, EVER for this stuff, they'd still at the very minimum fabricate cases full of terrorist pedophile drug traffickers just to make sure they can get the "just this once" and stick their giant armored tank-treads in the door.

They'll always pretend there's a "good" reason for atrocities, whether it's the rape of our privacy "to protect children" or a few hundred thousands dumped into mass graves "for the freedom of our legal person citizens"

I kind-of agree with Shamir

[bytesex]

Aside from physical security breaching (that is, shaving off the chips): if Apple can't do it, they should say so. However, if Apple can do it (and it looks like they can), then they should do it (and then build an even stronger phone).

So millions of people bought phones that were secure only to a certain level - well tough, that's just how it is. Purposeful breaking of security is a must when it comes to designing security. Plus, millions of people don't expect to have an ultimately secure phone either - they want to protect their phones from theft, mostly. If that. Not from prying federal eyes. And the phones were never marketed that way either.

You have a duty to inform yourself as a consumer. Buying an iPhone is not a universal human right and if you want your phone to be secure from prying federal eyes, you should pay for what that takes. Apparently this one can be pried open with certain, simple, measures, and therefore it *should* be pried open.

Re:I kind-of agree with Shamir

[Rockoon]

+1 so damn obvious

Remember the first round of spin on the topic. Everyone that now defends Apple with the self-determination argument was a week ago defending Apple on the "create backdoor" argument. Their argument changes (because facts got in the way), the goalpost shifted (damn facts), but their conclusion remains the same (well how about that.)

The phone is insecure. Its entire security rests on a number between 0 and 9999. Dont give Apple a pass here. They dont deserve the pass, and playing make-believe doesnt help a single Apple customer.

As far as the whole self-determination argument, we are talking about a court order. Every single court order, ever, invalidates the self-determination argument. Its a dumb fucking argument.

Re:I kind-of agree with Shamir

[Anonymous Coward]

Its entire security rests on a number between 0 and 9999.

Only if you don't bother to enable complex passwords on it, and if you don't I guess you don't really care about security.

No fool like a yank

[Viol8]

Making a big deal about his "rights" while completely missing the bigger picture.

Yet again, US using "terrorists"...

[Anonymous Coward]

To convince people their rights are making them potentially insecure. How can people believe this shit after a over a decade using the same fucking excuse, the "terrorists"

Why Not Read Out Memory?

[cmholm]

At the risk of a suggestion that may already have been beaten to death and shown impractical: is it possible to expose the logic boards without removing power, and dropping sockets on the SDRAM and NAND memory to enable reading out the contents? Write contents into a suitably configured iOS emulator, and thereby get as many brute force PIN guesses as you need?

Re: Why Not Read Out Memory?

[cmholm]

Well crap, shoulda/woulda/coulda done a bit more reading on technical sites before the brain dump: reading out memory without the hardware key means the Bureau's lab would be trying to brute-force a 256 bit AES key instead of a 4 digit PIN. Never mind, bring on the panopticon.

Out of the loop

[pubwvj]

Apparently he hasn't actually bothered to educate himself about what Apple did do and what the FBI is asking for in addition. A little education goes a long ways. In S's case there appears to be none applied.

But wait

[wardrich86]

The guy had the gun and killed the people... how much more proof do they need? The phone didn't have anything to do with killing people. Why do they need in?

Godfather of encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem godfather has the usual connotations in this context. . .

When did innocent until PROVEN guilty become: "This is a case where it's clear those people are guilty. They are dead; their constitutional rights are not involved."

That's the whole point of constitutional rights, to keep people the state thinks are guilty of X real or invented offense protected from abuse of power. This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to leave the country, but where to go. . . this stuff is not being done just here. Those who give up their rights for security will find they have neither.

Immutable?

[jbmartin6]

Isn't it one of the immutable laws of security that physical possession means the device is owned? Apple is trying to make this not so immutable.

Yet, if applied to cars...

[Admiral_Grinder]

If my phone gets a back door for the police to use to investigate it, then it is perfectly valid for your car to have a remote shut off they can use when they pull you over. Fair is fair right? Oh, and it would be a felony to circumvent it.

Laugh

[koan]

This just affirms what I have said all along, this is theater provided by Apple to assuage the fanbois.

The bottom line is all that matters which is why they picked this one to stand against.

Maybe he knows something...

[Dcnjoe60]

Maybe he knows something others are overlooking. Right now the FBI has to get a court order to get Apple to unlock a phone. If Apple disagrees, as they do in this case, they can challenge it. If Apple does create the software, that doesn't change anything other than making it easier for Apple to unlock the phone.

Now, lets say, that the government is thwarted in its efforts and creates its own software to do it. Or maybe, they won't but this pushes Congress to enact legislation banning encryption. Either way, the check and balance of the courts is no longer required and privacy is truly gone.

So, maybe he's right. Maybe in such a high profile case as this, where determining guilt is not truly the issue, nor is the shooters privacy (the phone belonged to their government employer), maybe, the risk of what may be the logical outcome far outweighs the risk that Apple is concerned about.

They're dead

[Anonymous Coward]

So good luck unlocking the data in their brains. Or maybe the FBI can get Walter and Olivia to do that.

Unlock Just That Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know why a software update could not be coded and pushed to just that one phone using a unique hardware identifier such as an IMEI, etc. to allow that phone, and that phone alone, to be unlocked.

He's an NSA whore anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

RSA a multi-million dollar bribe to deliberately cripple security (defaulting to Dual_EC_DRBG) for the NSA.

Fuck him.

Garbage in, garbage out

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet another sad example of what passes for journalism these days. The godfather of encryption? What is that supposed to mean? Cryptography existed a very long time before Adi Shamir got involved with it. Computer driven encryption existed before Adi Shamir got involved with it. And even if he had invented it, it wouldn't follow that he was an expert on privacy or legal issues.

Intelligent but not knowledgable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another example of a very smart individual speaking out on something he doesn't understand. He knows the hell out of cryptography, but the concept of legal precedent eludes him.

The shooters are dead; Apple is alive

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is the victim of the FBI's aggression in this case. They are living people.

In addition, many Apple employees probably use iPhones, so they're being asked to work against their own personal interests. They're not merely being attacked by their own government (bad enough); they're being ordered to participate in the attack against themselves. That's like if I hand you a gun and tell you to shoot yourself or else. If I did that, you damn well know you would say "fuck you" and point the gun at me.

Surprised? No.

[chubs]

Given that RSA has been known to sacrifice security for greater government cooperation, is this stance in any way surprising?

Re:Surprised? No.

[chubs]

I'm referring to RSA's BSAFE library and the RNG backdoor, so it was admittedly a backdoor in the company's program, not in the RSA algorithm itself, so it has less to do with our "Godfather" than one may think, but this is the internet, so guilty by association is the de facto standard, right?

Once it exists the FBI can take it with FISA

[EnOne]

The FBI was able to force Apple to hand over the keys to the iPhone 1,2,3,4... because they had a valid warrant from the FISA court. The same thing that also happened to LavaBit. Apple responded by creating a security system where even they don't have the keys. So the FBI is using the All Writs Act to force Apple to create a way to force update the phone to a less secure version. Once this software exists the FBI can go back to the FISA court to force Apple to hand this over too.

This is a question of legal precednce

[ai4px]

This is not a question of the constitutional rights of a dead person, that is oversimplifying the problem. It is a question of precedent. Apple has hacked into older Iphones that didnt contain this type of hardware encryption. If we make them do it for a dead guy, later on the courts and FBI will justify doing to a living person with 4th amendment concerns and the courts will cite apple having done it before and compel them to do it again.

What does the FBI expect to find, and why?

[1u3hr]

The victims are dead. The perps are dead.

They were loonie fundamentalists who had watched jihad videos aand decide to go out in the same style. What vital information does the FBI think the phone holds, months later?

Here we go again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the thing, the FBI knows it can unencrypt one phone if it has physical access to the device. They want more than this, they want to unlock a phone anywhere at any time for any reason, they want the backdoor for spying on people they suspect might do something. The took the sad events of terrorists and used that to try and sway the public into backing this idea. They figured that most people are scared of ISIS and most people aren't intelligent to know they can already do it to a phone they have in custody... This tragedy led to a great time to try and get public buy-off. It's exactly how the original Patriot Act was passed, a tragedy happened and it was used to pass legislation that in turn lead to the US government spying on US citizens. This request is no different and will lead to the exact same outcome.

I wish more that anything they would just be honest about it.

Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone that's spent their entire life studying and working at government institutions around the world sides with the government agency. Not hugely surprising.

Certainly one can't point at Shamir and say "if only he understood crypto, he'd side with Apple". He understands the technical aspects of the situation better than most. However, his value judgement of the intent of the FBI as well as the likely continuation are just as certainly skewed heavily in favour of statism.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally someone who knows has the courage to explain why Apple is doing the wrong thing!

Re:here's why it's a crock

[darkmeridian]

You're one of the few posters who recognize the real problem: government compulsion to work as their agent! That's why the Thirteenth Amendment may bar this action, not amorphous claims about security. Note that the owner of this phone was the county, and they consented to the search. There is no Fourth Amendment issue here as a result. I mean, the FBI is laughing their balls off because everyone's freaking out over encryption and backdoors while no one realizes that Apple is an innocent third party in this case! It's like stealing a wheel barrel by filling it up with sand and walking it by security.

Trying to put a back door in math?

[amoreperfectvacuum]

Everyone seems to treat this as some sort of legal question. If that is all that this is, then Shamir's argument makes sense. No one seems to deal with the issue of encryption and putting a back door into an encryption algorithm. The NSA supposedly did this with the elliptic curve methods, and now they evidently are untrustworthy and unuseable. The RSA method involves picking two large prime numbers and keeping them secret. A back door might involve pretending to pick large primes, but actually picking smaller primes so as to make it easier to decrypt. This would break the alogrithm for everyone. There really isn't any way to put a back door into mathematics. This case seems to be something that the Maker and root your iPhone people should already have solved. Basically, dump the data on your phone to an image file on disk and bang on it until you start seeing intelligible strings. Apple doesn't need to be involved at all.

He's right guys

[ebvwfbw]

When you commit an illegal act, nothing protects you. Put simply, being a corporation, or any other construct doesn't protect you from the criminal code. They can look at anything in your house, other people's houses that are connected to the crime, businesses, and so on. Other countries often don't help protect you either. Let's not pretend there are rights or something is violated here. It's not. They did it and they're dead. I bet they'd be surprised that we're even having this question. I'd be surprised if there is anything useful on the phone.

Saying apple is coming up with a so called key is a crock of crap too. They'll be exploiting a bug someplace to do it. As a responsible company I'd fully expect them to patch it the next day and push it out. So what's the concern?

Besides, this is all a big show anyhow. I'm sure it was broken weeks ago. I'm sure Shamir knows that anyone claiming they have unbroken encryption is either a liar or doesn't know any better. If you think your little phone is invincible, well I have a bridge to sell you.