Slashdot Mirror
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."
What a crock full of shit.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
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.
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.
If you comply once, then you greatly weaken any objections to complying again.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Yes:
http://www.cnet.com/news/security-firm-rsa-took-millions-from-nsa-report/
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.
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.
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.
Achille Talon
Hop!
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.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
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.