Slashdot Mirror
Former NSA, CIA Director Michael Hayden Sides With Apple Over FBI (foxbusiness.com)
cold fjord writes: General Michael Hayden (Retired), who served as head of both the NSA and CIA, has taken a position supporting Apple in its conflict with the FBI. Apple is fighting a court order to assist the FBI in breaking into the government owned phone used by one of the two dead terrorists responsible for the recent San Bernardino massacre. General Hayden stated, "You can argue this on constitutional grounds. Does the government have the right to do this? Frankly, I think the government does have a right to do it. You can do balancing privacy and security dead men don't have a right to privacy. I don't use those lenses. My lens is the security lens, and frankly, it's a close but clear call that Apple's right on just raw security grounds. ... I get why the FBI wants to get into the phones but this may be a case where we've got to give up some things in law enforcement and even counter terrorism in order to preserve this aspect, our cybersecurity."
Parent may already have been replaced by a cunning Eliza program.
Translation... The NSA/CIA is already able to break into iPhones without Apple's help and we don't want to share our advantage with the FBI.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Except Snowden doesn't say what you claim. He states that he disbelieves the FBI's claims that they can't break into the phone. According to what is referenced in that article, he doesn't say anywhere that this is just Apple putting on a show.
To be and enjoy it. Or change as you would like to. Just because someone is better than something and even if it is by orders of magnitude beyond your understanding that doesn't mean you are worth less as a person. Whether that is a fundamental truth or a quirk of the Human brain I think that should be something we should hypothetically instill (Not necessarily install.) in others. So find something to do.
Looking over my iphone I don't really have anything that Law enforcement would be interested in - however, I really really really do not want the bad guys having that very same access.
note: I don't actually want anyone snooping in my phone at all, so let's not have the semi-obligitory "First they came for....." sillieness folks, mKay?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What was the point of human existence before computers?
I doubt it's changed.
You can argue this on constitutional grounds. Does the government have the right to do this? Frankly, I think the government does have a right to do it.
I disagree. I think the government doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have the right to compel companies to break security protocols on behalf of the government when that would affect parties other than the one under legal scrutiny. Furthermore it seems clear to me that this creates an unreasonable burden on Apple (or any other company) to support the government. I'm not sure the court in this case fully appreciates what they are asking from Apple. By breaking the encryption on this device they materially devalue the product Apple is selling substantially. I think you can argue this on at minimum 1st and 4th amendment grounds.
it's a close but clear call that Apple's right on just raw security grounds.
"Close"? No it isn't. Apple is clearly correct that breaking security for one phone breaks them all. That's how it works. Anybody with even a basic understanding of cryptography on computers would know this. If we break it for the US government we break it for foreign governments, black-hats, paparazzi, etc. There is no way to restrict it to just one specific party. Apple is 100% correct to do what they are doing. I'm not always a fan of Apple but they are both morally and technologically correct in their position here.
If, eventually, a computer can do whatever a human can do, and do it better, what is the point of human existence?
Some humans can do everything certain other humans can do and do it better. Does that make the existence of less capable humans pointless? I think not.
Anyway it's a moot question. You can argue that the point of human existence is to pass on their genes and robots cannot in any manner pass on human genes. So there is always at least one thing humans can do better than robots.
Except Snowden doesn't say what you claim. He states that he disbelieves the FBI's claims that they can't break into the phone. According to what is referenced in that article, he doesn't say anywhere that this is just Apple putting on a show.
They likely can break into the phone, but that is not what this is all about. And it never has been, just as this has never been about "one phone", regardless of who wants to claim that bullshit.
This is about setting legal precedent. Period. End of statement. And once it's set, it will be abused. Guaranteed. There is zero evidence in our history to even prove otherwise.
The question is not "what if it escapes".
What if, one of the guys working at Apple is able to get his hands on that "one-serial" version? Is that guy security checked? Is he a spy?
That such a version even exists is a risk. Whereas if all the Apple firmwares issued, to anyone, are just consumer, technical, etc. firmwares that don't allow arbitrary bypass of security restrictions, it's much harder to make happen.
And how difficult would it be for, same, some enterprising country to get their hands on this "one-serial" firmware and hack either the serial is applies to AND/OR the serial on the hardware they want to get into?
It's not public escape and the guys on the firmware hacking forums that this guy would care about. That kind of thing could already be going on anyway. It's that Apple are providing firmwares capable of device compromise to anyone who asks in any of their legal locations. Like China. If the FBI succeed in the US, what's to stop the appropriate equivalent Chinese agency succeeding in China (where it would be done much more quietly and probably without any safeguards at all?). Nothing.
Short of Apple literally having to pull out of China if they are forced to do it, they would have to comply with the laws there too, by their court's interpretation, whether the device was originally bought in the US, the EU or anywhere else, if if a similar case comes up and the highest Chinese legal authority decrees they want this, and Apple has already provided the facility to the FBI, it's almost impossible to deny them it short of pulling out of sales in that country entirely. And that would hurt Apple and, by proxy, the American export economy.
This guy is making some sense, at least. He's not even trying to pretend that the courts aren't within their right in this instance, what he's saying is that it's a much bigger issue than just resolving one legal dispute, and will affect the security and export of US electronics worldwide.
It's got nothing to do with "how many times we give in", but "that we gave in the first time", which is a sad and oft-repeated lament where law is concerned. Apple aren't even saying they COULDN'T do this... they are saying they SHOULDN'T.
It would destroy exports, user confidence, and provide a tool that - with almost zero effort - could be applied elsewhere. And, please bear in mind - evidence submitted in a court can be requested, inspected, queried and argued over by the other side too.
In the same way that the firmware of breathalysers and all kinds of other devices are legally forced open in many jurisdictions (because you are putting people behind bars based on the assertions that the software is making, and thus the software has to be able to be inspected by an appropriate professional analyst if the defendant makes a fuss about it, in order to dis/prove their case), providing this firmware to the FBI may well pave the way to providing it to the defendant's lawyers, legal team, analysts, courtroom, etc.
It's not joe-public hacking the firmware on their iPad that anyone cares about. It's creating a tool that you then can't "uncreate" and may well be able to be applied to everything from some kiosk-like visitor-log device in the White House to the kid's tablet in Downing Street, and then advertising that the tool exists to any court in the world that might demand it.
Though I hate Apple with an absolute, physical, lividness, this is actually a big case with much more impact for Apple, the US electronics economy and the global IT economy, plus the national security of almost every country, than just "who might bypass your passcode when they can put a hacked firmware on your iPad when you leave it unattended in a bar".
It doesn't even need to "escape". If Apple get summonsed to provide this same tool by a Chinese court, or an EU one, they will have to comply or fight the same fight. If they could point at the US and say "No, look, we argued this over there, we're not going to do it", it holds much more precedent than "We caved to the FBI, but we don't like your court system over here so we won't do the same for you."
what is the point of human existence?
To dream... to love
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I didn't read the article, but I heard the interview on NPR. Basically his reasoning is this: Cybersecurity is our biggest defense gap. It's clear now that the chinese have stolen designs for expensive weapon systems of ours and we've seen signs that foreign entities have the ability to manipulate our power grid and infrastructure, and possibly the stock market. In this context, building in any weakness at all - even for a seemingly slam dunk case such as terrorism, we should be cautious. In a landscape so woefully filled with security holes, it is more incumbent upon us to protect Americans by tightening security, than gaining a little extra information about some lone wolf shooters.
And you know what the FBI wants? That's pretty powerful stuff there. Those four items are a backdoor. And just because the FBI doesn't publicly reveal their desires, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You need to acknowledge precedent.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Life has whatever meaning you choose to attach to it.
sigs are hazardous to your health
there is something on the phone that implicates General Hayden as a terrorist!
Um, have you read anything at all about this case? No one has asked Apple to insert a backdoor. The FBI has asked Apple to write a program that:
1. Remains in memory 2. Only Apple has access to 3. Allows the FBI to use unlimited guesses on the PIN 4. Allows the FBI to use a custom pin entry through the Thunderbolt port
Nowhere in there is a request for a backdoor on every phone, nor does the FBI want a generic backdoor they can use whenever they want. In fact, the first item is because the FBI doesn't want anyone to claim they can reverse engineer the backdoor from the firmware.
You are a moron, or a liar, or both.
Unlimited access to the pin IS a backdoor. There is no functional equivalent between one iPhone 5c with one serial number and another. The claim that the software can't be used on a different iPhone 5c is an unmitigated lie.
There's a good ACLU piece this week talking tech about why the FBI is lying.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Considering the the motion to order Apple to comply was filed ex parte meaning Apple could not see the FBI's motion nor respond to it, yes, the FBI had something to hide. In the New York case, Apple was able to defeat that motion because they were able to supply a judge with convincing arguments.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think the issue is a bit different.
The FBI is basically a national police force. I've known a few cops, and their point of view has been all about solving and preventing crime. Even the ones I like as people... on these sorts of subjects it's like they're wearing blinders. Innocent people's privacy isn't a concern to them. Constitutional guarantees aren't a concern to them, except when it's been hammered into their heads as something they're required to do by the higher ups - not because they agree with those guarantees, but because they know it will mess up the eventual prosecution if they don't do it.
Their job is to prevent and solve crimes, and anything that obstructs those two goals should be done away with (in their view).
In a cop's perfect world, they'd be able to just walk into your house and look around. They'd be able to stop people on the street and frisk them. And of course they should be able to use license plate scanners, and have unrestricted access to the data forever.
So of course they they think should be able to look through anyone's phone.
#DeleteChrome
Eating and shitting aren't our purpose, that's like saying my cell phone's purpose is to consume battery.
It's a byproduct of the actual purpose.
To fuck and suffer.
Or more elegantly, to fuck and be fucked in return.
The FBI only wants Apple to have the access right now just like it's "just for this one phone." Once the precedent is set, the FBI will ask for more and more phones to be unlocked for ever-less-severe crimes. It'll go from "he's a terrorist" to "he's a murderer" to "he threatened someone" to "this person uploaded some movies against copyright law." Meanwhile, the law enforcement agencies requesting this unlocking will increase. It'll start with the FBI, but eventually local law enforcement will want access. Also, law enforcement agencies around the world will demand that Apple unlock devices for crimes committed in their own countries.
As the requests pour in, Apple will take longer and longer to fulfill the them (at greater and greater cost to Apple) until the FBI tells Apple to just hand over a generic "unlock any iPhone" program. Apple will resist but the precedent will have already been set. This is just quibbling over who has the program (and it'll be spun that this is easier for everyone involved) so Apple will hand the program to the FBI... and then to local law enforcement... and then to law enforcement organizations across the world. And then the inevitable leak will occur and hacking groups will get access to it.
I know "slippery slope" can be a tenuous argument, but the FBI and various law enforcement agencies haven't even tried to hide their true intent. They want to be able to unlock any phone, at any time, based on the flimsiest of reasons. Apple is standing in the way and they want the courts to order Apple to comply and weaken our security (device encryption) to make us more "secure" (as in anti-terrorism security theater).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Actually, the FBI's been pretty overt with what they want and they view "just this one phone" as a stepping stone to unlock any phone they want at any time they want. Like you pointed out, precedent is the important thing here. If Apple fails to set the right precedent, then it's only a matter of time before Apple is flooded with requests and the FBI demands that Apple turn over the unlocking program so that the FBI can unlock phones quicker.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Considering that what the FBI wants is listed in the court order, you should be able to find it on your own without issue. I guess you think the FBI is somehow keeping their request secret?
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...
I suppose you could just read the court order, but maybe that is too hard? The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.
right, they just want access when they want it, with nothing hindering the process.
All of your "solutions are actual backdoors. So now if you want to say thy don't want backdoors you have to tell us why you were wrog when you first told us we were wrong. You're digging a pretty deep hole for yourself.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
By breaking or circumventing the encryption you make the encryption (security) immediately worthless on every iPhone in the process.
Not quite. Nobody can break _the encryption_ of the iPhone. What the FBI wants Apple to do is to disable a feature where trying to brute force the passcode erases the phone after ten wrong attempts.
If that feature is disabled, you can brute force the phone at a maximum rate of one key every 80 milliseconds. Which means 4 digit passcode security is broken (takes 15 minutes to brute force). 6 digit passcode takes two weeks to crack. 8 digit passcode takes two years to crack. 8 random lowercase letters takes 529 years. 8 random lowercase or uppercase letters takes 135,000 years.