Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Might Be Forced to Hand Over iOS Source Code to the FBI (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the the-plan-b dept.

Bruce66423 writes: In its latest filing, the FBI implies that, if the burden on Apple programmers of their alternative approach is too great, then Apple should release the whole source code to the FBI to allow them to do the work, quoting the precedent of the Lavabit confrontation. Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!? To recall, Lavabit abruptly shut down in 2013 when the FBI attempted to get the company to hand over the encryption keys for its secure email service. While the current situation seems to put Apple in the same ballpark as Lavabit, what gives the Cupertino-giant company an advantage is the immense support it is receiving from other Silicon Valley companies and personnel. Many believe that the FBI doesn't really need Apple's help in unlocking the iPhone. Reports claim that the iPhone in question already has a "backdoor" which could allow the government-backed institution to access the data on the smartphone. Other widely reported theories include cracking the iPhone and manipulating the innards to trick the system into spilling out all the information. One proposed method, which requires the phone's NAND flash chip to be taken out, may not work, though. Daniel Kahn Gillmor, a technology fellow with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, pointed out the risks in playing with flash memory. He said that an error in removing the memory could make the data unreadable forever.

2 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Dear FBI, by psergiu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dear FBI,

    You can ALREADY start downloading OS X & iOS source code from here:

    http://opensource.apple.com/

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  2. It's not the source code that matters by guises · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh for gods' sake. I wrote a whole comment saying basically, "I don't see the problem here," based on the worthless summary, and then looked at the article. It's not about source code, it's about the signing key. It acknowledges that right in the article title, but whoever submitted this got their head on backwards.

    My fault, I suppose, for being lazy.