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

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.

Comments

It's simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI doesn't want anybody to be able to keep any secrets from it ever, with no regard to what impact this might have on commerce. They are attempting to use this case to ensure that they get complete authority and ability to decrypt everything at their whim. If they can offload the work to other companies for free, all the better, but the real win is that nothing anywhere can ever be kept secret from them for any reason.

That's all this is. Everything else is just politico/legalease/bullshit.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

If only there was someone in charge that could tell the FBI to stop this.

Re:It's simple.

[NatasRevol]

If *commerce* is your first concern over privacy, you're doing it very, very wrong.

Re:It's simple.

[s.petry]

Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way. Not a single candidate in either the Democratic or Republican party has mentioned the Constitutional protection which should exist. They have all said that the FBI should be able to do what they want, when they want, to whom they want.

In fact they have all said Safety is more important than Freedom and Government intrusion. (a couple have intentionally used double speak to try and hide it, but..)

Tyranny is frighteningly close.

Re:It's simple.

[ChrisMaple]

According to the Washington Post, Rubio, Clinton, and Sanders are sitting on the fence on this issue.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

Just several years ago, a million people were marching in DC in protest of warrantless wiretapping. Where are those people now? Or were they not really marching in protest of wiretapping but really just against the R in front of the President's name?

Re:It's simple.

[sjames]

It's not as if the FBI has never blackmailed a president.

Re:It's simple.

[halivar]

IIRC, Rubio is the only candidate to say (at least, int he debates) Apple should not acquiesce. The only other candidate to even acknowledge that there were privacy implications was Cruz, but even he hedged as said that even considering, Apple should give in. Everyone else is on the side of security theater.

Re:It's simple.

[Notorious G]

According to the Washington Post, Rubio, Clinton, and Sanders are sitting on the fence on this issue.

Translated, they're waiting until after they get their votes before letting everyone know they're going to side with the idea of the FBI having absolute authority over business.

Re:It's simple.

[DigiShaman]

There will be a crypto government agency by which all forms of encryption certs and keys must be licensed with the Federal Gov by each company that wishes to use encryption in their product. Effectively, all this crypto stuff will be moved from the private to public Federal sector. Will it ban US products from other nations? Absolutely! Does the Gov give a fuck? Hell no.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

Oh really. So what crime is Apple suspected of committing? What evidence has the FBI used to establish probable cause against Apple that requires it to submit to the burden of a ....... search? Only, it's not really a search, is it? In fact, what the FBI is seeking doesn't even exist at the moment, does it?

Re:It's simple.

[s.petry]

There are plenty of places for you to educate yourself on the subject outside of Slashdot. I would strongly recommend that you do your homework in the future.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

Demanding a company perform an action which is ILLEGAL in all other circumstances meets and exceeds the definition of abuse of power. If you want to use the common, and somewhat fallacious, argument of a safe: A safe maker may be compelled to produce a key for a safe, and reimbursed for the cost of making said key. If the safe owner modified the lock and the key does not work, the Government can NOT compel the safe maker to blow open the safe.

What the Government is demanding is not just for Apple to blow up the safe, they are requesting a permanent opening be made in ALL safes for their convenience. The only way this would meet probable cause would be to claim that ALL citizens are criminals. That last part is a violation of much more than the 4th amendment.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

Not only that but technical assistance from an entity that has done nothing wrong, and is not suspected of doing anything wrong. I may be mistaken, but suspected wrongdoing is one of the elements necessary to establish probable cause.

Re:It's simple.

[Jason Levine]

Don't worry. The FBI/NSA/etc. know where all those people are now, what they are doing, and who they have been talking with. Soon, the FBI might also be able to see what's on all of their phones as well. You know, just in case any of them even thinks of doing "wrong." (Where "wrong" is defined by the FBI/NSA/etc.)

Re:It's simple.

[s.petry]

Behold the power of MASS MEDIA! Stop thinking of R vs. D and think of "Tyrants" vs. "Society". The former is a small subset of people who own the land, the banks, the utilities, and the media.

Re:It's simple.

[s.petry]

According to the Washington Post? Really, you can't look at their records and form your own opinion based on facts?

I don't have time to list everything you have not been told by the Washington Post about those same people.

Re:It's simple.

[vel-ex-tech]

Seconded. This particular case has dubious merits, but!

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the FBI using the power of a subpoena or warrant or whatever the correct legal term is here. The source code already exists. The signing keys already exist. Apple has to be able to release updates to its devices somehow.

Let's say loading a new OS on to the phone requires the entry of a password that is unknowable at this point. Let's say that attempting to brute force the password will, oh I don't know, physically melt the storage. This is all purely hypothetical.

The FBI would still be within its rights as law enforcement to request whatever existing documentation it needs from the manufacturer (as we all know, sometimes the documentation is the source code). I would argue that signing keys are fair game, too. (All though I would also argue that the government should be liable if the signing keys are leaked.)

In that hypothetical, then the FBI would be up shit creek without a paddle. I'm sure if I were more mechanically inclined I could imagine some kind of uber secure vault for which the combination has been lost. Attempting to break into the vault in any way would cause its contents to be destroyed. I don't believe it's illegal to build such a vault nor can law enforcement hold the vault's manufacturer accountable for being unable to retrieve the information stored in the vault.

I'd encourage the FBI to be able to get all the documentation the manufacturer has about how that vault is constructed. From there, they're on their own. Maybe they'll luck out and find some vulnerability the manufacturer hadn't accounted for or overlooked. Maybe the documents will show some weird corner scenario that the manufacturer considered too off-the-wall to bother designing against. The vault's manufacturer should never be compelled to do that work for the FBI, only to turn over what they already have.

Yeah, ok, so the FBI's going to build this big scary mass privacy invasion tool! Be afraid! Don't be afraid of a tool that the FBI can plug your phone into that will bypass something like a PIN number that's only secure enough because one can only try 7 or however many times per hour. That's security by obscurity in my book since we're talking about having physical possession of the device. (I would still recommend login timeouts for remote login fails.) The difference is physical access. Be afraid if the FBI requires iGummy owners to regularly submit their iGummies for weekly image dumps or mandatory government-built OS updates.

As far as I can tell, so far at least, while I disagree with the direction this is all headed, it appears due process is being upheld here. If somebody can link me precedent that a device manufacturer can't be compelled to share information it already has on how its products are built, then obviously I'm wrong. Circle of protection: IANAL.

Re:It's simple.

[epyT-R]

Duh. Because they support it but don't want to get burned for it until after they've won the election.. If they lose then they can claim the winner is. Passive aggressive political strategy. I'll bet clinton is pro fbi. she's a statist. So are the neocons.

Re:It's simple.

[HiThere]

The constitution pretty nearly explicitly says "Anything that isn't listed the federal government is forbidden from doing." So if you say the constitution is silent on the matter, you're saying the feds are forbidden.

Re:It's simple.

[Qzukk]

Um, what constitutional protection?

The Constitution being an absolute, exhaustive list of the powers of the federal government.

Name the article and clause of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to compel a company to create something for them. Do they have to pay for that creation? Are there any limitations on what they can request and who they can request it from?

If the government had convinced a judge that there is a body buried somewhere in Boston, could the judge have issued a Writ to compel the citizens of Boston to do the Big Dig for free? If one of the people so compelled feels that this is slavery, what is their recourse?

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

That argument only works if you think the Constitution actually means what the Constitution says it means.

Re:It's simple.

[rahvin112]

Or Congress. This agency started its life with a leader that used blackmail as a standard law enforcement technique. The FBI should have been dismantled from the ground up when Hoover died as his ghost still haunts the agency in all it's actions.

Re:It's simple.

[fustakrakich]

Not a single candidate in either the Democratic or Republican party has mentioned the Constitutional protection which should exist.

I see. And is there some requirement that we vote for a Democratic or Republican? The entire House of Representatives can be completely purged very two years. Sorry folks, the damage is completely self inflicted.

Re:It's simple.

[fustakrakich]

Actually the amendment is pretty wide open, since the definition of "reasonable" and "probable" really isn't very objective. It is merely derived from consensus, which may or may not be a bit more precise(?) than a simple majority. The cops can get what they want, depending which direction the PR works, which is what they are doing with the theatrics. In other words, the phone is not secure. The story is a distraction and propaganda.

Re:It's simple.

[dgatwood]

And is there some requirement that we vote for a Democratic or Republican?

If we don't, the wrong Rigelian could win.

Re:It's simple.

[macs4all]

All though I would also argue that the government should be liable if the signing keys are leaked

Liable for what, exactly?

Apparently you have never heard of "Sovereign Immunity". I GUARANTEE the Gummint would argue that if Apple tried to get (what kind of) meaningful relief from its Signing Key being "Leaked". And you know what? The Gummint would almost assuredly win that case. In fact, it wouldn't even survive the first Motion To Dismiss.

Try suing a Government. Tort Claims Act be damned. It is WAY hard to sue the Gumming in a Civil Case. And of course you can't charge the Gummint with any CRIME. So...?

And what "relief" could a Court grant them? An offer to have Superman spin the world backward, so that the "Leak" hadn't occurred?

THAT's why this is ridiculously dangerous. Well, ONE of the reasons...

Re:It's simple.

[macs4all]

Or Congress. This agency started its life with a leader that used blackmail as a standard law enforcement technique. The FBI should have been dismantled from the ground up when Hoover died as his ghost still haunts the agency in all it's actions.

John Kennedy threatened to do that with the CIA, and you see where that got him...

Re:It's simple.

[Penguinisto]

Behold the power of MASS MEDIA! Stop thinking of R vs. D and think of "Tyrants" vs. "Society".

I believe that was GP's point.

Re:It's simple.

[s.petry]

If that is true, I am very sorry about your disability.

Re:It's simple.

[rsborg]

Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way. Not a single candidate in either the Democratic or Republican party has mentioned the Constitutional protection which should exist. They have all said that the FBI should be able to do what they want, when they want, to whom they want.

In fact they have all said Safety is more important than Freedom and Government intrusion. (a couple have intentionally used double speak to try and hide it, but..)

Tyranny is frighteningly close.

You need to google it more... Here's the list of who's against and who's on the fence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You'll note there isn't a single Democrat who's all-in for the FBI. I'm not happy that no Presidential candidate has completely supported Apple's position (because it's the constitutional position), but if either Trump or Cruz is the candidate for Republicans (90% likelihood), then I'll venture that either Sanders or Clinton will lean to the liberty side of this argument.

One other thing to note is Sanders' opinion on spying programs: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

Re:It's simple.

[amicusNYCL]

If only there was someone in charge that could tell the FBI to stop this.

Like who, this guy? This doesn't sound very promising:

As a practiced politician, Obama avoided coming down too hard on any one side, and he said he wasn't able to discuss the ongoing FBI vs. Apple case at all. But by and large his message was that sacrificing some degree of privacy for the sake of our safety has served the country well for hundreds of years, and he expects we'll figure out a way to do so digitally as well.

Here he is pondering:

"The question we now have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key or no door at all," Obama pondered, "how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?"

I'm going to answer his question with another question: why does he think that people feel like strong encryption is necessary? If he doesn't know the answer to that, he should ask Edward Snowden. If the government only ever used its authority responsibly then we wouldn't be having this argument. Here's another gem:

As to how to balance these things Obama said we'll have to figure out "how do we have encryption as strong as possible, the key as secure as possible and accessible by the smallest pool of people possible, for a subset of issues that we agree is important."

The "smallest pool of people possible" is 1, the person who owns the data. No one else needs that key. As far as "the subset of issues that we agree is important", I'm pretty sure that you don't set up encryption where you have one key that you can give to the government which only works to decrypt the data if they are actively pursuing a child porn investigation and have a warrant for your phone. I'm pretty sure the key always works, regardless of who is using it. But I'm not a cryptographer, so don't quote me on that. As far as the government only using that key if it was part of a legal investigation, see above about Snowden and how much trust we have in the government to use its authority responsibly.

Benjamin Franklin would like a word, see below.

Re:It's simple.

[ttucker]

It is kind of Republican political suicide not to pander to Authoritarian voters. This is a rather long, but interesting article:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11...

Re:It's simple.

[StinkiePhish]

There are plenty of places for you to educate yourself on the subject outside of Slashdot. I would strongly recommend that you do your homework in the future.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

Demanding a company perform an action which is ILLEGAL in all other circumstances meets and exceeds the definition of abuse of power. If you want to use the common, and somewhat fallacious, argument of a safe: A safe maker may be compelled to produce a key for a safe, and reimbursed for the cost of making said key. If the safe owner modified the lock and the key does not work, the Government can NOT compel the safe maker to blow open the safe.

What the Government is demanding is not just for Apple to blow up the safe, they are requesting a permanent opening be made in ALL safes for their convenience. The only way this would meet probable cause would be to claim that ALL citizens are criminals. That last part is a violation of much more than the 4th amendment.

This is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Instead, this is an issue regarding the All Writs Act, which states in its entirety:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
Four conditions must be met before a court can order a third-party to do something under the All Writs Act:

• The absence of alternative remedies—the act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available.
• An independent basis for jurisdiction—the act authorizes writs in aid of jurisdiction, but does not in itself create any federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Necessary or appropriate in aid of jurisdiction—the writ must be necessary or appropriate to the particular case.
• Usages and principles of law—the statute requires courts to issue writs "agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

Apple is challenging all but the second of those requirements, and is also arguing that its First Amendment rights against compelled speech is infringed. There is enough analysis elsewhere on Apple's argument that I won't repeat it.

Why isn't this a Fourth Amendment issue? Being compelled to perform an action, whether it be in the case of a locksmith opening a safe or a telephone company installing pen registers, is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Additionally, a warrant or consent overcomes the protection against searches and seizures. There is no doubt that a judge would issue a warrant to search the phone. Most importantly, the actual owner is the county, not the terrorist, and the county provided consent to search the phone.

Please read the briefs. They are entertaining reads. We need to focus on where our outrage should be targeted, and in this circumstance, it's not the government's abuse of the Fourth Amendment.

Re:It's simple.

[LateArthurDent]

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

What the Government is demanding is not just for Apple to blow up the safe, they are requesting a permanent opening be made in ALL safes for their convenience.

No, they're not. They're not requesting Apple flash the modified firmware to all iPhones. They're requesting Apple flash the modified firmware to phones they have a warrant for, issued with probable cause.

A safe maker may be compelled to produce a key for a safe, and reimbursed for the cost of making said key. If the safe owner modified the lock and the key does not work, the Government can NOT compel the safe maker to blow open the safe.

They CAN, however, compel the safe maker to give them the specs on the safe, so that they may better try to crack it. Which is the FBI's point here. If you refuse to have your expert engineers help us, then hand over all the source code so we can make the modification ourselves.

Re:It's simple.

[peragrin]

Except there is no warrant.

The owners( San berdino county) gave the phone to the FBI with permission to access it.

The FBI asked a judge to use the all writs act to compel apple to write custom firmware, sign it, and force the phone to install siad update to allow the FBI to brute force the pin.

San berdino under FBI orders changed the icloud password. Which limited options.

Re:It's simple.

[dog77]

Except for Rand Paul: http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

Re:It's simple.

[niftymitch]

Um, what constitutional protection?
The FBI went through a court, that is the extent of the protection the constitution guarentees with the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Do you try to say that there isn't probable cause, there want an Oath or affirmation, or that the thing to be searched was not described well enough?

Not simple.

The source code is a stretch, the seizure of source code was not specified in the writ.
It is more than source code...

This would be a second pile of worms.
And I suspect interesting bits are not Apples to release.
It is not uncommon for hardware to be built with devices that are opaque without
information obtained via NDA. Files that contain offsets for registers and functions
that describe and make the device do its thing fall into this NDA world like nVidia driver
blobs in Windows and Linux.
For the FBI to work with blobs Apple would have to engineer an API and deliver binary blobs.
A single chunk of silicon can contain the IP of numerous companies.
Some are patent exchange agreements with exclusions to sell and disclose.

The complexity of patent contracts and portfolios is non trivial.
This can extend to tools and tool chains.
Apple recently chopped LLVM from some of its build tool chains read why.
Swift and other internal tools and libraries may apply.

It is likely that source is shared on many other devices so to reach in
and grab source, tools, make files and more for one device would be
a reach into all of the products: iPad, Mac, iTunes, AirPlay, Apple Watch.

The Apple ecosystem is not public. You cannot hire individuals with knowledge
of iPhone and IOS internals without their being in violation of individual NDAs.
Training... there is no external training program for internals.

A less worthy bit of hardware is the Pandaboard and obtaining
full documentation is non trivial. When Texas Instruments backed off
interesting software devel stopped. The graphics hardware IP blobs
are often the tightest in the industry and would be necessary. Radios,
network chips, USB devices.

Copyright... it took a couple years to identify all the copyright owners
in some flavors of BSD Unix and rewrite or license them. Transfer
to someone without permission could be expensive.
Most licenses are not transferable... sure if identified in open court
but most contracts have silence clauses.

Some IP might be international in origin. Can this court reach out
to compel IP from a Japanese, Korean, Chinese Canadian company.

Someone is smoking some wackey tbackey...

 

Re:It's simple.

[sumdumass]

It should be obvious already. There has been numerous occasions where some business has taken a position they didn't like and were forced to undo. The end results always end in some justification that boils down to if you don't like the rules don't go into business because that business uses public this or that or something that leaches from the public. In fact, the entire paying their fair share in taxes or fees that seems to be a large selling point indicates this too.

Perhaps their silence is because they think it is obvious.

Re:It's simple.

[tlambert]

What the Government is demanding is not just for Apple to blow up the safe, they are requesting a permanent opening be made in ALL safes for their convenience.

No, they're not. They're not requesting Apple flash the modified firmware to all iPhones. They're requesting Apple flash the modified firmware to phones they have a warrant for, issued with probable cause.

And then they can remove that image from the phone by jailbreaking it once it is unlocked, and subsequently flash it to other phones.

Giving them a permanent opening to access the contents of all iPhones.

They CAN, however, compel the safe maker to give them the specs on the safe, so that they may better try to crack it. Which is the FBI's point here. If you refuse to have your expert engineers help us, then hand over all the source code so we can make the modification ourselves.

All of Apples source code -- which by the way, is just speculation by the person they are talking to in the article, because they've failed to close the previous quote properly, and failed to attribute next paragraph properly -- won't help them at all.

What they want -- and they cited the Lavabit case, in requesting it -- is Apple's signing keys.

This *STILL* will not help them, however, since the tards apparently don't *GET* that putting the device in hardware DFU mode will have them overwriting the entire flash contents, whereas putting it in software DFU mode will work, -- BUT THEY HAVE TO UNLOCK THE PHONE FIRST.

So if Apple hands this over, the FBI gets two things:

(1) The ability to build images that include an FBI SSL key and/or forced proxy with a trusted FBI SSL key, so that they can MITM any iPhone on which they install this distribution. Assuming the iPhone in question gets backed up, they'll swear at their phone, reenter their iCloud password or restore from backup, and then get everything back -- and happily continue on, using the now back-doored iPhone.

(2) The ability to sign spyware as if it came from the App store, through the normal Apple Approval process, and install it onto suspects iPhones. This include screen captures, key loggers, phone call taps (which they could tap instead at the phone company, with a warrant, or just ask the NSA to provide), SMS/MMS message taps (which they could tap instead at the phone company, with a warrant, or just ask the NSA to provide), and anything else they wanted, including access to banking details and other information stored on the device, and nominally encrypted.

Above all else, it's pretty clear: The FBI should not be given these signing keys. No one but Apple should have these signing keys, and, so far, they appear to be earning that trust.

Re:It's simple.

[sumdumass]

The 14th also with slavery and involuntary servitude being constitutionaly iillegal outside of punishment for a crime.

It should also be noted that the all writs act that keeps being brought up was passed into law two years before the bill of rights was ratified.

Re:It's simple.

[tlambert]

Seconded. This particular case has dubious merits, but!

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the FBI using the power of a subpoena or warrant or whatever the correct legal term is here. The source code already exists. The signing keys already exist. Apple has to be able to release updates to its devices somehow.

TRW Makes nuclear weapons for the U.S. Air Force. The plans for these weapons exist. The weapons exist.,, The nuclear materials exist. TRW has to be able to deliver updates to its devices to the Air Force somehow.

If the FBI uses the power of a subpoena or warrant or whatever the correct legal term is here, TRW should be required to arm their agents with nuclear weapons.

Re:It's simple.

[shilly]

Mod parent up -- this is both insightful and informative.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

Sure, that's why they are always talking about the rights of the individual, whereas you socialists are always talking about collective rights, and what society will take from people. It's the left that is Authoritarian in this country. You see it in schools, you see it in unions, you see it in every proposed solution to a problem and it always involves less choice, more rules, more laws, more taxes, more regulations, and more pointy headed pencil pushers deciding what is best for you and me.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

Explain to me how source code will help the FBI? They aren't requesting source code. They are trying to compel Apple to create something that doesn't exist that will give them the means to unlock all hundreds of millions of phones. There is nothing reasonable about that.

Re:It's simple.

[Bartles]

That's pretty funny, after watching the multi trillion dollar gift to the corporations that is the Affordable Care Act.

Re:It's simple.

[ttucker]

Thinking critically about the rise of Donald Trump, and the demographic he represents in the Republican party, is not the exclusive domain ofsocialists.

Have you ever heard Trump say anything even remotely on target with the Tea Party Republicans?

He panders to a crowd of people that want decisive action taken against perceived external threats (Mexicans, ISIS, ...), the law and whatever else be damned. The guy is doing surprisingly well.

Does Trump effectively represent your beliefs and values?

Re:It's simple.

[Coren22]

Does the bank get to tell the police to shove off when they are trying to search a safety deposit box?

Re:It's simple.

[Coren22]

Does a bank get to refuse to help the police search a safety deposit box? This isn't legally any different.

Re:It's simple.

[Coren22]

Name the article and clause of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to compel a company to allow them into their bank safe and access to the contents of a safety deposit box.

You are being disingenuous here, this is a power the government has, it is nothing different than asking a bank to grant access to a criminal's safety deposit box, or asking for help accessing a criminal's safe.

Re:It's simple.

[crbowman]

This is really a case about the All Writs act and what is constitutionally proper for congress to do in that vein. As you correctly point out the FBI has a legal warrant to the item. But, I might point out it also ALREADY has the iPhone. It's not asking to be allowed to seize or search the iPhone. It can already do that. The problem is that it can't understand the information that's on the iPhone and what it now wants is to compel a third party not involved in original subject of the warrant to spend it's time and resources to help the FBI interpret what it already has. If this were a physical safe would we tell the safe manufacturer that it must create new specialized tools and spend time money and resources to break into it? Or would we tell the FBI that "hey you already have the safe, breaking into it is your problem." The court here isn't being ask to grant a search warrant, it's being asked to force a third party to facilitate a search warrant against it's will. I think it should not.

Dear FBI,

[psergiu]

Dear FBI,

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

http://opensource.apple.com/

Re:Dear FBI,

[goombah99]

Is there a source code obfuscator?

Re:Dear FBI,

[Coren22]

Does this include Apple's signing key which is required to create a firmware image that the phone will run?

Re:Dear FBI,

[omnichad]

You can start, but you won't get very far:
JavaScriptCore-7601.1.46.3
WTF-7601.1.46.3
WebCore-7601.1.46.10
WebKit-7601.1.46.9
WebKit2-7601.1.46.9
libiconv-44

You could compile most of a web browser.

Re:Dear FBI,

[darkain]

WTF is WTF!?

Re:Dear FBI,

[omnichad]

Seems to be Web Template Framework

Re:Dear FBI,

[whathappenedtomonday]

short for Web Template Framework. HTH.

Re:Dear FBI,

[fustakrakich]

The FBI as just claimed the right to take the intellectual property of every US based corporation.

At anytime the government can force them into a patent pool. But this story is about vilifying individually controlled encryption in general, to make it look like only criminals need it.

Re:Dear FBI,

[plague911]

...... intellectual property is by requirement public knowledge. Ironically only one caveat of IP deemed secret due to military use.

Re:Dear FBI,

[PCM2]

...... intellectual property is by requirement public knowledge.

No it isn't. I don't have to show anybody my copyrighted code.

Re:Dear FBI,

[rsborg]

Does this include Apple's signing key which is required to create a firmware image that the phone will run?

Signing keys should be considered speech. It's like saying the government should be able to take over my twitter (or hell, my bank) account and pose as me if they wanted.

WTF, that's not reasonable at all.

Re:Dear FBI,

[tlambert]

But this story is about vilifying individually controlled encryption in general, to make it look like only criminals need it.

To be fair: The FBI *is* claiming "we need it"...

Re:Dear FBI,

[Coren22]

You and the AC totally ignored the comment I was replying to. I didn't ask anything about what the FBI is asking for. The OP stated that iOS is available to download online, as it doesn't include Apple's signing key, it isn't terribly useful for cracking the phone.

iOS source should not be handed over

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest, the FBI's goal isn't to access one iPhone. They want access to all encrypted communications. This should be obvious. Handing over the source code to iOS will probably allow the FBI the opportunity to look for other vulnerabilities that could be exploited to read private communications. This isn't acceptable. Furthermore, wouldn't Apple still need to cryptographically sign any build of iOS that would be loaded onto the San Bernardino shooter's phone? The FBI has carefully picked the fight in a case where there's no defending the deceased shooter to maximize public opinion being on their side. They're being disingenuous and it's obvious to anyone who's willing to look carefully at their claims. What is it that makes elected officials almost unanimously support reducing the privacy of the people when there's no such consensus among the people? And why isn't there an effort to impeach the leaders of these three letter agencies for their activities? Impeachment isn't limited to the President, and those who violate the Constitution as they do should be accountable through impeachment.

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

“The FBI cannot itself modify the software on Farook’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature.

“The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labour by Apple programmers.”

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[NatasRevol]

Yes, that's they point of TFA.

The FBI threatened, in federal court, to take the source code from Apple by force.

If it were the mafia, they would be threatening knee caps. But really, potato/potahto.

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[Anonymous Coward]

This: The FBI could give a shit about the source code. The FBI (and intel groups) want the code-signing keys so that they can sign their own malware.

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[MitchDev]

or gestapo/Gestapo

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[Jason Levine]

Hey, the FBI is just giving Apple a simple offer of protection (from having their programmers forced to do a lot of work for the government for free). If Apple doesn't want to take the FBI up on their offer, then the FBI can't be held responsible if Apple's business were to suffer some sort of "accidental setback." *cracks knuckles threateningly*

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[david_thornley]

This isn't about the money. Apple can ask for reasonable costs to be defrayed. This is about Apple wanting their customers to have privacy against the Feds.

Re:iOS source should not be handed over

[tlambert]

From TFA:

“The FBI cannot itself modify the software on Farook’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature.

They can't do it with it, either, without wiping the damn phone, so what's their point again?

So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . but it's difficult and there is a danger of data loss.

So what they want, is a master key, so they can unlock any iPhone whenever and wherever they want, without a big hassle. Or a warrant. So they're claiming they can't access it, simply because they want easier access.

Well played.

Ha HA! We're an IRISH company now!

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Maybe Apple would want to pack up and completely move to Ireland then...would it have more to offer than massive tax breaks? (http://qz.com/273631/how-apple-got-its-2-tax-rate-in-ireland/)

Clash of the titans

[Okian Warrior]

Thinking about the Apple situation, I noted that for years people have predicted that we would live in a corporatocracy.

And here we are, huddling in fear while giant organizations battle for our rights.

It is now too expensive for anyone except the upper 1% to go to court, so we are forced to hope and pray that some organization will take up the cause, leaving us on the sidelines rooting like sports fans.

Of course, those giant entities will only battle for our rights if it aligns with their other goals - Apple isn't opposing this out of their good nature, it's because doing it would cost the money and hurt their bottom line with future sales.

What a world we live in!

Re:Clash of the titans

[mhouseco]

THIS!

Re:Clash of the titans

[alvinrod]

It's even worse than that. Many of the individuals who have tried to sue the government have had their cases dismissed because they can't actually prove that the government spy programs that we've become aware of were actually spying on them even though they've been collecting data on almost everyone. Basically a giant catch-22 where you can't actually bring a case to court until you have the information you could only get from successfully bringing a case to court.

We need another Snowden who'll dump enough data to clearly give at least a few individuals legal standing. Or just release it all so we can have a massive class action suit involving the entire country against its own government.

Re:Clash of the titans

[roman_mir]

That's the point of anarcho capitalism and to lesser extent libertarianism: companies do what the market wishes and governments do whatever increases their power for the sake of power.

Government power is absolute, they can murder people (and they do at home and abroad), they can take anything they want from you, they can kidnap you and hold you in unknown location until you die.

In a free market, capitalist system companies become wealthy when they deliver great product / service at the right price (the price part depends on what market niche a company is going after). In a free market, capitalist system government does not control trade, money, labour, business, individuals.

We obviously do not have free market, capitalist system, we have authoritarian regime, central control, central planning, oppression, slavery, theft and murder.

USA wasn't built as an authoritarian system, it was built as close to the free market as any country ever came close to it, so what happened? Well, the original free market capitalism allowed American companies and people to become so wealthy that politicians couldn't see all that wealth and leave it alone, they want it, they want power, they want power over you, they want to control you, they want to enslave you, they want to be the Big Brother who takes from some to give to others to maintain this insane oppressive system. They promise to take from a minority and to subsidise a majority and that's how politicians come to power and hold onto it.

Collectivism happened to USA and collectivism destroyed the very principles of free market that USA economy was really built upon, especially from about 1850s to about 1917.

Collectivism is becoming stronger every day, be it Sanders or Trump or Hillary or Rubio or anybody else that is running right now. Be it the military industrial complex or the food and drug industries or energy or education or health care or whatever. Collectivism is what allows for things like the Fed and labour control and State control and price and wage control and income and wealth taxes and redistribution and every single person out there that says: we should.... Whenever I hear we should... I know exactly what I am dealing with. Those are the words that lead to the outcomes that shouldn't happen and they cover themselves with the veil of good intentions.

Those fucking good intentions is what leads to complete destruction of the economy and society and then of all the freedoms. Then you are left wondering: will a huge company protect my freedom from government oppression and if they do, will they do it out of general goodness or because it helps them? Well shit, that company is being hit with that exact collectivism with all its oppression, why should it have 'good intentions' except for what is good to its bottom line exactly?

Re:Clash of the titans

[Jason Levine]

In many cases, we live at the whims of giant corporations and our only hope is that a government agency can help us. For example, if your local cable ISP - likely your one source for wired, high speed Internet - decided to drastically cap your data rates to prevent streaming while pushing their TV services. Complaints to the ISP would go unheeded and there would be no competition to jump ship to or to help keep them honest. Only a government agency would have the power to keep them in check.

Here, though, it's reversed. A government agency has decided that they should have access to all phones all the time. (Let's be honest, that's the FBI's end game. They've all but admitted it.) What can the average person do? We can vote for other candidates, but that will only have so much of an effect. The powerful tend to know how to stay in power - even if it means subverting the voting process or corrupting new politicians. A big company (Apple) standing up to the government agency is our best hope at keeping the government agency at bay.

In either case, it's a story of two giant monsters fighting in a big city and the little people getting crushed. It's just a matter of which giant monster is on our side this time. (Next fight, it might the other way around.)

Re:Clash of the titans

[Dragonslicer]

It's almost as if whether an organization is "good" or "evil" depends on their actions instead of merely on whether they're part of the government or a private entity.

Re:Clash of the titans

[stealth_finger]

If you can produce an underdeveloped and underpopulated continent from your ass, I can almost guarantee a massive development of wealth.

Sadly, I don't think you can.

Well, undeveloped isn't too much of a problem, and then you just kill everyone there already. Isn't that what happened last time?

Re:Clash of the titans

[dywolf]

Remember kids: friends don't let friends do libertarianism.
Not even once.
Or this rambling work of incoherence devoid of rational thought and historical accuracy could be you.

Re:APPLE! FBI!

[fbobraga]

This AD is more viral than you think ^^

It's not the source code that matters

[guises]

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.

Re:It's not the source code that matters

[Fnord666]

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.

Well the LavaBit reference makes a lot more sense now too.

Re:It's not the source code that matters

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The article title is incomplete. The article itself says it's about both the source code and the signing key:

The department wrote in a footnote to its filing: “The FBI cannot itself modify the software on Farook’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature.

“The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labour by Apple programmers.”

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[pla]

Well played.

Not really - They've backed Apple into a corner. In response, Apple has only two logical next moves - Send all their platform-level development overseas ("You can thank the FBI for the loss of those 1500 highly paid American jobs"), and make the encryption truly unbreakable (absent some unknown weakness in the algorithms themselves), both at rest and in-transit.

Apple may well lose this round - But they can salt that field so deeply as to make Uncle Sam wish he'd never asked. "Gee, sorry, did we just make all your expensive Stingrays almost completely useless, boys? Oops, our bad, wink wink nudge nudge!"

They want to tell everyone who in charge

[evolutionary]

This is what governments do when they start leaning towars totalitarianism. And then they say "it's for your own good". Historically, this never goes pretty or well. This isn't about a phone, it's about getting all companies to acknowledge "whose boss". We jump, you say "how high" or else...you have no rights except those we allow you to have, and they can be revoked at any time it's convenient for us,,,hmm...America, home of the not so brave, not so free.

Re:They want to tell everyone who in charge

[messymerry]

Geez dude, English is not everybody's first language. I got the poster's message just fine. Chill out...

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[Lotus456]

I can't believe any judge would find this reasonable.

This is equivalent to the police asking a warrant to search your house, and getting a key to every house in the country.

Eminent Domain

[hawguy]

It's this pretty much seizing the source "for the public good", so they'd need to pay fair market value under Eminent Domain laws?

Re:Eminent Domain

[NewtonsLaw]

Yes, but given that if Apple's source code was to be placed into the hands of the US government, the value of that code would plummet -- and therefore the "fair market value" (which would be determined *by* the government) would likely be far less than it is now. Remember.. the US government has shown that even its top agencies (IRS for instance) don't have a clue when it comes to securing important information so once the FBI gets this code, it'll be in the underground "public domain" within a very short space of time and then the value is zilch.

Perhaps the government will seize the code (by court order) and *then* work out what's worth. If they wait long enough they'll simply be able to say "hackers have it now, it's worthless... here's a check for $0".

Re:Eminent Domain

[ChrisMaple]

Good idea. I figure about $120 billion, half of Apple's annual revenue. Cost to average citizen, $400, so not such a good idea.

Re:Eminent Domain

[hawguy]

Yes, but given that if Apple's source code was to be placed into the hands of the US government, the value of that code would plummet -- and therefore the "fair market value" (which would be determined *by* the government) would likely be far less than it is now.

I don't think valuations work that way, or every house taken to build a freeway would be valued at $0 since once the government takes over the house and bulldozes it to build the freeway, the house would be worthless. The valuation has to be based on the market value at the time of the seizure of the property.

Re:Eminent Domain

[Locke2005]

Best case scenario, Apple sets up a clean room where FBI is allowed to come in and examine, build, experiment, whatever with the source, but not take it with them. But even that best case takes about 5 years of fighting in the courts to arrive at a resolution, so what's the point? A decade from now the FBI will be able to prove there was no useful intelligence on the phone, and any leaked Apple trade secrets will be obsolete by then anyway. The iPhone 13 will be completely different!

Come to Canada

[Comboman]

Send all their platform-level development overseas

May I suggest Canada? It's nice and close, we speak English, and I bet you could buy all those empty Blackberry buildings pretty cheap.

Re:Come to Canada

[stealth_finger]

But.... wouldn't those moving North have to learn that wierd dialect of French that is spoken there? Isn't is the law that produce has to have the French labels on the outside?

I thought when you immigrate to a place you're supposed to just set up camp and do whatever you did anyway then claim racism if any locals have a problem?

The Cost of Social Responsibility

[Bruce Perens]

Apple is attempting to be socially responsible. The cell phone is a worse instrument for oppression than Orwell ever imagined. I can make your phone record every moment that you are carrying it. I can compress your voice so well that the existing storage is just fine for that. How long do you think it will be before that's happening for governments, if we embark upon this slope?

The problem is that if you attempt to be socially responsible, the government will do its best to damage your business. Or other companies will. So, corporations have to be cowards to survive.

Ultimately, we can't rely on a corporation for hardware that we can trust. It needs to be independently verifiable. Verifying software is possible. Verifying what is in an IC, less so at present time.

Re:The Cost of Social Responsibility

[Locke2005]

I thought some of the Israelis were fairly adept at reverse-engineering ICs, shaving off the protective case and analyzing them. It's just fairly tedious and time consuming to do so, so usually not worth it.

Re:The Cost of Social Responsibility

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, ways of taking the encapsulation off are known, and the chip can sometimes be analyzed once you do that. But that only analyzes a sample,

and it does it destructively. To verify a chip, you need to be able to verify the working one in your own device.

Re:The Cost of Social Responsibility

[david_thornley]

Yup, and maybe that works and maybe it doesn't. There's ways for Apple to make it less likely to work, although I don't think the 5C would have such defenses (the 5S on may). The FBI would rather have a solution that will work than one that might.

"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!?"

[Nutria]

Which country, exactly, can it go to where the government can't force the issue if it really wants to?

Ooh, ooh, I know!! They can follow Edward Snowden into the safe, comforting arms of Putunist Russia!!!

Yay!!!

Time travel story idea

[swb]

If you could go back in time and expose J. Edgar Hoover as a cross-dressing sadomasochist BEFORE he managed to seize control of the FBI, would it still be the same kind of power-mad agency?

I often wonder if it would be a milder government law enforcement agency with narrower authority if Hoover had been sidelined for some other bureaucrat, or if what the FBI has become is essentially an inevitability -- a byproduct of the bank robberies of the 1930s, the security panics of the 1940s, the Red Scare and anticommunism, the cold war and the 1960s civil unrest.

Perhaps it would still be what it is, but somehow with a different tone had it not been one man's personal kingdom for 40 years, a man who scared most Presidents into leaving him alone.

Re:Time travel story idea

[macs4all]

If you could go back in time and expose J. Edgar Hoover as a cross-dressing sadomasochist BEFORE he managed to seize control of the FBI, would it still be the same kind of power-mad agency?

Yes. See, e.g., all the rest of the Power-Mad Agencies, that didn't have a sexually-repressed Paranoid at the helm.

Re:Time travel story idea

[Penguinisto]

If you could go back in time and expose J. Edgar Hoover as a cross-dressing sadomasochist BEFORE he managed to seize control of the FBI, would it still be the same kind of power-mad agency?

Actually, yes. The Progressive Movement is by its very nature prone to totalitarianism over time. Now if we were also able to hold off or eliminate the Cold War, and then go back to FDR's time and cut back the overreaches of the federal government that he pulled off, and then go back further to the whole Elliott Ness thing...

But you mention this yourself:

I often wonder if it would be a milder government law enforcement agency with narrower authority if Hoover had been sidelined for some other bureaucrat, or if what the FBI has become is essentially an inevitability -- a byproduct of the bank robberies of the 1930s, the security panics of the 1940s, the Red Scare and anticommunism, the cold war and the 1960s civil unrest.

Perhaps it would still be what it is, but somehow with a different tone had it not been one man's personal kingdom for 40 years, a man who scared most Presidents into leaving him alone.

It was a byproduct of the things you mention, *plus* the progressive tendency towards centralizing government. It all sort of meshes together. Even if Hoover never got the job, I can assure you that someone else equally tyrannical probably would have, given that he was appointed to the job.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[OhPlz]

Where would they send those jobs? I doubt there's a foreign country with enough skilled workers whose government wouldn't make the same demands or worse. This type of BS is not unique to the US federal government.

Re:handing over the code.

[ChrisMaple]

Make the code available inside a locked, shielded, guarded room inside Apple headquarters. FBI coders can read and modify the code, and apply it to the single phone in question. Nothing leaves the room except the coders and the metadata of the phone the FBI claims it wants.

Unreadable FOREVER?

[Overzeetop]

"He said that an error in removing the memory could make the data unreadable forever."

Well, considering that's the current state of the data, they really have nothing to lose.

Canada

[phorm]

It's closer, so you could probably keep talent at least somewhat local. The $CAD is also at $0.76USD, so there's a potential savings in the currency difference too. Plus we're quite friendly, bacon and (real) maple syrop for your pancakes is plentiful, and if you come west the weather is quite lovely in many areas. Sure when talking about the hue and shade of your new icon schemes we'll ask you to spell it as "colour", but that's a small price to pay. Too bad our neighbouring government is a bunch of authoritarian pricks, but at least we seem to cleaned that up a bit on our end for now.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[pla]

Cellular networks don't work the way you think they do.

If you believe their lies about only using Stingrays to capture call metadata, I have a bridge to send you...

Not the worst case scenario

[Locke2005]

Forcing Apple to turn over trade secrets so that the FBI can hack it themselves actually bothers me a lot less than the FBI forcing Apple to do their job for them, with no compensation, which would be an even worse precedent. Couldn't any secrets in the source code be ferreted out eventually by disassembling the executable image? I don't think Apple encrypts the executable, do they? Give 'em the source code, and then change in the next release any trade secret that creates a security hole if leaked to wrong the people. Still makes work for Apple, but still not the worst case.

Re:well-made viral AD!

[fulldecent]

If you can't see how the FBI/NSA demanding a cryptographic signing key which has authority over hundreds of millions of devices is a big deal then I would question your judgement.

(Also known as -1 disagree)

Re:Just delete the key Apple

[Locke2005]

If there is such as thing (all evidence is that there isn't), they don't need to delete it, just change it in the next release, and again every time law enforcement demands they turn it over. Eventually Apple concludes it is cheaper an easier to just not have any back doors, and creates truly unbreakable code. Is that really what the FBI wants to accomplish?

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[Locke2005]

In Soviet Russion, encryption break you!

FBI has it all wrong

[fibonacci8]

The burden is ethical, not financial. Finding people who could sleep at night after doing this is the trouble.

Re:FBI has it all wrong

[liquid_schwartz]

Finding people who could sleep at night after doing this is the trouble.

I so wish that were true. There are *hordes* of people who are well intentioned idiots and would do whatever people in authority tell them. Very few people have a true backbone as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:FBI has it all wrong

[AHuxley]

Re "would do whatever people in authority tell them."
Also recall the PRISM list from the side of helper brands.
Apps, networks, devices, crypto got opened or was left open. Never looked, found, questioned, had the skills to or noticed splitters, servers and a huge outflow of domestic user data from their own most advanced and most secure internal networks.
If such vast efforts went unnoticed, unreported, who or what else set up an internal hardware location for years :)
With the right paperwork, contractors would walk any devices in for anyone :) Weak or secret court mandated no internal crypto vs the fake warrant a new optical link:)

Re:Apple can take care of itself.

[Locke2005]

Allowing others to break one of the value added features you provide to customers (data encryption), lowers the value of the product and the market cap of the company. As a general rule, one doesn't want government to be able to choose winners and losers in business, otherwise the smartest competitive strategy is to simply bribe congress to put your competitors out of business. Don't for a minute think that hasn't already happened, that lobbyists haven't already hand-written laws to provide a competitive advantage to the corporations paying their exorbitant fees.

Re:handing over the code.

[Locke2005]

But, that would be the _logical_ thing to do. If the FBI was logical, it wouldn't need Apple's help in the first place, would it?

Regulating the wrong device

[tekrat]

The government is trying to regulate a PHONE because "terrorism" -- but of course, won't lift a finger to impose any regulation on the other, more important device used in terrorism -- the GUN itself.

So, lemme get this straight: you want to impose all these restrictions on my phone, listen to my every phone call, read every email and text message, look at pictures of my GF, and basically peer into my personal life and the personal lives of every American, all because you won't even regulate keeping an eye on someone when they buy 50000 rounds of ammo and large capacity magazines?

Dude, I have to show my driver's license to buy cold medication, but you won't even perform simple background checks when someone buys a gun?

This country is truly fucked up.

Re:Regulating the wrong device

[Alypius]

Dude, I have to show my driver's license to buy cold medication, but you won't even perform simple background checks when someone buys a gun?

Dude, you've never bought a gun before, have you?

Re:Regulating the wrong device

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attempt to realign the conversation to abrogate other established rights even as we attempt to defend the 4th is as maddening as it is counterproductive.

Re:Regulating the wrong device

[Solandri]

OK, let's do it your way. The government regulates firearms so only a few select individuals they approve can own them. Then they decide to regulate a backdoor into every phone to monitor everything you do. Everyone protests, but they decide to do it anyway.

How then do you propose exerting control over or overthrowing this government run amok, when you previously willingly allowed it to de-fang its citizens by taking their guns away?

The battlefield here isn't devices. The battlefield is power - power of the individual citizens over the government, or power of the government over the individual. It's amazing how many of you who've never lived under an oppressive government just don't seem to get that. You seem to think just because your government has been benign your entire lives, that somehow by magic it's guaranteed to always be that way forever.

You're complaining that the government is crossing one line (privacy rights) on the path to tyranny, while simultaneously assuming it would never cross another line further down that same path (right of individual freedom). The very fact that it's crossing that first line should be proof enough to you that the possibility exists that the second line could be crossed. The Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there precisely because they'd just gotten out of a war to overthrow a tyrannical government. They knew the only way to insure tyranny never took hold here was for its citizens to hold ultimate power over the government; not power on paper (which is what the Bill of Rights ultimately is) - real power to, if need me, actually force the government to behave.

Re:Regulating the wrong device

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool - the gun show sellers openly admit the loophole in several states - because they're "mom and pop" sized businesses, they are not subject to the onerous conditions of the large stores. I've met plenty of guys who've told me: "You verbally state that there's no legal reason why I can't sell you this gun, show me that you're a resident of the state, and you're good to go - that's all it takes".

You haven't travelled much around our "united" states much, have you?

Re:handing over the code.

[Jason Levine]

Apple should make the code available (as printed text) in a cellar with no lights, no stairs in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

ha ha

[pghmike4]

Does anyone believe that the FBI has programmers who could even *build* iOS with the source code, but no active assistance from Apple? Much less then get their patched OS right enough to actually not destroy the contents of the iPhone in question. Apple should definitely take them up on this offer: no assistance but enjoy the source code.

Re:ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course they'd need help from someone else. I'm sure the the friendly guys at Samsung will be able to help them out.

Spaceship Campus

[Immerial]

They didn't build a spaceship campus for nothing... Wait until that fucker takes off into space... so long and thank you for the fish! =D

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[freeze128]

Then the new Apple Campus would be totally written off as a waste!

It's not about the source code!

[zentechno]

Then Apple will have to give the FBI access to their private keys?!? The hardeward DOES require proper signing! Then what -- the FBI could have all our phones installed with FBiOS? No.

Re:APPLE! FBI!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Oh thank God. I was worried we may have a 24 hour break without this critically important story to the Slashdot readership appearing on the front page.

FTFY.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[HiThere]

That's not clear. It would certainly be a lot of trouble, but they could set it up so that new model Apple-Apple communication over the networks (including cell phone) would be unbreakable. But it would be a LOT of trouble, and I can't imagine them bothering to do so. The metadata would still be obvious, of course.

The real weakness of the current system is that if you record the initial handshake which establishes the session key, then it is *relatively* easy to decrypt things, even with otherwise secure encryption. And you're going to need to factor in that the NSA is known to be working on quantum computers. (What success is unknown, so you've got to assume success.) This means that current approaches aren't useful even with longer keys. You need something else (and I'm no expert). It's made more difficult because you can assume the feds will buy and study any mass-market device.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[IcyWolfy]

I would personally take a job in the Philippines and continue to take my California Salary. Live like a king, fraction of the cost of living, and better quality of life with the given income level.
It wouldn't be hard to convince most of the single, male, developers to relocate overseas.

Re:They don't know what source code means or expla

[HiThere]

You missed that they also want Apple's signing key. That's the important part.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[JesseMcDonald]

They don't really need to send the development team overseas, just the signing key. It would suffice to require all upgrades to be signed with not only their own key but also a distinct key held by an independent and neutral third-party (or group of third-parties) outside of U.S. jurisdiction, with instructions to refuse any image-signing requests made under duress.

Of course, they should also ensure that no image other than the one already installed on the device can execute until after the device has been unlocked, short of a full factory reset.

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[HiThere]

Any country cheap enough that they could buy the entire thing, government included. Apple could probably afford any of several countries, but Luxemborg would have the advantage of being a member of the EU, and thus hard to act against.

Re:Just delete the key Apple

[HiThere]

You need a signing key, or you can't securely issue system updates.

Or did you think anyone could write code that was perfect the first time?

If this is about terrorists, then why FBI?

[WindBourne]

Seriously, if this is about terrorists, why not NSA? They are the ones that are supposed to listen in, as well as protect western tech. In fact, this was a terrorists, and it is NSA that is supposed to crack the iphone, not FBI.

While I support tech companies working with NSA (quietly), allowing the FBI to have access to source/phones/network/etc is akin to giving it to chinese gov. it will be massively abused and misused.

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[Nutria]

You'd need to move all the developers there. Otherwise, one developer faced with a court order, men with guns and black fatigues and threats of instant jail for refusal could check out all the source code and hand it over to anyone with a large-enough thumb drive.

Re:This was a classic one-two punch from the FBI

[MerlynEmrys67]

Fine give them the source, it has a multi-billion dollar value. There is the takings clause in the constitution 5th Amendment that says Apple would need to be compensated for the release of their source code. Then even with the source code the FBI couldn't get it onto the phone without the Apple signing key, again - worth 10s of billions of dollars as the signing key is what protects apple products from fraud. This is easily appealed by Apple lawyers to the supreme court (in 2-10 years through different appeal layers) by which time the information on the phone would be worthless.

this is dumb

[gph1972]

We already know the forensic tech that initially worked on the phone has made it impossible to recover the data. The phone iCloud account data has changed, and other steps taken as well to gain access to include resetting the phone. The FBI should just give up, I seriously doubt that with Apples help any data is on this phone to recover.

Re:this is dumb

[orgelspieler]

Even if any data was still there, it was his work phone. It probably had no goodies on it anyway. If it is other bad guys they are looking for, that would be in the metadata, which anybody can get with a warrant. So it's obvious the FBI is just using teh terrorist to scare Americans into giving up more of their rights.

Re:well-made viral AD!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's demonstration of Apple opportunism: turn a legal case in to a GIGANTIC AD

If you look at the history of the case, Apple asked the FBI to ask for the order under seal. Instead the FBI sent out press releases that they were going to file an ex parte order, got the order, and only *then* informed Apple directly. This is a PR campaign by the FBI to create a precedent (using a case where they don't need any more evidence at all), so they can spend 5 years in court) so that they can compel backdoors for everything from now forward.

Re:APPLE! FBI!

[Penguinisto]

Release the source code?

Damn... can't the FBI even use a web browser?

(I know, there's likely lots more to it, but damn... it's not like there's all that much hidden. I mean, you'd think the FBI were demanding source code to one of Microsoft's OS variants or something.)

Re:well-made viral AD!

[macs4all]

it's demonstration of Apple opportunism: turn a legal case in to a GIGANTIC AD

That doesn't even deserve a response.

Clash of the gnats

[Sloppy]

You can trivially build computer storage that the FBI can't crack. If you have $300 (remember to spend some of that on a real keyboard rather than a numeric keypad, which you get tired of using after 4 keypresses) then you have more cryptographic resources than the FBI has cryptanalysic resources. Anyone can be a titan, next to the FBI's ant-like stature. If you did that, the FBI would have no choice but to resort to the $5 wrench (and if we maintain the context of this particular case, the $5 wrench wouldn't work; go threaten some 3-month-old corpses if you don't believe me).

The reason Apple is in court isn't that they can afford it and you can't; it's because they are the third party that some fuckwit outsourced their data security to, instead of doing it themselves. (A fuckwit, I remind you, who didn't care about anything, which is why he is dead, and is also why you don't need to worry about his problems becoming your problems. If you are trying to protect your data, then no precedent that affects you, is going to come out of all this.)

Think about how amazing that is. If you heard of a company or government department who did that, you would say they're shockingly negligent. Their CIO needs to be fired immediately. If you even heard that a private individual did that with their desktop computer, and then it went sour, you would "blame the victim" because even at the low-stakes level of a single person, it's blatantly stupid. But somehow all the rules of common sense are suspended when the PC is handheld.

"My passphrase is four decimal digits long." (Seriously, imagine someone saying that. Your mind inserts the word "duuuh" at the beginning of the sentence, doesn't it?)

"I don't have my computer's root password, but Dell does." (Did the same thing happen when your imaginary actor read this line?)

Apple is a little more motivated to fight than usual, because this case shows the public that we're all doing things wrong. Apple doesn't want you to know that. Google doesn't, either. But I do. I want you to know that most of our sentences about handheld PCs start with an implicit "duuuh," and there's saliva dripping off the sentence as it hangs in the air, waiting for some insensitive clod child to point and laugh at the obvious.

And I wonder if maybe someone at the FBI wants it too, because that's sure-as-fuck what they are proving to everyone. They're pointing their gun at Apple's face but making eye contact with us and saying, "see what happens when someone else is in charge of your computer." (Heh. Now that I think of it, wasn't it the FBI who wanted this whole story public, and Apple who wanted it sealed?)

(In that respect, this case is delicious, but you should be wondering what real security and rights stories are happening right now, from which this is intended to distract you.)

Who knows, maybe the FBI is fucking tired of how our stupidity with regard to handhelds is making things easier for criminals. There could be some very selfish reasons for them wanting us all to learn a little common sense.

BTW, disclaimer: I'm as lazy and dumb as you are. Don't waste your time calling me a hypocrite; I'm not denying anything.

Good luck with that....

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Even if they could ever figure out how to build it, by that point it's unlikely there would be enough people still running that generation of hardware for it to matter much.

Re:This was a classic one-two punch from the FBI

[macs4all]

Apple can either say the previous request is now possible, or the new, slightly lesser request. But it can't have both. It must capitulate.

Wrong.

They can argue (and rightfully, so) that the Gummint has no Standing to force a non-party (Apple) to disclose their trade secrets. This is not "Records kept in the regular course of business"; but rather the very heart and soul of Apple's work-product.

IANAL, but I would bet that as a non-party, the Gummint's subpoena powers are quite limited when it comes to Intellectual Property.

Also, there is the question of relevance: Apple's Source Code and Signing Keys are not "Relevant to the Case", and it is arguable as to whether that Source Code and Signing Key, in and of itself "may lead to the Discovery of other, admissible information.". It's kind of a weird concept; but I think that it is a stretch to say "Give us your trade secrets, so we can use them against essentially anyone, even outside this case.", because the Gummint could at that point NEVER convince a Judge that "they only want it for this particular case." Even Judges aren't that stupid (well, at least not usually).

Delusion

[s.petry]

You can vote for whoever you wish, and honestly I hope everyone does. That said, the general populace will vote for the candidate they wish too. If you believe that your vote for a 3rd party will make your 3rd party candidate the winner, I can say with certainty that you are delusional.

The majority of people vote for who they see and hear the most, and happens to be a member of the party they believe best fits their world view. You won't hear much about 3rd party candidates, and the little you hear will be distorted to shape people's opinion's for them. We have not had fair coverage of a 3rd party candidate since Ross Perot, and in this incarnation of the US it won't happen. Ross Perot scared the hell out of the elites.

This is why Ron Paul was never referred to as Ron Paul on the "news". Ron Paul was referred to as "that crazy/cookie/insane Ron Paul", and his policies were only mentioned as "scary/bonkers/conspiracy theory/crazy policies".

Re:Delusion

[fustakrakich]

If you believe that your vote for a 3rd party will make your 3rd party candidate the winner, I can say with certainty that you are delusional.

Again. the point is being missed. The voters have nobody to blame but themselves on who wins. That's it, nothing else.

Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way.

That's complete nonsense. Should people revolt against the politicians they just voted for, or worse, reelected? Don't be silly. They would be revolting against their own stupidity, and making a big mess. Right now the monolith (R/D) party gets 98.4% percent of the vote and a ~95% reelection rate. Work on that before bleating about 'revolt', please, for the children.

If you want to look a little deeper, you will find that the average voter is quite conservative/authoritarian. That is why authoritarians are in charge. There is no other reason.

Re:Delusion

[s.petry]

If you believe that your vote for a 3rd party will make your 3rd party candidate the winner, I can say with certainty that you are delusional.

Again. the point is being missed. The voters have nobody to blame but themselves on who wins. That's it, nothing else.

Who missed the point exactly? Go back and actually read what you are attempting to respond to. After that, if you wish to debate my position do so without cherry picking bits and pieces of my statements.

Re:Delusion

[fustakrakich]

I read your position. If I am to believe the quote I grabbed, you seem to believe it's hopeless, that only revolt will change anything. It won't. It is merely a reset button to start the cycle over. And all I'm saying is that revolt can easily be avoided by voting for somebody else, otherwise you are only revolting to.. I mean, against each other.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[dunkindave]

So what they want, is a master key, so they can unlock any iPhone whenever and wherever they want, without a big hassle.

No, no, no, no. All they want is a key to this one phone. Honest. That such a key would also work to unlock every other similar phone is pure coincidence. That wasn't their intention. Really. Though now that you mention it ... when we are done here, we have this stack of seized iPhones we want to talk about.

Re:well-made viral AD!

[david_thornley]

What's wrong with opportunism in this case? As long as Apple is standing up for what I believe important, why shouldn't they try to get some PR out of it?

Scalia's dead

[Bruce66423]

Which means that there's noone who really believes that sort of logic. But it could make an argument to slow the proceedings down.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[Mal-2]

If they can make the crypto mathematically equivalent to a one-time pad, no amount of quantum computing is going to crack it since all messages of the correct length are equally valid. The key exchange itself would then have to be compromised, which would have a limited window of opportunity.

Re:Clash of the titans, funded like a class-action

[davecb]

Canada used to have a long-standing fund to pay lawyers for people who differed with the government on matters of public policy. It was defunded during a previous government, but seem to be coming back.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[AHuxley]

Cities and development campuses, research parks around the "free" world will be very attractive for that. Local political leaders will allow crypto exports, tax breaks for new local hi tech jobs with any big brand.
Other nations have enough real human informants, other direct methods and will get all metadata not to have to care about message content for export telco designs. They did not waste all their efforts on contractors and signals intelligence and would still have real human skill sets.
Once the US gov starts conscripting its brands to design with a gov front door, back door, trapdoor as policy it will be interesting to see the international reaction.
Buying a phone with the 5 eyes, US (federal, state, city) law enforcement and any contractors, ex staff and former staff "inside" by default is a huge security risk.
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SISMI-Telecom scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
shows what weak turnkey telco products can do to a national telco network.
Now add the fun of weak junk US gov conscripted crypto keys been sold to anyone around the world with the cash and connections.

Re:source code? Key?

[AHuxley]

The interesting part is what the NSA and GCHQ gifted all that the the world for free after the Clipper chip, export issue years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The clandestine services seem to want as many people feeling "safe" using trackable cell and mobile computer networks rather than been cautious and not investing in carrying a beacon, voice print recording device around with them all the time.
Any public crypto code did not slow, stop, phase or bother the 5 eye nations, the only fear was that people would not carry a cell phone.
The trick was not in decryption but the magic of people feeling they could not be tracked in a flood of massive new networks.
The "unbreakable" code was the bait, getting malware to read data input and plain text display per phone was easy given the tame and limited big brand product range around the world.
The next step is to do away with any legal cover that worked for a few decades and just read plain text in open courts. The phone OS brand gets named in open court as the informant.
The gov conscripted OS will get to data entry before and plain text after any and all free or private sector perfect crypto software app user layer.

As a shareholder...

[jcr]

I would fully approve of Apple using the entirety of its cash reserves to litigate the FBI into oblivion if those goddamned thugs follow through on this threat. A billion dollars on an ad campaign to inform the public of the FBI's criminal history, including such things as sending a letter to MLK demanding that he commit suicide, and paying for the truck bomb used in the first world trade center attack would be a good start.

The FBI is not, and has never been a law enforcement agency. They have no interest at all in protecting the public. Their only motivation is to increase their power through any means, legal or not.

J. Edgar Hoover was a sick, twisted man who viciously oppressed homosexuals, despite being one himself. The cult he started is beyond reform: it must be abolished, and every person currently employed by the FBI must be absolutely prohibited from ever holding any employment again at the taxpayers' expense, or holding any position of public trust.

-jcr

Re:Not only no, hell no!

[jcr]

It's worth pointing out that there is no constitutional authority for the FBI to exist.

-jcr

What's at stake here...

[jcr]

If the FBI gains the ability to backdoor every iPhone, then a future FBI thug won't have to send empty threats to a future civil rights leader like that goddamned faggot* Hoover did to MLK. He'll be able to just load up that innocent person's phone with kiddie porn or any other incriminating material, and then send him a message that says "hey, look at your phone: you'd better kill yourself".

* Damned right, i called him a faggot. He fully supported government oppression of homosexuals despite being one himself.

-jcr

Bread and circuses

[Alypius]

Bah. Aside from anyone on this forum, no one will care if Apple loses as long as their Netflix and Candy Crush still work.

Oh no

[HalAtWork]

I have some thoughts in my head that I shared with someone via voice in person, and they can't compel us to divulge said thoughts on command. Guess they're completely fucked as this happens every day!

What kind of nonsense is that about the chip???

[gweihir]

Seriously, if it is BGA, it may represent a modest mechanical challenge (because you have to get the hot air just right), but that is it. The other case variants are easy. Once the chip is removed, you, of course, place it in a socket or an adapter where you can alternate between re-flashing or having the phone use it. Soldering it back in for every 10 tries would be the hight of incompetence. Then there is the possibility of replacing it completely, for example with a RAM-based emulator. This is really not that hard to do, you just need a person that has the relevant experience and maybe $1000-$2000 in equipment.

Re:So, the NSA & FBI can crack the iPhone . .

[HiThere]

While true, that's not useful, because of the contrafactual if. They can include one time pads in the ROMs, but since it's a mass market device, they will be accessible by anyone with the purchase price and some expertise.

They could do something nearly equivalent, but it would require an extreme amount of effort, and so, as I said, I can't imagine them doing it.

It's one thing to make a received communication undecipherable, it's another to protect something in transit. And even in the first case if nobody knows the key to unlock the code, then you can't retrieve the message yourself.

Now streaming communication can be secure AFTER then handshake, but if someones recording everything, they are also recording the handshake, and so they know the key that's been decided upon.

Foolproof encryption is impossible if there is physical access, and if it's desirable that somebody ever be able to read the message. You can do encryption that can't be cracked without the key, but coercion of key access is not an unknown part of the process. (OK, in this case the person you'd want to coerce it from is dead, but that may be equivalent to "you don't want anyone to ever be able to retrieve the message", which is one of the workable cases.)

The problem with one-time pads is that they depend on a shared secret, and if you overshare it, then it's no longer a secret. And no algorithm can actually be equivalent to a one time pad, much less be able to generate the precise same series of numbers as that on another machine. If you use a deterministic algorithm, then it's not random and is potentially crackable. If you don't, then you can't get the same set of random numbers as your partner. The only way around this is out-of-band communication.

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[HiThere]

Perhaps the Cayman Islands, then? Or make a deal with both Russia and the Ukraine to let them buy the Ukraine?

But I'm not sure that just because the EU recognizes US banking/taxation laws it would automatically enforce a case that was clearly unfounded. Particularly when the case against enforcement was supported by a powerful corporation. You might, of course, need to move all development out of the US. But the TPP and an equivalent treaty in process with Europe are going to make import taxes expensive to the imposing country. And the process being set up for trials isn't friendly to governments being charged by a corporation.

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[HiThere]

All developers don't need, or get access to, all of the code. So that argument fails. You would, of course, need to move many of them. I'm sure the EU would object to acquiring a lot of well paid tax payers and a company that generates huge amounts of cash.

The thing is, it would be a quite expensive proposition for Apple. I'm rather sure they COULD do it, but I'm even surer that they wouldn't.

Re:"Clearly it is time for Apple to move offshore!

[Nutria]

So that argument fails.

Maybe.

I'm sure the EU would object to acquiring a lot of well paid tax payers and a company that generates huge amounts of cash.

I'm sure they'd love it, too. But one government or another would eventually tell Apple to pony up with the source.

Re:Just delete the key Apple

[stealth_finger]

Mutually assured destruction, it's not just for nation-states.

All Apple needs to do is delete their private key.

They still have the trump card here.

What I would've done.

"Sure we'll get that iphone open for you, give it here a sec (days/weeks/months pass)

Oops, wiped it, Sorry lads."