Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Threatens To Seize iOS Source Code (idownloadblog.com)
An anonymous reader writes from an article posted on iDownloadBlog: The DoJ is demanding that Apple create a special version of iOS with removed security features that would permit the FBI to run brute-force passcode attempts on the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone 5c. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama has made public where he stands on the Apple vs. FBI case, which has quickly become a heated national debate. In the court papers, DoJ calls Apple's rhetoric in the San Bernardino standoff as "false" and "corrosive" because the Cupertino firm dared suggest that the FBI's court order could lead to a "police state." Footnote Nine of DoJ's filing reads:
"For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on the San Bernardino shooter'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 labor by Apple programmers."
As Fortune's Philip-Elmer DeWitt rightfully pointed out, that's a classic police threat. "We can do this [the] easy way or the hard way. Give us the little thing we're asking for -- a way to bypass your security software -- or we'll take [the] whole thing: your crown jewels and the royal seal too," DeWitt wrote. "With Apple's source code, the FBI could, in theory, create its own version of iOS with the security features stripped out. Stamped with Apple's electronic signature, the Bureau's versions of iOS could pass for the real thing," he added.
"For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on the San Bernardino shooter'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 labor by Apple programmers."
As Fortune's Philip-Elmer DeWitt rightfully pointed out, that's a classic police threat. "We can do this [the] easy way or the hard way. Give us the little thing we're asking for -- a way to bypass your security software -- or we'll take [the] whole thing: your crown jewels and the royal seal too," DeWitt wrote. "With Apple's source code, the FBI could, in theory, create its own version of iOS with the security features stripped out. Stamped with Apple's electronic signature, the Bureau's versions of iOS could pass for the real thing," he added.
Grab your weapons and round up the militia, gov is going crazy with power
signature/brains
government is always after you
Didn't think this could get much stupider. But...
Don't step on the baby.
They keep claiming that their right to bear arms is to keep us safe from a tyrannical government. Except they never actually do it. We're right now witnessing our government being out of control, and threatening a company in a way they would NEVER threaten an arms manufacturer -- because the NRA is so powerful...
But now we need the gun nuts to pull out their pathetic rifles and defend us from a government armed with aircraft carriers, bombs, tanks, drones, nuclear missiles, and more ammo than any prepper could ever have.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
DOJ's response to Apple's claim that the DOJ is trying to make a police state? You guessed it: create a police state.
Note to everyone: burn your backdoors. Do it now. Apple wouldn't be in this mess if the phone was secure against updates while locked.
See that "Preview" button?
What's to stop Apple immediately releasing an update which 1. installs new keys, and 2. revokes the keys in possession of the FBI? i.e. before the FBI has enough time to modify and release their own version?
"Install this update NOW before law enforcement gets access to your phone?"
Or am I missing something?
If that's a feasible option, they're probably working on it right now.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Every person who currently owns an iPhone or is thinking about buying one would not know whether they had an actual iPhone or a government iPhone. That would be great for business for Android, until they eventually suffered the same fate.
It shouldn't be the FBI's job to lobby for or against policies with such wide political implications. It's conflict of interest, and outside of their role as part of the Executive Branch. They are to carry out of the orders of the other branches and formal political process, NOT to make or pressure policy.
They can state their preference on political issues as they relate to crime fighting and prevention, but to aggressively push for a stance or policy is another thing.
Table-ized A.I.
With exactly this reasoning cited in the article.
... then isn't the derivative work that they make copyright infringement?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let's see...
Corporation = Person
Person = Bill of Rights protection
Corporation = Bill of Rights protection
The USA Federal Government can demand anything they want to demand.
The USA Constitution puts limits on what has to be provided.
Illegal or even unfair seizure of property, requires appropriate payment from the USA Federal Government.
So POTUS Obama and Regime, "Where's the money?"
Otherwise, the USA Courts will tell POTUS Obama and Regime to buzz off.
(Who would have thought the crazy IP laws, Copyright Laws, etc. would turn around and bite POTUS Obama, his Regime and his Feds in the ass?)
They only need the key for digital signature, the FBI has the technical expertise to hack the binaries just like black hats. Its all about the key.
If we end up in the horrible situation where this is going to happen then morally Apple must do it. If Apple makes the changes they can also include code that restricts this version of iOS to the single phone in question. A new court order will then be needed for any other phone. However if the FBI is left to make the changes there will be no such restriction, this version would run on any phone and a court order may not be necessary for its use.
Its a classic negative / negative decision. Both options suck but one sucks significantly worse. Apple is morally obliged to help protect its customers as best it can and that means the FBI can't be the one making the changes.
Remember this when you feel like voting for someone who wants to give the government more money and more power.
Because THAT is what leads to a police state.
If everyone "pays their fair share", THIS is how it comes back to haunt you.
Taxes - they WILL be used AGAINST you.
"Oh. but I just want the government to solve problems!" Someone who's in power in a massive overweening government will find some reason to think YOU are a "problem that needs to be solved."
You know that "oppressive government" people are always talking about?
Here's the baby pictures kids!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
In the court papers, DoJ calls Apple's rhetoric in the San Bernardino standoff as "false" and "corrosive" because the Cupertino firm dared suggest that the FBI's court order could lead to a "police state."
Of course it could lead to a police state. That's what this is all about, abuse of spying capabilities.
We just found out this week that your giant US-to-foreign email conversations database the NSA shares with you allows warrantless reading of the to: and other fields, not only without a warrant, but without even any tracking and logging .
This is the core of the Constitutional issues the Constitution is supposed to prevent -- people in power having the ability to spy on political opponents, using government powers.
What is to stop, or even notice, a rogue agent working for a politician spying on opponents on their behalf? Nothing, and not even a secret court nor the elected congressmen who are on a national security committee, and are nominally supposed to make sure it isn't abused, can even detect the abuse.
How are we to know this software won't be copied and abused to crack some stolen politician's phone? Of course this assumes you are stuffed looking at who they call, anyway, to feel out their political support networks, the meta info, that itself could be abused, and is warrantless.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm sure there are other places in the world that would welcome the Apple headquarters. Let the FBI supply the US markets with there own phones.
What's to stop Apple from creating a new corporation overseas and have them hold the IOS source code there? Apple USA no longer has access to the source code, and the new company tells the US Government to go suck an egg.
The government could launch a massiv DDoS against Apple's update servers and spoof their IP addresses to update all the devices in the wild to their custom firmware...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
1) Move source code repositories outside the US.
2) Move the code-signing system and keys outside the US.
3) Listen to the DOJ whine some more.
Do you honestly think that Google won't voluntarily comply if Apple caves?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Ever heard of LOGJAM, DROWN or FREAK?
IT'er my ass.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
but there is right and wrong and I think they should pack up and leave the US. I think that would be big bump for others to follow. As a Apple hater and a Canadian I for one would welcome the Apple job creating Overlords into Canada with open arms.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Private property rights (that would have defended Apple in this case) were were killed in the USA the moment government was able to apply the Sherman's Act to dismantle Rockefeller's Standard Oil. This is not new, the only people who think this threat by the government Mafia is anything new are the ones who want to discriminate against some (for example discriminating against Rockefeller's right to private property is cheered by a large number of people).
Apple is the modern day Standard Oil. This case against them is the application of Sherman Act against Standard Oil. If nothing is done, 100 years from now idiots will be saying that government using its oppression to destroy Apple's private property rights was the correct thing...
You can't handle the truth.
it is all George Bush's fault. right?
Hand over the source code and digital keys — encrypted. If the government wants to unencrypt it, the NSA can provide a spare computer or two. If not, oh well.
Apple can go scorched-earth here with a simple delete command.
The Federal government doesn't have any more options.
10 points to the best mashup from the following two images -
Image 1
Image 1
iTear? is that a new fbi app
You really should read up on American history... start with Watergate. The reality is that fully encrypted communication channels are the lesser of two evils here... and fully encrypted communication is no different than "taking a walk in the woods" 200 years ago. The underlying idea is that thought is not a crime, speech is not a crime, and full access to my device only gives you my thought and speech. This has nothing to do with guns, you are mistaken about that. Gun control is about individual protection... encryption is about national protection.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
And seriously, who the hell is gonna hack your mobile phone?
Russian hackers looking for banking information and passwords on stolen phones, comes immediately to mind.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
> And seriously, who the hell is gonna hack your mobile phone?
I really hope you're never put in charge of anything important.
Fear mongering is the new "reality distortion field".
You know those TSA approved luggage locks? The Washington Post did a story on them, and included pictures of the master keys.
Someone saw this and used the photos to make a functional 3D-printed set of keys. All of those TSA approved locks are useless now.
It is impossible to make a backdoor that only the "good guys" can use. It *will* get leaked, stolen, or cracked.
All this will accomplish is allow the gov. to peek into lazy and stupid criminals communiques. Apparently the FBI thinks the majority of the bad guys fall into this category. They may be right, as it stands now, but if they win, that may be the event that causes bad people to get smarter. The response may be worse than the current situation, and everyone's security will be placed at risk because of it.
You are obviously not in touch with reality, or US laws concerning encryption.
Wrong... you can't sue a government agency into oblivion... only it's people.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill people. A primary purpose of encryption (one of many) is to access your bank account. Unless your normal method of access to your bank account is by putting a bullet between the eyes of a bank teller, your analogy is not very apt.
Beware poor analogies. They can easily lead you astray.
Redux: encryption is nothing like a gun. You are literally playing with word forms only here, not with the actual meanings of the words themselves, and you're trying to argue that a similarity in form implies a similarity in meaning. That's false, just ask Feynman.
You know that oligarchy people are always talking about?
FTFY
if I were apple, I would push a patch to change apple's keys. And write the code in such a way that when another seizure is imminent, they can change them again. Make them work for it. Only un-updated devices will be unlocked with their universal key, and change it every time the government forces you into a corner. That way they will stop asking for them because this isn't about a phone, this is about all phones, once it won't work for all iPhones, they will stop.
Give me a break. It wouldn't even take that long to crack the iOS firmware on the phone to allow for brute forcing (the only software feature the FBI wants to bypass). They want the entire OS source code? That's like demanding all of Boeing's schematics and blueprints to see how a seat is engineered in a plane. This is just harassment. Apple's revenue was $300b with 2/3 being overseas; Obama is shooting the nation's economy in the foot (yet again).
Can the government compel someone to say something they do not wish to?
As long as code is free speech (Bernstein v. the U.S. Department of State; Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n). And as long as the ruling of Citizens United v. FEC stands, it seems to me that Apple has a First Amendment right to STFU.
I hope this results in Apple stuffing the EFF war chest to keep that organization going. And the ACLU has made strong statements in support of Apple, but I predict the ACLU won't become involved in the case.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Home of the free ?
Land of the Brave ?
I guess crime does pay, when the crime is a country and its government.
WdW
How did the police even do their work back in the days before smart phones? Talk about a complex of entitlement vs doing hard work.
I as a citizen at this point I could care less if that phone contained codes to disarm a nuclear bomb. I choose civil rights over government entitlement.
I so want the government to storm into apple like they say. Let's make this a presidential issue. This has totally blown up in the democrats faces. They better switch sides or there is no way Hillery is going to get elected which before now I would have said was guaranteed.
I suspect all companies in the future will implement combinations of keys that can't be compromised though any one countries government.
OK - so OLD phones will be subject to this problem but new phones need a new signature from now on.
Funny, all those rights didn't stop the government from rounding up the American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps.
Rights is what government lets you have when it's convenient. They all go into the trash the moment they become a hindrance.
Before you start talking about how the citizen soldiers or the police force will not stand for such things, most heinous acts in history are easily justify by a singular excuse of "just following orders."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
No matter who makes those changes, the problem is the same... If Apple makes it and just lets the FBI use it, then the FBI will just keep on asking in the future whenever they need their help, and Apple keeping it around means that there will exist a possibility that it might get misappropriated from Apple. By expecting Apple to cooperate with the FBI, the government is basically telling Apple to play Russian roulette with its own IP. What sane person would voluntarily pull a trigger of a loaded gun that was pointed at their own head, even if they knew that most of the chambers were empty?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That would constitute contempt of court - which is a bad idea. Nice thought though.
Apples next move - open source iOS
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
I remember seeing movies about life in Germany under Hitler. Whether accurate or not, random people were walking on the street and officers would mutter that command to people, and if they didn't have what was wanted - bang! You might disappear. It strikes me that where we're going in the US (land of the free!) is this direction. The government HAS to be able to see ALL of your papers - only they are now electronic records. And there CANNOT be anywhere that you can put things that the government shouldn't be able to get in. I wonder how we justify being able to take a walk of two people in the woods, without the government being able to "know", upon warrant, what was said? Should we also have microphones recording at all times so that *everything* is discoverable? And what about the government that starts bending the rules of court-issued warrants, to Hoovering up of ALL records on the phone, or the internet? "It's all for your protection, and for the children....".
The argument against backdoors is not against law enforcements' ability to gather evidence. Most of us would like to give law enforcement every ability to legally obtain all the evidence they need.
The argument is against the very concept of backdoors and the fact that have been proven time and time again that a backdoors means no security at all, not just no security against governments, but no security against foreign governments, scammers, hackers or anybody at all.
Backdoor == no security.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Perhaps the hard line stance isn't too important where you liove, but here we have law enforcement that routinely breaks the law (including blackmailing the president). We absolutely do need absolute protections to back up our often ignored Constitutional rights.
Once you're up in front of a court. playing games like that gets your legs chopped off. It's too late for the present scenario, but the need to move Apple overseas - which also lets them avoid a lot of corporation tax - is now apparent.
The US doesn't have effective gun control laws, so getting shot is a much higher risk in the US. Now they want to break encryption, which means that getting hacked can only be a higher risk.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They would be chopped off at the legs for that
Seriously, there should be a basic knowledge test about technology before some can hold any sort of position of power, this is ridiculous...
I keep hearing people claim that there is a debate, but that is complete bullshit. The Feds are making demands, and people keep providing the same reasons over and over on why the Feds demands are wrong. There is no debate because the authoritarians in power don't care about right and wrong, or rights beyond their own. (They have them, you don't.)
I personally have no trust that if this went to the Supreme Court there would be a favorable outcome. Remember, Corporations are people, and the Feds can re-distribute _YOUR_ wealth however they see fit.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As soon as the notoriously inept FBI gets their mitts on the source code and private keys we'll see it leaked in no time. It's a huge win for consumers who will soon be able to root and run iOS the way we enjoy Android.
I hope TPB is ready for it.
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I just need to set up about a half dozen various companies in different locales with various privacy laws, and offer a binary signing service. They sign with their key, and then each of the various independent companies wholly owned in various jurisdictions also signs them, and only once that's happened is the signature correct for the device to authorize.
There's some M of N signers trust webs out there, as well as some block-chain signing type things. Basically implement that, make it international, have the companies be independent entities with no tie to each other or their customers. Then you would have to coerce/steal keys in a half dozen various jurisdictions to get a binary authorized.
I endorse Donald J. Trump for president.
Signed,
Barack Obama
So he's saying it's both legal and ethical do do stuff like this?
Could apple contract with a foreign person, outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, to do all the key signing that apple currently does? The sub-contractor would work according to a contractually specified algorithm, that basically says to signs what apple wants it to sign, but refuses to sign anything coerced. The sub-contractor would store the signing key outside the jurisdiction of any US court. If this scheme is ruled illegal and apple is pushed to the wall, apple could move all of itself offshore, and the Justice department could take responsibility for the resulting job loss.
It is amazing to even try to conceive that the ham-handed FBI, with politically appointed leaders (aka morons who have no idea about building hardware/software and who are trained and incentivized to kick doors down, not pick locks) would be remotely qualified to even understand the ramifications of creating/modifying source code, signing it, and pushing it to carefully designed hardware. Much less qualified to execute on that task with a few government programmers, when it took an organization of 100s of people years to develop what is now the iPhone hardware+software encryption infrastructure.
Just for your reference, the reason the encryption keys are so important / secret is that:
-- All recent (>4 year) Apple hardware has built-in encryption-dedicated processing hardware
-- This hardware has firmware burned-in with Apple public encryption keys that validate that any code has come directly from Apple without modification, on startup
-- This key validation structure is designed to ensure that only code signed by Apple's private key can run on the phone
-- Every iPhone has the same public keys burned on it, because that's how public keys work.
So if Apple is forced to give its private keys to the FBI (assuming the remote likelihood they even knew what to do with it), the FBI would have the ability to encrypt and sign software for any of these iPhones. The idea (legal argument-wise or technically) that "this is about one phone" is laughable.
Forcing someone to disclose encryption keys would be a huge violation of the First Amendment. If there is anything that qualifies as speech and knowledge, it is an encryption key / secret. Then on top of this, there is the question of whether the people at Apple who are in charge of the encryption keys (yes, individuals) would even voluntarily turn it over if given such a blatantly unconstitutional order.
I'm sure that even people within the FBI laugh at the notion that they could develop such code without fucking it up, deploy it, and maintain the secrecy of the keys and source code from outsiders.
And final note by the way, this legal filing was written so poorly as to be a joke. It reads like a summer intern wrote the brief after being dictated it by the paralegal to the Assistant US Attorney dashing out of a meeting.
.... there is a lot of encrypted source code.
Seriously... they won't give up those keys either. And those keys are far more difficult to crack.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
LOVEINT
Afaik all of the current top candidates on both sides are against strong encryption.
If you know otherwise please do let me know.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
and do brute force on a virtual copy? When the copied image locks down after too many failures, just recopy the master image to the forensic environment and pick up where they left off? Forensically, you never want to work with the original system/hard drive/etc. anyway.
...implement tax code that penalizes companies a HUGE percentage of their offshore profits.
After all, Apple hides all those billions offshore where they don't pay any US taxes...but the US is a huge spender. Fix that, make them pay a lot of money.
Threaten them with that and see them change their tune.
Those TSA-approved locks were already useless against someone with a $40 set of linesman's pliers, but your point still stands.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Imagine the damage that would be done to Apple if the FBI got their way and then the next Edward Snowden came along and released Apple's signing keys.
The argument against backdoors is not against law enforcements' ability to gather evidence. Most of us would like to give law enforcement every ability to legally obtain all the evidence they need.
Then most of you are fools.
Or, put another way, a person's thoughts and speech is not evidence. If it wasn't said in public, it isn't something the government should be able to use against anyone, no matter what the crime or alleged crime. If you don't allow terrorists to have their thoughts and private speech safeguarded, yours isn't either.
Remember that pesky clause at the end of the 5th ammendment? "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." According to the stock market today, "just compensation" for Apple's IP is somewhere in the $600 Billion range.
If the State is comfortable issuing a court order to force apple to write code it doesn't want to write and stealing the code it has written. Then why are we wasting so nearly 1.5 trillion in tax payer money on Lockheed Martin. The DOJ could just write a court order that they have to build the F-35 and save us a butt load.
What surprises me from John Oliver's take on this is that Lindsay Graham said we need to step back. Even he now knows that it's not a workable strategy for the government to get access to the phones.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Would this work?
http://getthemonourside.blogsp...
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
They should hire a "Cryptographic Backdoor Expert" on retainer($1-$200k/year) as a subcontractor, then bill the government a "decryption usage fee" of [Dr. Evil impression]$1,000,000![/Dr. Evil] per phone for his services.
If they protest they want to "DIY": Roll up the encryption key in a Golden Wu Tang Clan Album/Software CD and offer to sell it to the FBI for $1,000,000,000,000.
-The FBI can't force Apple to decrypt the phones for less than $1,000,000 because "price controls are communistic"/13th Amendment.
-The FBI isn't entitled to free licenses to copyright protected software.
The courts will be unsympathetic to FBI trying to use the US Court System to extort price reductions/steal shit based on flimsy eminent domain arguments. If the courts back the FBI, they deal a death blow to property rights/13th Amendment. What's next? The DoD demands Lockheed Martin produce F-22 for $100/each?
So, if I put in a FOIA request and the government said that it is too burdensome to redact all of the documents requested; that I can say 'that's ok, just give them all to me and I'll redact them myself'.
Does the court judge have authority to violate copyright? Copyright comes from the Constitution, not some local law.
You're an idiot with poor logic skills. throwing out strawman arguments. Either that or you're a shill.
If the government can be this scary and stupid, they will absolutely leave in order to protect what they have.
But not, by any objective measure, a significant one - even in the worst neighborhoods of the worst cities.
Well, they do mean that. It's just not the same definitions the rest of us would apply to such words normally.
"For your protection": Old Mafia protection money. You either pay up and do as they say, or bad things "could" happen to your life. *They'll make sure of it*.
"For the children": They're pedophiles, and those agents that aren't have acquaintances willing to pay good money to become the "foster parents" after they get the parents out of the way on various charges they've planted. Oh they're thinking of the children alright.
Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
how exactly they put the new OS on the device? When I updated iOS to 9.something I had to enter my PIN twice: once to unlock the device and after the update was downloaded and verified I had to enter it again. If THEY had the PIN they don't need the new FBiOS and if they don't they can't update.
It's an interesting comparison. You might also think about how speech is handled in the US vs Europe - in both places speech is "free" but both places put limits on libelous speech, while European countries (mostly) additionally put limits on hate speech. Broadcasts are also censored in both places to a greater degree than other forms of media distribution, and there are obscenity laws in both places - though exactly what qualifies as "obscene" is poorly defined and largely up to the subjective interpretation of judges.
The fact that hate speech is allowed in the US is a point of pride for many Americans, even though they themselves may not be hateful people. Taking what they consider to be an absolutest stance on free speech is seen as a pillar of Freedom (TM), Liberty (TM), and so on. There's a lot of absolutism in the US. It requires a curious degree of double-think to take this view of absolutist free speech while at the same time condoning all of the censorship, obscenity laws, laws against libel, etc., and when confronted on this point a person who has defined their stance to be one of free speech absolutism has to make a call whether to backpedal or double-down. Naturally, they almost always double-down and say that they think those things shouldn't be prohibited either. And yet. Those things still exist and enjoy considerable popular support, as does the ability to disseminate hate speech.
It's easy to see how that parallels with weapons - pillar of Freedom (TM), etc. It's vitally important to protecting stuff that weapons not be restricted in any way, because tyranny, except for the sort of weapons which would actually be effective against a modern army. (I have a sad hole in my gun cabinet in the shape of a surface-to-air missile.)
So how about encryption and information security? All things being equal, I expect we'll go down the same road with this one. We're already doing that with personal information and privacy - lots of lip service to how important it is, and that's all. Encryption is complicated by the fact that it can't be controlled, any individual with root access to a device can encrypt it in an unbreakable way, but nevertheless it can still be prohibited. This approach would be almost as effective.
So, to answer your question: I don't know. When absolutism is sincerely believed and acted upon it is very seldom beneficial, but the American mindset seems to be "absolutism or nothing" and in that context it does help to prevent the further erosion of rights. Even if it may require a little double-think.
[The Congress shall have power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
So if congress chooses not to make a law, then there is no law.
(you might say, "doesn't that conflict with the first amendment?" and some legal analysts would say "yes, yes it does, and the first amendment takes precedence for various reasons." That is of course not the mainstream view, though).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Destroy the source now.
Honestly I hate people like you. I mean that honestly.
I'm european too, and I think the gun laws here and peoples attitude to american gun laws are a disgrace.
Every gun owner in the US is instantly dismissed as a nutter, and the entire concept here of freedom is thrown away as something that is worth less than freedom. Honestly, europe can get fucked for all I care if that is the actual sentiment people have.
Freedom is infinitely more important to me than safety, or the ease of the government to solve hypothetical crimes.
For me it's the opposite, this whole anti encryption shitshow reminds me of europeans almost childlike trust in the government and their willingness to give up rights based on promises from the government.
Black men in the US have a 1-in-21 chance of being murdered over their lifetime. That's a heck of a lot more likely than your lifetime risk of dying from a car accident. So no, not insignificant.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Living in Europe I've pretty much only been exposed to this case from the various updates here on Slashdot, so please don't take me for a troll when I ask why the phone is even important.
Anyone these two people were in contact with will have ditched anything connecting them. Any plans for future attacks will have been either scrapped or rendered moot by the deaths of the two terrorists. Any call lists etc. would probably be a LOT easier to acquire from the phone company.
So what kind of data can even exist on the phone that was not rendered worthless within a couple of days, let alone the months that have passed by now?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
When you give us the voting machine source.
You mistake the situation: A gun-control analog would be to fit every gun with a remote-controlled "off" switch (that can then be hacked), not a restriction on how can have guns.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Once a backdoor is put in it means everyone in the world has access to it .
Let me put it this way. Would you make 1,000 copies of your home house keys, label each with your address and then give them to the 1,000 nearest police departments. Trusting that not one would-be misplaced?
Software encryption backdoors are just like that. Blind trust that millions of easily reproduced copies won't end up in the wrong hands?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
No, the correct moral stance is for apple to refuse and force the government to take the keys by force. In the extreme case possible destroy them themselves rathe than surrender them.
That would be the Rosa Parks/Mahatmas Ghandi move. Deciding to go along with it in the hopes of not doing more damage than necessary would be the Werner VaunBraun move (My job is to make the rockets go up, where they come down isn't my department), and going along just to avoid consequences would be the "just following orders" move.
Encrypt the source code rot13 2^256 times.
Seriously encrypt the source into compartments.
If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers.
Doesn't that pretty much prove Apple's point?
Doubling down, for certain.. but then the same morons saying that are the ones who'll vote for Bernie "the government will give you everything for free" Sanders. Keep voting pro-government oppression and you should expect more of this... and the useful idiots out there who think government is the solution because it's their guy, are worse than the useful idiots rioting over safe spaces.
gun control laws don't have squat to do with black males dying.... lack of morality, no value placed upon life, and the vacant attitude of black culture is responsible for that. The fact that the cast aways turned thugs turn to a TOOL to commit crimes doesn't reflect upon the tool, but the thugs themselves. When are you morons going to realize that inanimate objects DO NOT act on their own. People are bad or good, not things.
You mean Russia?
But...but...that would imply that the free stuff the government promises us isn't really free.
Do it, DOJ. Go ahead and do it. Apple will push one final update with that signing key, updating the signing key for future updates, them immediately push another update, signed with the new key, to disable rollbacks. You'll be able to use the source and signing key for devices which don't receive that first update, which will include any currently in your possession, but you won't get shit beyond that.
Go for it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I don't buy arguments secure boot loaders make systems appreciably any safer. Physical access is game over no matter what. Successful remote root exploit is also game over in terms of at least exfiltration of data even if attack can be rendered non-persistent after reboot it can also be accomplished with protected media.
The real purpose and biggest winners from secure boot loaders are vendors who use them to prevent people from modifying the computers they purchased.
I don't buy any excuse supporting the current system of planet scale trust anchors where compromise of a single private key stands to compromise millions or billions of systems world wide. This is both standard operating procedure across the industry and also happens to be perfectly inexcusably insane.
We are abusing PKI in ways that promote compromise and unnecessarily endanger users. There simply is no reason for this. All that needs to be done is for global trust to be limited for the purposes of service discovery and bootstrapping to off-ramp more localized sources of trust.
If you do this damage associated with key compromise is significantly limited and would be a useless thing to request in any court.
I look at third party doctrine, patriot act sec 215 and real world examples of Operator receiving NSL+gag order for private key even though they offered to comply with request to write code to get data without compromising others.
So yes I don't agree with DOJ threats nor the patriot act, third party doctrine, warrantless bulk data collection...etc..etc. I don't believe Apple should be forced to hand over private keys nor bless system images they don't want to bless no matter what. It isn't proportional and compelled speech is not consistent with a free society.
Having said all that what we're doing today is wrong and dangerous. In many ways the government requests are a wakeup call highlighting implementation and structural failures... Technical people involved and the industry as a whole needs to quit whining and bitching about government requests and spend more time thinking about how they fucked up.
I wasn't aware that my $50 set of linesman's pliers could be considered a hacking tool, or that anyone would use locks chitzy enough for them to cut..... should I worry about the TSA confiscating them --- if I put the pliers among the "just in case" items within my luggage?
This is so down the thread no one's going to read it, but here's my $0.02.
The US only has one good thing going right now for them: the IT and Technology sector. It has no manufacturing (that's all down in China now), and besides Google, Apple is the only big one in the game.
If the FBI forces Apple to give out their source code, this is how is see it playing out:
- Not only the US but the rest of the world loses confidence in Apple products.
- Apple stock drops like a sack of potatoes.
- Apple is forced to downsize: massive layoffs
- Poor sales of Apple products make having the source for iOS irrelevant (no one is using them) and the FBI ends up with its finger up its ass anyway.
The DoD has compelled source code from vendors of products they used in the past.
The issue isn't someone cutting the lock - it's bypassing it without your knowledge even after the fact.
When the TSA has the keys, they have access and you acknowledge that (you used a lock you know they can open). When a third party also has the keys, do you acknowledge their access too?
(This argument assumes of course you're not using zippered luggage that can be bypassed and restored with a ballpoint pen).
Now apply the same argument to your iphone. If the guvmint have their own copy that they might install on your device without you knowing, is that okay? What about a rogue party?
It is almost certain that the NSA has already obtained the IOS source code. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
Say they ran the source code through about 20 iterations of code obfuscators and translated the code into something a Vogon would appreciate then hand in the security key in 1000 point font with one character per page with no page numbers, maybe that would at least slow them down.
This is what you get for all of your beloved "regulation" of the industry. Because Google, MS and most of the other tech giants own federally-regualted properties (cable lines, phone lines, etc.), they have to pretend to agree with the government or they'll be targeted for arbitrary selective enforcement of arcane and poorly worded regulations intended to tie up business of properties which these tech companies bought with borrowed money (so they won't be seeing any return on the money... in fact will take loses, but will still have to service the loans). So Apple is the only company which can afford to take this stand because they, by some accident, managed to make so much money on 1 product line. If they had multiple product lines, they probably would depend on uncle sam's permission to spit as well.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It doesn't matter if they have already obtained or not. If they were to obtain it without Apple's permission, then by copyright law, any derivative work that they make from that would still be copyright infringement. Worse, if they were to get it and the source code should happen to get misappropriated from the NSA or leaked out somehow, they could end up being liable for the potentially unbounded number of unauthorized copies that would ensue until the duration of the copyright expired.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Sure... but there already *is* a law for copyright. The question then becomes does a judge have the authority to knowingly allow someone to break an existing law without legal consequence for that violation? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
getting shot at or someone hacking your phone probably happen equally often.
Are you sure you work in IT?
Your notion that "private speech is not evidence" runs directly contrary to, oh, 300 years of law and precedent? Maybe even more?
Opening and reading mail with a properly obtain warrant, for example, has always been legal.
The key part here is the warrant requirement. That, in theory, is what prevents the government from just doing bulk wiretapping, and ensures that it's not an "unreasonable" search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Of course, in practice, they have created rubber-stamp courts like FISA that sign warrants for bulk collection. And those are bad and, arguably, unconstitutional, and should be gone. But for a case like this, when there's ample evidence of a crime being committed by a specific person, a warrant specifically targeting this person and their means of communications is perfectly reasonable.
1 in 21 black men are murdered.
Lets see if that passes the smell test.
population * makeup / life expectancy = number of black men murdered every year
320 million * 6% / 75 = 256,000
Are 256,000 black men murdered every year, or 700 a day in the US? No. Not even close.
Your source and your common sense stinks.
Even better: the gun with the remote controlled off-switch can also be commanded to fire whether or not someone's finger is on the trigger.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
the FBI ends up with its finger up its ass anyway.
The FBI has had their finger up their ass since the day they were created. Hoover had a bit of a secret life.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The question then becomes does a judge have the authority to knowingly allow someone to break an existing law without legal consequence for that violation?
Yes, if there is a law that allows the judge to do so (just like there are laws that allow police to speed in certain situations). The FBI is arguing that the law allows, indeed mandates, that Apple help them.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What would it cost apple to exchange a new(er) iPhone with the embded hardware to prevent an OS swap from enabling snooping encrypted data for all the vulnerable phones in the wild. Think of the opportunities for upsell after luring customers to a retail location with pushy salesdroids.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
In (post) Soviet Russia, the oligarchy talks about YOU!
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
The purpose of those locks isn't really to prevent someone from stealing from your luggage. It's so they can't do it without you realizing it. They don't even need pliers, just cut through the fabric with a knife. But again, the point is I will KNOW that someone got into my bag, and be able to hold the airline (or whoever) responsible.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
From the document (emphasis mine):
Apple asserts that functional source code in a corporation's commercial product is core protected speech, such that asking it to modify that software on one device—to permit the execution of a lawful warrant—is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. This claim "trivializes the freedom protected in Barnette and Wooley"
Before reaching the specifics of Apple’s claim, it is important to start with a threshold observation: the “essential operations” of the American legal system rest upon people sometimes having to say things that they would rather not say—such as when a witness is subpoenaed and sworn to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I don't know if they're being intentionally thick, but there is a huge difference between telling someone "tell the truth" and "this is exactly what I want you to say". This is very, very dangerous.
... a person's [...] speech is not evidence.
So there's no such thing as testimony? People can't be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer a question (not counting self-incrimination)? While the crime can't be speech alone (except direct threats, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.), speech can absolutely be used as evidence.
(Notice I removed the "thoughts" part from your statement, that was on purpose.)
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
It's time for Apple to move offshore, out of US jurisdiction. They already have their financial centers over there anyway...
How do you like your Patriot Act now bitches!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
That is of course not the mainstream view, though
Only if most people haven't actually read the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law...).
Oh, right..
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
If there is a court order then there is no breaking of a constitutional right. The constitution forbids searching your stuff without a warrant, but with a warrant / court order you can absolutely be searched.
... name that is the only way to ensure the modified iOS will be limited to a device and can not be reused with other devices without another court order.
The problem is that while a court may not be able to order Apple to do work for the FBI a court can probably order Apple to hand over a key. If we get to such a situation then Apple would be morally obligated to do the work for the reason previously described
The absolutely worst case scenario is if Apple refuses to do the work and is forced to hand over a key, allowing the FBI to user their version of iOS anywhere. Letting that happen would be the greatest moral failure for Apple.
No matter who makes those changes, the problem is the same...
Absolutely not. In the Apple scenario the code is locked to a device and a new court order will be required for every other device.
In the FBI scenario the code will not be locked to any device, will run on any, and the FBI is free to use it on any device they have possibly without a court order.
So the options are require a court order per device or allow any device to be unlocked at law enforcement's discretion.
Apple keeping it around means that there will exist a possibility that it might get misappropriated from Apple ...
That is complete non-sense. There is nothing special about the code. The FBI could patch existing binaries, black hats could patch existing binaries. The only thing that prevents modified code is the key for signing. That is the only thing that matters. Apple could publish iOS source code with the unlocking and it makes no difference, the situation is the same as if binaries were patched by outsiders. Nothing runs unless signed with the key.
No, the correct moral stance is for apple to refuse and force the government to take the keys by force.
No, because then the government creates the alternate iOS without any device locking. The government could then use this version without court oversight.
Deciding to go along with it in the hopes of not doing more damage than necessary would be the Werner VaunBraun move (My job is to make the rockets go up, where they come down isn't my department), and going along just to avoid consequences would be the "just following orders" move.
A very poor analogy. Werner did nothing to limit damage. He just went along to purse his scientific curiosity/passion regardless of the consequences. Matter of fact he probably increased damage, if he had not contributed progress would probably have been slower. He made a conscious decision to use the Nazi's as a funding source regardless of consequences. Complete psychopath.
The US only has one good thing going right now for them: the IT and Technology sector. It has no manufacturing (that's all down in China now), and besides Google, Apple is the only big one in the game.
This is so true. Well, it is as long as you don't count HP, Amazon, Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, CA, Facebook, eBay, and a few hundred others with market caps well north of billion dollars.
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
It's a difficult concept even for most U.S.-ians to understand; so I really don't blame you at all for your statement.
As an IT'er, i've always followed that encryption etc... is good and shouldn't be made easier to break for the government... That it's an all or nothing story etc... But i like to make parallels to other things. And i'm now wondering... how is this any different than gun control?
It's not different at all.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Those TSA-approved locks were already useless against someone with a $40 set of linesman's pliers, but your point still stands.
I'm very curious how, like a key, using nothing but your linemans pliers you can remove the lock, rummage through and replace items in the luggage, and then put the lock back on leaving no trace of break-in what so ever.
Specifically that last part. It never worked for me with bolt cutters or torches.
Could you detail your methods for me please?
I believe this is the selling point (such as it is) of so-called "smart-gun" technology.
The trick is getting the injuction/trial before anything leaves Apple's vaults; once the FBI has it, regardless of the outcome of trial, it'll be considered "in the wild" with severe financial effects.
Apple is a publicly-traded company. Self-destruction would mean bankruptcy and prison for every VP and above; I admire Cook's stance thus far, but I doubt their resolve will extend to this extreme coda.
So the options are
You are forgetting the third option: Just drop it. The shooters are dead. Anyone who assisted them who has half a brain will have left the country by now. Plans and targets will be changed.
Just walk away, FBI.
Have gnu, will travel.
That bitch is a full grown man.
Fortunately this would never happen on an Android phone. It's open source already, and the carriers have the firmware signing keys and have been in cahoots with the policestate since at least the 70's when AT&T asked the CIA to overthrow Chile so that the telecom lines didn't get socialized and owned by the people.
That was the first 9/11... In 1973, when the military coup in Chile took place.
one that had another gun pointed at their head, with more bullets in it?
What will the next iOS version be?
Will the government slap their own name on it?
Maybe the Chinese will steal it too?
Now everybody has their own iOS version.
One word. Jailbreak.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The government enjoys sovereign immunity. Basically the laws of the country don't apply to the government, except in a few cases where the government decides it does apply. It's up to the Supreme Court to impose Constitutional limitations on excess expansion of government power. Except the last few decades they've been going nuts allowing just about anything under the Commerce Clause.
If it is possible for this backdoor to be stolen or leaked, then why is it not possible for the iOS source code + Apple's signing keys to be stolen or leaked?
One word. Jailbreak.
A silly word given that the owner must intentionally install the jailbreak. A 3rd party can not "jailbreak" someone else's phone.
So the options are
You are forgetting the third option: Just drop it. The shooters are dead.
As you said, that is not one of Apple's options. And if you want to get all technical ... the phone was not the shooter's, it is the employers. And the employer gave the FBI authorization to get into the phone.
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights ...
There is also no constitutional right in this case because it is the employer's phone and the employer has given the FBI permission to access it's property.
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
Actually yes a private person/organization can. Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals. Slashdot could censor this conversation, government could not. If a private person searches through your stuff and finds something illegal, calls the police, then the police now have probable cause to get a warrant ... so long as the person was not originally acting as an agent of the police. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
If I'd kill my neighbor, police would have rights to search my appartment. If I'd had a safe at home, they'd have right to search it too.
And everyone is ok with that.
If I'd have an old style answering machine, police would have rights to access it.
And everyone is ok with that.
But if I have a device by certain company, suddenly it is not ok, where is the bloody logic?
Backdoor already exists, because Apple has created it: phone can be upgraded without owner's concent.
Contrary to Apple's CEO claims, FBI asked to crack "this very phone" in a way, that would not allow that very software to be re-used with other phones.
That was much work (and it costs money) and that was a problem. Now FBI is fine doing all that work itself, no forced labour on Apple, isn't that logical?
Right, but the consequences are the other party's, not yours, and may still potentially be held accountable for taking that action.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Take $.50 bic pen, poke through zipper and open
Rummage through bag
Move zipper back and forth over bag to reset zipper
Can be defeated by locking the zipper to another unmovable part of the bag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpIJVWXsBBI
I understand you're not from the U.S., but only the Government can "break" (deny you) (your) Constitutional Rights. A Person (including a Corporate "Person") cannot affect another's Constitutional Rights, period.
Actually yes a private person/organization can. Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals. Slashdot could censor this conversation, government could not. If a private person searches through your stuff and finds something illegal, calls the police, then the police now have probable cause to get a warrant ... so long as the person was not originally acting as an agent of the police. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Actually no, they aren't.
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
In the first example, Slashdot is not run by the Government; rather, it is a Privately-Owned website. Therefore, Slashdot has every right to "Censor" anything and everything. It could use an automated Thesaurus, and replace every other word in only your posts with its Antonym. Their site, their rules.
In the second example, you may have a Civil Suit against the "private person" for Trespassing and/or theft; but they did not violate your 4th Amendment Rights by snooping in your stuff nor by their snitching on you for telling the Police about the Meth Lab they stumbled across.
President Obama had expressed his desire for backdoors. Whether that will eventually translate into a backdoor executive order to create them or not, it seems like there might be one candidate who might give him full support for the motion, when it comes time to line up the terms of her pardon...
How much of that shit is oozing over if EU ever ratifies TTIP?
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
Uh, that is what I said, and that is what I was trying to demonstrate. "Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals." :-)
They don't seem competent enough to unlock a terror suspect's work iPhone - even though it's feasibly done, if they have the device.
If that's the case, I don't see how they're competent enough to comb iOS source code for vulns or make their own evil iOS that looks like it came from Apple. Somwhere, there is bullshit.
I don't know what linemans pliers are (english is not my first language), but I do know it's pretty simple to open and re-close any zipper without ever touching the lock. This opens the majority of suitcases.
DOJ takes legal action against Apple for XCode and forces them to make significant usability improvements
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=tails
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=blackarch
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=kali
https://www.torproject.org/docs/installguide.html.en
etc.
... for your 'government' (i.e. a bunch of shills for unelected Jewish tyrants) to be going so hard after Apple's encryption. We can't have those damn goyim (cattle) talking about us behind our backs, cry the Jews...
"because the Cupertino firm dared suggest that the FBI's court order could lead to a "police state."
They are all acting like the patriot act never passed!
The FBI by their own admission can't even publicly beg enough competent tech folk to work for them, yet somehow they will be able to keep the stolen iOS code secure while having the high-level chops to correctly remove what they don't want.
The government has stopped with the baby steps is is now making giant strides towards a totalitarian hell out of the US...
Your ellipsis chopped off the most important qualifier: private.
Being accused of a crime must never be justification to retroactively strip away protection of thought and private speech.
What was said in a walk in the woods is not something the government has any right to know.
Is it really necessary to have every normal mobile phone properly encrypted so law enforcement can't even access it if there is useful data on it?
Yes. As you mentioned encryption is basically all or nothing. Either it is strong enough that it will survive the heat death of the universe or it is broken. If it takes the government a year to crack it now it will take a run of the mill cyber criminal a day in 5 years. Also governments seem to always grow in their abuse of power over time so the correct question is "Do you want someone like to have unfettered access to your information?". If you can't think of anyone to substitute in then you obviously don't have a good imagination, especially since it wouldn't just be people in your own country.
Time to offend someone
Sure, and as long as they are willing to compensate Apple for the value of iOS and the signing key. Under the takings clause of the US Constitution, they'd have to engage in a process similar to eminent domain. Establish a "fair market value" and compensate Apple for the taking.
Somehow, I don't think they're willing to spend that kind of money, much less spend the decades in court to establish the value.
Go back even further. You have J. Edgar Hoover, and Joseph McCarthy still in living memory.
Time to offend someone
For better results just use a $0.10 Bic pen. Then just reseal, call it good, and don't even bother fucking with the shit lock.
Time to offend someone
Or just lost. Lost luggage is a thing, you know.
Apple is hardly the only good thing going, not to mention that a company that has fucked over customers since day 1 isn't something to really brag about. Apple is a disgusting company that built expensive machines that are shortly eclipsed after their release by competitors who charge much less. The Apple II STILL didn't have a sound chip or hardware sprites. The Mac had no blitter or any kind of graphics acceleration, leaving the poor 68000 to do all the graphical work. And their portable products require iTunes, which is even a bigger piece of shit than Quicktime ever was. FUCK APPLE! Their stand against the government in this single particular instance is the ONLY good thing they've ever done, but it's ultimately, like everything else Apple has ever done, just a PR stunt at heart.
Make sure, not even you can hack your users.
- All security must be real, not only security by obscurity (even obscurity of a signing key)
- All software updates and installations must be approved by the user
- Remote Unlock Features need to be strictly opt-in
Then the FBI can try to push a malicious update to my iPhone and i can just decide not to install.
Donald "Call Bill Gates to shut down the Internet" Trump is against strong encryption the same way a cave man is against electricity.
Please be nice to other countries. Don't make fun of them. You might need them when you need to fight for your freedom. Would not be the first time you fought an opressive governement and not the first time e.g. the French would come to your aid.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Think of it this way: you run a business. You're told you must provide a service to someone even if they can't pay. So do you just suck up the cost? Or do you demand that the government must pay you? And if the government pay you, what do they pay you from? Taxes. Which they raise.
So you "have to buy" because you're such a bunch of brainwashed ignorant morons that you refuse to have a national healthcare system from the state.
If you did, the healthcare would be no different from the road systems. You pay a tax and that gives you right to use the public roads. If you want or need it, you can use private toll roads for better or quicker access. Just like you can go public healthcare and have the right to do so, or you can go private and get faster or more-frills private care. And that private care would have to keep their abilities up because if they weren't at least as good as public, they'd not have any customers.
So blame your representatives and your own voting for "have to buy" healthcare insurance.
Finland tried, and look how that turned out. I think they're owned by Microsoft now or something.
However, the Blackberry (Canada) has always had strong encryption (for irony I believe Obama had one for that very reason), and has been up front about it. They have fallen on hard times the last few years. Perhaps if Apple capitulates and becomes less secure, Blackberry might innovate something and become more successful again.
I can only imagine how this might be playing out with Steve at the helm. He was one of the best at getting his way.
The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal.
Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain,
is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment.
One of the first things taught to locksmiths when opening a safe is "open the lock, don't look inside." Apple is not morally obliged (or legally allowed to) do *any* searching on the phone. They will never "go through your sh*t", that's the FBI's job. Apple was asked to make the lock easier for the FBI to open. This new request is to get the design for said lock so the FBI can make it their own that is easier for them to break.
The scary part here is, if the FBI succeeds, there would be no way to differentiate between an Apple lock and an FBI lock. Using an act that was written well before any of todays technology was even dreamed about, is it legal for the government to ask for the key? or for the blueprints for the lock? What if that key was a master key for millions of locks? What if the lock could be easily replaced without the owner knowing?
Well.. we've been letting the government bowl over basic civil liberties to the point where an FBI employee has been quoted as saying "The constitution doesn't matter". We let them do it since 9/11 and...are we safer: no. We said the new spying tactics would make us safer, and yet all we've done is ask for more saying we are NOT safe. Not only that, the government is demanding the ability to compromise at well systems that are made to secure our data and privacy, making us even LESS safe. We were complacent, we wanted to feel "safe" we allowed the federal government to do what ever it wanted in the name of "national security" and now may have "national insecurity". "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Ben, I'm sorry, it appears we've failed to learn from your wisdom.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
JB Weld. Nobody will notice...
Lol! I wish I could mod this up! Well said.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
If the DOJ did "seize" iOS source code, what would that look like? It's an intangible. Would they expect a flash drive with plaintext files on it? What would guarantee that the files on the drive actually *were* iOS source and not some decoy?
In neither of your examples is the non-government actor violating another's Constitutional Rights.
Uh, that is what I said, and that is what I was trying to demonstrate. "Many of our Constitutional Rights only protect us from the government, not from individuals." :-)
I apologize. I realized that was what you meant after I Posted my Reply.
;-)
Apparently, it is words that are "far more complicated". Glad to see we're on the same page, buddy!
Why don't you get back to us when the "temporary" state of emergency in France is lifted.
file:
The ball point pen trick for zippers? No lock breaking needed.
It's worse than that.
Say that Apple helps the FBI and somehow this case goes to court--let's pretend that data on the phone leads to a new suspect and now they're going to prosecute the guy.
This new suspect would now have the right to demand the phone AND the software that cracked it. After all, how would we know that Apple didn't just write some software that plugged some sucker's name into the iMessage logs and handed that over to the FBI? The defense would want to have that software analysed by an independent audit. At that point, the software is no longer just living inside some vault at Apple. The tool they created must pass legal muster and be admissible in court or everything is useless.
If Apple's in for a penny, they're in for a pound. That's the situation they're desperately trying to avoid. Even in the case of just one phone, it's not just about the phone.
Look, you compare gun control and encryption control again and I'm going to shoot you right in the heart with the AES-256 algorithm. Then I'm going to hide the evidence in a gun. The perfect crime.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Learn to read. It's not one in 21 every year, but one in 21 over the course of their lifetime. Oh wait - an anonymous coward - you post AC so nobody can know just how stupid you are. Your opinion is worth nothing, same as your reading skills. So, kindly fuck off . Or if you can't do it kindly, fuck off anyway.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Now, the key is not itself evidence, so worst case scenario, Apple destroys it. End of problem. Then they offer a rebate on the next, unbreakable, iphone.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That was Obama's promise. Silly us to think he meant HIS administration and not the administration of our private devices.
The idea behind the smart gun is to have a gun that only a designated person can use, not one that has any remote control. If I have a gun only I can fire, then it can't be taken and used to shoot me. It is a lot less likely to accidentally discharge (if "accidentally" is the right word here; would "unintentionally" work better?) if someone finds it. These would be big advantages if I could get them without giving anything up (except making the gun more expensive).
The big perceived problem with the smart gun is that it might not decide to fire if I pull the trigger. If you ever actually have to pull the trigger, you (or someone else) is in really big danger, and the situation is unlikely to be forgiving enough for the gun to reboot, install updates, and let you try again. The fact that you are attempting to fire the thing makes you a prime target, and in a lethal situation that's a suboptimal position to be in while effectively unarmed.
A gun with an external kill switch means there's yet another thing you need to worry about if you actually need to fire. Approximately no one would buy that gun if they could buy a regular smart or dumb gun.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It is everyone's constitutional right to be a conscientious objector. The government can't force you to do that which you object to for reasons of conscience, and must provide alternatives for you to perform any service for them. This is definitely a matter of conscience.
Since the key is not evidence, just destroy the damn thing. Or send it to Snowden to destroy. Or me. Or anyone else who thinks the government is way in the wrong. There is no obstruction of justice at this point because there is no proof that there is any evidence on the phone. As for disobeying a court order to hand over the key, what's the worst the government can do to someone not under the jurisdiction of a US court?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You seem to misunderstand the idea of "sovereign immunity". The government can only be sued if the government allows itself to be sued. The government is unlikely to allow itself to be sued for copyright infringement in such a case. IANAL, but I'd be surprised if the government allowed itself to be sued for such things - in particular, stuff that the government doesn't actually do (the damage in case of a leak is from a lot of individual criminals, even if it was only made possible by government malfeasance).
You don't have a Constitutional right to a copyright. Congress has Constitutional authority to create such laws, which means that almost all the specifics are statute and case law rather than Constitutional law. I don't know the copyright law in detail, and I don't know what other limitations on liability there may be in other Federal statutes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes, the FBI has permission. What they can't do is force a third party to do something for them. They can ask, but that's about it. And since this is an order to perform something, as opposed to not doing something, the penalty for contempt is civil. Destroy the key and have everyone pull the mafia hit in a restaurant stunt - 100 witnesses, and nobody saw anything.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Locksmiths should be taught the exact opposite - willful ignorance is not an excuse for aiding the commission of a crime, so saying "I didn't look" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Why don't you get back to us when the "temporary" state of emergency in France is lifted.
Why do we have to wait until May 26? Can't we talk about all this now?
As for disobeying a court order to hand over the key, what's the worst the government can do to someone not under the jurisdiction of a US court?
Want to test the Extradition Agreement between Canada and the U.S.? While I most certainly agree that there should be no repurcussions, I'm pretty damned sure that if you tried that, it would not end nicely for you...
Pen into the zipper. No tools required and after you're done just slide the zipper around to reset.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
Remeber one of the major rules of security: If you have physical access to the machine, you have access to the data. If the machine can decrypt the data, then whomever has the machine can decrypt the data.
If the FBI is even remotely intelligent, the first thing they did upon seizing the phone was crack that sucker open and disconnect the battery to prevent any data self-destruct or remote wipe mechanisms from functioning. To consider the case where the FBI wants to brute force it like they have been claiming, there are probably a few different ways of getting at the data. The first thing you would want to do is get a byte-for-byte copy of the flash contents. This can probably be done via JTAG, but if it can't or it is considered too risky to try, the flash chips can be unsoldered from the board and sent read commands directly via a dev board. It is not like such hardware is hard to get or restricted in any way. Once the data from the flash chips is backed up, you can brute force without risk of losing something useful. Does anyone know of any reason this wouldn't work?
This means that all the instructions required to boot and decrypt the data are now available to be dissected offline, since the phone couldn't decrypt the data without those instructions. All that is missing is whatever the secret is that is used to encrypt the user data.
One exception to the "immediately unplug the battery" rule might involve putting the phone in some sort of ICE mode via JTAG without rebooting it so as to get a RAM dump of the running system. If Apple were sloppy, they might have left a copy of the secret in plantext somewhere in memory. I don't know if it is possible to inject instructions into an iPhone via JTAG that would allow this without rebooting the phone, but I'm sure that could be figured out on a test device first. Maybe "immediately remove the battery" should be replaced by "immediately put the phone in a Faraday cage with a charger."
In any case, what is most distressing about all of this is that both Apple and the FBI are clearly using this situation and the courts to get press that is favorable to their agendas. Apple wants everyone to think they are super pro-security, anti-government power, and the FBI wants everyone to think that they can't decrypt an iPhone without a backdoor. This is all just theater.
If it's not illegal here, the government won't extradite. It's not illegal here to disobey a US judge's orders. That's been proven time and again. :-) So, test away.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Apple can move the code offshore and out of the reach of the FBI. Simple enough considering the development sites that exist for them in Ireland and elsewhere.
If it's not illegal here, the government won't extradite. It's not illegal here to disobey a US judge's orders. That's been proven time and again. :-) So, test away.
Hmmm. Interesting... I guess all those Vietnam-War protesters were right to choose Canada after all!
That's easy to fix: just require signatures from both the foreign contractor and Apple. If either party is coerced, or the foreign contractor tries to sign something Apple doesn't approve of, the other party can withhold their half of the signature.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is an example of a well-thought-out solution! As expected, it came from someone other than the poster of the initial suggestion (who rather opted to defend it in the face of a critical flaw). This is the kind of discourse that used to make Slashdot great; is Slashdot becoming great again?
While this does solve the inability to employ any theft (or abuse) detection measures by keeping one of the signatures local, and prevents the 3rd party from abusing the key (through the same measure), it still doesn't address the issue of Apple signing dozens, if not hundreds, of binaries daily in the course of development and testing. It's possible (likely, even, given that you replied this far up in the thread) that you had not read those objections to anwyn's similar (but severely flawed) suggestion, so I won't hold that against your suggestion; I'll just point out that, from a practicality standpoint, the signing process needs to be able to happen as quickly as possible, which can't happen when a 3rd party is involved.
I'm interested to hear any solutions you may have for that which don't involve compromising the security of the system (e.g. allowing Apple to push to the 3rd party's system for automated signing, which would require leaving that system accessible via the internet, potentially allowing anyone else to do the same -- after coercing the other key from Apple).
And this is why I still believe that it is best for Apple to keep the one and only key local and employ theft (and abuse) detection measures. They can immediately release one final update signed with the stolen (or abused) key, to update devices to no longer honor that key, replacing it with a new one. In that way, only devices which people refuse to update remain vulnerable to update exploits via the stolen key, which we can consider to be a non-issue, since it is unlikely that a user who isn't installing any updates will install a rogue update. Sure, it could be forced onto their device by someone with physical access, but those really aren't the users we're worried about here, anyway.
Apple should ride this out, let the DOJ sue and, if the DOJ wins, hand over the source and key, then do the above.
As for why an additional 3rd party signature actually makes this less secure: a knowledgeable attacker would already have access to the other key before going after the key Apple keeps locally. Then, it becomes a race; can the attacker get their exploit distributed before the 3rd party signer signs Apple's fix? By taking the 3rd party out of the equation, you take away the attacker's potential advantage; only Apple needs to sign the fix and Apple can do that quite quickly.
Sure, that wouldn't help in this instance, with this phone. But, as has been repeated throughout every discussion on this topic, this isn't about this phone, it's about all the others.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The consequences would materially affect Apple. You may be able to hold them 'liable', but at that point, the genie is out of the bottle.
Mainly proving that it's HARD to get megacorps to comply I guess
If the free (libre) software / free whatever else community had managed to solve the last mile problem with regard to wireless communications, we wouldn't be in this mess. Consider a situation where the last mile connectivity is much more decentralized. There would be no "phone company" type carrier to be a single point of wiretapping or a coercive force keeping device firmware and software locked down. Consolidation of power, (wireless and media industries,) is what has caused the diversion of energy from writing freedom-preserving software to arguing about whether or not the FBI should get a backdoor in phones. The free (libre) software community can take some of these matters into their own hands by developing stuff that is an alternative to proprietary products.
Current WiFi, bluetooth, and other wireless standards could be used to implement mesh networking. IP is inherently decentralized. The internet was designed to route around points of failure. There are alternatives to captive mobile phone/broadband service that could exist now, with existing hardware. I don't know of anyone working on this stuff because nobody seems to talk about things like that anymore. I assume this is because the common forums for such discussions are all now owned and operated by entities that have consolidated significant power. I unfortunately don't know how to fix this when nobody seems to be interested in anything that smells like a DIY project.
Yes, the FBI has permission. What they can't do is force a third party to do something for them.
Yes, but its no longer a Constitutional Rights issue. A court could order Apple to provide the key so the FBI could do the work. However this yields to the worst outcome. An FBI version of iOS that works on any device. If Apple loses in court and is going to be forced to provide the key then it is Apple's moral responsibility to also do the work so that it will be locked to a single device. The FBI (and hackers and criminals) can no more alter this alternate version of iOS than they could the original version of iOS, both are protect by the digital signature and that key remains inside Apple if they do the work.
They can ask, but that's about it. And since this is an order to perform something, as opposed to not doing something, the penalty for contempt is civil. Destroy the key and have everyone pull the mafia hit in a restaurant stunt - 100 witnesses, and nobody saw anything.
Doubtful. They key is very tightly held within Apple, access restricted, probably monitored and logged. It is literally their crown jewel. And what you describe is criminal not civil, its not failure to comply, its an overt act so we have conspiracy and obstruction of justice. People would probably go to federal prison. Sentences harsh to make an example of them.
"For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on the San Bernardino shooter'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 labor by Apple programmers."
First, they have to prove in court they have a legal right to seize the code and then show there is no other way, and that they can prevent it from being leaked absolutely, or post bond that if it is leaked Apple is compensated. Well, they can use an existing jailbreak for the level of iOS on the target phone. Then they can analyze and patch the iOS image to disable the check for number of attempts. And away they go ... problem solved. Then they have to destroy the code after it is loaded onto the phone. Per the court order that this applies to one phone. So they really don't need Apple after all, do they.
Second, if Apple is compelled to hand over the crown jewels as it were, they should stipulate that the DOJ staff can only have access on Apple's campus on a computer secured against tampering and USB or other access, disable everything wireless but bluetooth (or use a USB mouse and keyboard with extra ports filled with epoxy, and disable all wireless) or withdrawal of any files except the Govt OS image. So a non-network connected computer preloaded by Apple, and in a shielded room with wireless keyboard and trackpad. Computer in a locked box. Apple should be allowed to monitor them, and scheduled access only. And Apple can of course get access to the changes they are making. The signing cert never leaves the computer in the high security zone. Even with those precautions Apple should immediately invalidate the signing cert and reissue a new one and new images for all the previously signed OS images. App images. etc. Anything signed by that cart should have an upgrade. Create new cert, Create new app and os images, Suggested Strongly that people accept the updates for security reasons. Then give the FBI access if required to do so.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
No problem. I was really tired when I typed and I was completely open to the idea that I left out a word or mangled an edit to screw up what I was trying to say. :-)
Apparently, in addition to illegally coercing Apple to do the FBI's job, now the FBI wishes to illegally seize the intellectual property of Apple.
"We must break the law, in order to defend the law!"
The court can order police, not ordinary citizens, to go through other people's crap.
The court would only be ordering Apple to produce a key. Which would be so risky for Apple that they would likely voluntarily sign FBI binaries, but better still do the iOS update themselves so it can be locked to a unique device, unlike an FBI created binary.
To order ordinary people to do so would also violate their right to refuse as a conscientious objector.
The government gets to decide what is a "conscientious objector" and many who thought themselves as such went to jail for failing to show up for induction.
Likewise the right to remain silent would not apply either since Apple is under no threat of self incrimination by unlocking the phone.
Now, the key is not itself evidence, so worst case scenario, Apple destroys it. End of problem. Then they offer a rebate on the next, unbreakable, iphone.
No, conspiracy and obstructing a federal investigation is very broadly defined. Its federal prison time for anyone involved in such an act, and the courts will likely lean towards harsh sentencing since the absolute worst crime in the eye of the court is to disobey the court.
This has been Apple's plan all along. Their brains will melt from dealing with all the one-pixel gifs
Requiem for the American Dream
No problem. I was really tired when I typed and I was completely open to the idea that I left out a word or mangled an edit to screw up what I was trying to say. :-)
And I think I was getting up to pee in the middle of the night when I replied; so I was similarly-mentally-challenged, LOL!
You can't read, the exact words my ellipsis chopped off were "thought's and". Also, you are completely wrong.
You go into the woods and have a conversation with someone in private. Later, you stand accused of a crime, and that person is called to testify against you. The conversation in the woods comes up in the questioning, and the witness may: a) testify as to what was said, b) commit perjury, or c) refuse to answer the question (potentially resulting in them being held in contempt). Assuming they are not going to risk jail time for you, they choose a), which means the conversation is now evidence. No one's rights have been violated.
Let's take an extreme example. A wife-beating husband threatens to kill his wife, in the privacy of their home, if she goes to the police. Are you saying that conversation should not be able to be brought in as evidence against the husband if she decides to press charges or get a restraining order?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
But if the people who "destroy" the key are outside usa, and are not US sitizens? What then?
it still doesn't address the issue of Apple signing dozens, if not hundreds, of binaries daily in the course of development and testing
It isn't really necessary to have such stringent authentication for in-house development and testing images, provided measures are taken to ensure that they cannot be run on devices intended for production use. For example, a mechanism could be provided to place a device in development mode ("unlocking the bootloader") with the caveats that the existing encryption keys will be wiped and that the bootloader will present the user with a message at each startup indicating that the device is in development mode. In this mode images could either be left unsigned or require an internal Apple development-only signature (to prevent "jailbreaking"). Only the production images released for general use would require the extra overhead of a third-party signature.
a knowledgeable attacker would already have access to the other key before going after the key Apple keeps locally.
I think it would be just as plausible to propose that a "knowledgeable attacker" would already have access to Apple's key—which would be even more of a problem if Apple's key were the only key. There is no particular reason to assume that the third-party key would be any less secure. It could even be split among multiple jurisdictions with a history of political and cultural rivalry using an "N of M" signature protocol, making it even less likely that any one party could easily compromise or corrupt enough third-parties to either get a coerced image signed or prevent Apple from releasing their own genuine updates.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
But if the people who "destroy" the key are outside usa, and are not US sitizens? What then?
First off the key is likely on a highly locked down, highly monitored and logged, and restricted access signing server. Such crown jewels are likely in Cupertino, at the heart of Apple's secured development environment.
I think it would be just as plausible to propose that a "knowledgeable attacker" would already have access to Apple's key—which would be even more of a problem if Apple's key were the only key
I'm going to assume you didn't read my entire post, as I actually address why that is not the case.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I suppose if the US government is bound and determined to destroy Apple's business model, Apple as a company may have to move to a different country.
> It is literally their crown jewel.
Literally?
I didn't know Apple had attained royalty status! :)
The FBI is good at investigation and poor at cyber-security. Why are they trying to make investigation easier and security more difficult?
I'm going to assume you didn't read my entire post, as I actually address why that is not the case.
You assume incorrectly, and after re-reading your comment I still don't see any part which suggests a reason why the third-party's signing key would be less secure than Apple's.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
As for why an additional 3rd party signature actually makes this less secure: a knowledgeable attacker would already have access to the other key before going after the key Apple keeps locally. Then, it becomes a race; can the attacker get their exploit distributed before the 3rd party signer signs Apple's fix? By taking the 3rd party out of the equation, you take away the attacker's potential advantage; only Apple needs to sign the fix and Apple can do that quite quickly.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And to somehow install an OS update on a locked device?
And to somehow install an OS update on a locked device?
Firmware can be rewritten so things behave differently on powerup.
Wouldn't it just be the damnedest thing if this happens to drag out for a few more months and another "tragedy" happens?
DOJ: "Now we have another Iphone from the Cape Cod Massacre that needs to be unlocked, the blood is on your hands Tim."
I wouldn't put it past our gov to do something like this, seeing as they love pulling on our heartstrings.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
You left out a big one:
Apple packs up and leaves the US.
It's a trend other companies have moved towards, ever since globalization allowed them to "redefine" their headquarters into locations with lower corporate taxes.
And once they move their headquarters, the next logical step is to remove the remaining parts still on US soil.
Forget $40, how about with a pen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The key is not evidence. They can destroy it as long as they haven't been ordered not to. Also, it is not obstruction of justice, just contempt of court. Move it physically outside the jurisdiction and destroy it, it's simply beyond the court's jurisdiction. As for conspiracy, prove it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So maybe Apple will decide to contest the concept of being charged and tried for contempt of court by the same judge, since it's obvious that there is no due process - no trial by an independent judge - and demand the judge recuse himself from any such trial, and from the original case as well. The current procedure for dealing with contempt of court is just that - a procedure - and one that runs foul of basic civil rights.
I've wanted to try that a few times, and came close one time when arguing a legal point with a judge - took him 5 minutes to realize he was wrong, but it got quite heated, and that was plan B.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The key is not evidence. They can destroy it as long as they haven't been ordered not to. Also, it is not obstruction of justice, just contempt of court. Move it physically outside the jurisdiction and destroy it, it's simply beyond the court's jurisdiction. As for conspiracy, prove it.
I don't think there is a single key for signing iOS. New keys can be generated. The device verifies the key is Apple's, its not looking for a specific known key.
Also I think obstruction is broadly defined. Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts. Destroying things likely to be sought by a court, though not yet ordered to be produced, counts I believe. It all depends on the interpretation of phrases like "reasonably believed", "reasonably expected", etc. Conspiracy, all that takes is two people with access discussing the possibility of destroying the key and then one person taking an action. One person offered a deal of leniency in order to testify is likely since I would expect pretty harsh sentences, the court wanting to make examples of people involved. Again, in the eyes of the court the worst crime is that of defying the court.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
As I wrote: "Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts" for obstruction and conspiracy. Its about "blocking" the pursuit of "justice" sometimes.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
As I wrote: "Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts" for obstruction and conspiracy. Its about "blocking" the pursuit of "justice" sometimes.
You wrote "most likely". In other words, you are just making a guess with no basis in law. Neither the key nor the source code are evidence. Your supposition is (car analogy time) saying that your car, that had nothing to do with a robbery, shouldn't be destroyed because it was identical to the one the FBI shot full of holes and impounded, and is still in their possession, because they might want to use it to recreate the crime.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.
As I wrote: "Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts" for obstruction and conspiracy. Its about "blocking" the pursuit of "justice" sometimes.
You wrote "most likely". In other words, you are just making a guess with no basis in law. Neither the key nor the source code are evidence.
No, I'm merely being informal. Want formality:
"Obstruction of Justice
A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.
Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient."
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
Destruction of the key is concealment of documents.
Too bad that the "documents" you are referring to are not, in any judicial interpretation, evidence. The "due administration of justice" is interfered with when you destroy evidence. The key and source are not evidence. The "administration of justice" doesn't comprise seizing non-evidence.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The "document" is the data on the phone, the evidence, not the decryption key. Deleting the decryption key is the act that conceals the evidence, the data on the phone.
Nope. The document is indeed, as you point out, the data on the phone. They have the evidence. The fact that is concealed is between them and the phone's owner, not some 3rd party - especially since it was the FBI ordering the change of the password on the cloud service that made it impossible to just sync.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The act of destruction or concealment of evidence is all that is required, it does not matter who you are and whether you are a 1st, 2nd or 3rd party. Apple knows those keys are necessary to reveal evidence, destruction of those keys given such knowledge is obstruction. 3rd parties get in trouble all the time by trying to interfere, being a 3rd party does not prevent them from winding up facedown on the ground in handcuffs.
The key is NOT evidence. Can't you get it through your thick skull.The key MAY be needed, but the key is not itself evidence. And there is NO evidence that there is ANYTHING of evidentiary value on the phone. What happened to probable cause, etc?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The key is NOT evidence. Can't you get it through your thick skull.The key MAY be needed, but the key is not itself evidence. And there is NO evidence that there is ANYTHING of evidentiary value on the phone. What happened to probable cause, etc?
How soon you forget, a couple of posts back you were agreeing with my: "The "document" is the data on the phone, the evidence, not the decryption key. Deleting the decryption key is the act that conceals the evidence, the data on the phone."
No one is saying the key is evidence itself, that is a figment of your imagination, your confusion.
Speaking of you forgetting things. Now note the subject line of this discussion, "No Constitutional Issue -- It's employer's phone ". Probably cause is not needed because the owner of the phone has given the FBI permission to examine it.
And the FBI can examine the phone to their beady little hearts content. Apple isn't stopping that. They're just refusing to help, since Apple isn't in possession of any evidence.However, there is no evidence that there is ANYTHING of value on the phone. Maybe the FBI shouldn't have ordered the cloud password changed. If anyone should be charged with hiding evidence, it's them.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, deleting the key does not conceal the document.
conceal
1. to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight.
2. to keep secret; to prevent or avoid disclosing or divulging
http://www.dictionary.com/brow....
The key obviously allows observation and disclosure so deleting the key is an act that prevents something from being observed or disclosed.
And the FBI can examine the phone to their beady little hearts content. Apple isn't stopping that. They're just refusing to help, ...
Unless they take your advice and destroy the key.
... there is no evidence that there is ANYTHING of value on the phone ...
Only probable cause would be needed for examination, and the fact that it was a communication device of the murder is probable cause. Evidence can be both positive and negative, for example the evidence may be that there is no data related to terrorism on the phone.
Maybe the FBI shouldn't have ordered the cloud password changed. If anyone should be charged with hiding evidence, it's them.
As a government agency they probably have legal immunity, unlike you, me and Apple. :-)
They would have lost against Apple and knew it - they didn't set a precedent as much as moved the start for the next round. And slowly like this rights of the people get eroded.