Slashdot Mirror
Apple Employees, If Ordered To Unlock iPhone, Might Quit (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes an NYTimes article: Apple employees are already discussing what they will do if ordered to help law enforcement authorities. Some say they may balk at the work, while others may even quit their high-paying jobs rather than undermine the security of the software they have already created, according to more than a half-dozen current and former Apple employees. [...] The employees' concerns also provide insight into a company culture that despite the trappings of Silicon Valley wealth still views the world through the decades-old, anti-establishment prism of its co-founders Steven P. Jobs and Steve Wozniak. [...] The fear of losing a paycheck may not have much of an impact on security engineers whose skills are in high demand. Indeed, hiring them could be a badge of honor among other tech companies that share Apple's skepticism of the government's intentions.
1. Ordered to not bow to the Steve Jobs statue every day.
2. The cafeteria/yoga center runs out of fair-trade artisanal non-GMO lemon grass smoothies.
3. Apple actually starts fixing bugs in OS X instead of focusing on SHINY in iOS.
4. Siri tells them that their auras are not in tune with the universal energy of orange.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
The link in the summary is to the login of the paywall, which makes no sense. The actual link should be: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/technology/apple-encryption-engineers-if-ordered-to-unlock-iphone-might-resist.html.
Not that anyone reads TFA...
Can't the FBI use the same encryption breaking schemes they use on SSL to brute force the certificate used to place the original firmware, then hire someone from Algeria for $20/hour to put a new firmware on it? What about that memory heat map hack where they can read software right off the storage, can't they use that to decrypt the current firmware? Are all they advertising is distrust in government? Who is profiting off of the distrust in our own government?
Put in the backdoor, but make it only work for the next month or so. FBI gets to hack this one phone, but can't do anything with this backdoor in the future.
Can't the FBI use the same encryption breaking schemes they use on SSL to brute force the certificate used to place the original firmware, then hire someone from Algeria for $20/hour to put a new firmware on it? What about that memory heat map hack where they can read software right off the storage, can't they use that to decrypt the current firmware? Are all they advertising is distrust in government? Who is profiting off of the distrust in our own government?
You're really pushing Betteridge's Law this morning.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I am wondering who will quit their 6-digit salary paying swanky job in the Silicon Valley, just because they do not agree with the law enforcement. Maybe 1 or 2 people with some screws loose upstairs, but no sane person would do such a thing. Quite the contrary if they were told they will either help the law enforcement or get fired, I am pretty sure those people would come to the help of FBI in droves. Who do they think they are fooling ? Techies ? Naah, most of them are too smart not to work for Apple empire. Are they trying to fool Apple-Fan-Boys ? No need. If your work address is "1 Infinite loop" you already are a demi-god. So no need to resort to such ploys. And general public doesn't really care if Apple employees quit for holding high standards or not, as long as there is a new "Jesus-phone" every 12 months or less.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
We all have our points of view, but ultimately part of the price you pay for living in a democracy is sometimes having to put up with what you consider dumb decisions made by governments and the courts and other people for voting for idiots. You can't pick and choose which laws or warrants you obey - that way lies anarchy.
So if they want to chuck their toys out their pram then let them. There are plenty of other people who would like their jobs.
Yes, it certainly seems that way. Unlike in some other cases, this time the government is doing everything "by the book" FBI do have a proper warrant and all of the backing of the Judiciary, that the 4th Amendment may require. Apple's continuing resistance can only be explained by either utter legal illiteracy or desire for publicity.
Considering the sheer size of the multi-billion dollar corporation, we can dispense with the former option...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It might not be smart to quit if, while employed, they are under Apple's umbrella of legal protection. Alone in the wild, could employees with knowledge on how to crack the phone* be pressured to crack the phones?
* = "Hey, remember when Apple said phones couldn't be cracked? Ha, good times, good times. (cries in beer)"
Make the needed tool, just be sure it runs on Windows 8, not Windows 10. In a month or two, when Microsoft finishes degrading everyone to Windows 10, it'll quit working.
If it comes to that, it's admirable that they would do so, but it wouldn't change anything in the end result. If Apple was compelled by the courts to do this, they'll just run down the list until they find someone who will not quit just to make that stand. And someone always will.
It can't stop the unlock from happening, sadly.
The various enforcement agencies - From the TLAs to the various City PDs don't really want just the ability to snoop on any phone they want.
They want the intimidation factor. The power to harass and threaten and search not only your personal effects, but everything about you using your smartphone as an excuse because it's physically on you.
They want easy point-and-drool piggy data slurping machines. Stop and frisk? Pulled over for any reason? Now they have your email, texts, contacts, facebook login, everything. It all goes in to their point-and-drool piggy database and when someone you once texted or emailed gets nabbed guess who they come knocking on for information.
Oh? The above is illegal? Like that fucking matters. It happens now, and it's been happening. They're just mad because Google and Apple have locked their piggy data groping tentacle machines out.
It's also impossible to ignore the racial component of the above. Sure, as a boring white guy working a proper job you don't get stopped and frisked or pulled over for DWB.
I thought affirming that I'd rather quit than attend daily scrum meetings was noble and principled. Damn.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.
It's part of the dumbing down movement.
Has it come to this ? You are anti establishment if you expect the government to play fair, to obey the constitution, to not play games to get powers that it does not really need (for the purposes that it claims that it needs them for anyway) ? What are they putting into your water supply out there ?
> You're really pushing Betteridge's Law this morning.
he didn't say anything about nazis.
The employees' concerns also provide insight into a company culture that despite the trappings of Silicon Valley wealth still views the world through the decades-old, anti-establishment prism of its co-founders Steven P. Jobs and Steve Wozniak.
The culture is not anti-establishment. Some of the employees might have a general anti-establishment leaning, but Apple is the establishment. Just have a look at their market cap. Also, if the culture of Apple is anti-establishment, then why were they so vigorous in going after white box vendors trying to sell generic systems running OS X? The way in which Apple handled that particular situation, as an example, was very establishment like and worthy of Microsoft, IBM, and even the auto manufacturers and dealers trying to stop Tesla's direct-to-consumer approach.
Apple can easily solve this problem by forming an independent subsidiary in Germany which will maintain keys and security settings, which is then contracted into the next iOS upgrade. The current keys should be erased at the next upgrade. Then, the German government can approve FBI warrants for the use of the keys.
For real fun, Apple should announce that the iCloud servers for U.S. Government workers are moving to China, starting with all members of congress.
The FBI already has access to information they need, they are just using this as a strong arm attempt to force a company to bow to their wishes. and sadly they got a corrupt judge to go along with them.
Honestly, if every single american is not up in arms and screaming at their congress critter right now to stop this bullshit, then they need to move to soviet russia where things are more to their liking.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The federal government will try to take Apple apart piece by piece: in court, in the press, and perhaps by brain drain from people leaving.
To the government, it's very important to set a precedent where companies have to comply, in all circumstances, with any and all requests for technical assistance- regardless of the true legality. So expect ongoing government behavior to accomplish these goals.
If engineers quit over this, good for them. If Apple makes it out relatively unscathed- I'll be content.
This particular issue- might damage the company and US tech industry in ways we've not even considered yet. Consider the idea that encryption technology moves offshore from the US. Consider the competitive disadvantage if foreign encryption schemes need to be used rather than home grown ones. Would US companies be competitive? Would secure foreign technologies even be available in the US?
This whole thing is dangerous in the long term. Apple better win this or the face of technology changes in the USA.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
And the FBI is playing along because it supports their story that "strong cryptography is preventing us to get at the data of shooters and terrorists".
All of us come across situations where your boss/client asks you to do something you disagree (with the various degrees).
You have the following options:
- suck it up and set up a precedent
- voice your concerns
- refuse to do it: which has consequences, ultimately causing you to be fired or in some cases be sued/prosecuted
- quit; which still may leave you open to a lawsuit or prosecution
- ignore it and hope it goes away
Nice link /. . How am I supposed to verify that this summary is true, or god forbit, RTFA?
The SCOTUS has determined that corporations are people.
The government can demand you hand things over, but they can't compel you work, unless they conscript you. They can rifle through your stuff, but they can't make you rifle through your neighbors stuff.
So, unless the government is going to "conscript" the entire "person" that is Apple and then order "it" to write the code to defeat their encryption I don't see what the government can do.
For that matter, Apple could simply buy an island in the pacific and turn it into their own country called "Appletopia" and move all their people there.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Yes, it certainly seems that way. Unlike in some other cases, this time the government is doing everything "by the book" FBI do have a proper warrant and all of the backing of the Judiciary, that the 4th Amendment may require. Apple's continuing resistance can only be explained by either utter legal illiteracy or desire for publicity.
Considering the sheer size of the multi-billion dollar corporation, we can dispense with the former option...
Are you kidding me? You think the DOJ either forcing Apple to write malware to compromise their customers' security, or demanding their security signing keys, is "by the book" and in line with the Constitution?
Every crisis is also an opportunity.
It is not merely a "story" — it also happens to be perfect truth.
Your one-sentence post seems to imply, you disagree with something. Please, elaborate on your position for a dialogue to proceed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Who cares if they go "by the book" or whose backing they have? If we can protect ourselves from them, we will, by any means possible. You got a problem with that? Can't say as I feel your pain... Our right to privacy shall not be infringed. We're expanding the 4th and 5th amendments whether you like it or not.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sure, there are plenty of jobs to find out there and the better qualified people never fear losing a job. But.. there is exactly one company called Apple, and people spend years and years trying to get a job at Apple. Just like people do for Google, and Salesforce, and Oracle, and SAP, and to a lesser extent even Microsoft, IBM, and HP.
Established companies with proven longevity and potential for people to move up and around are not that common.
People don't scramble to an Apple interview because of the free snacks and drinks, those things are all over the place. In fact the startups will generally have more of those types of perks. People scramble for stability and name recognition.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If government wants something, they can get it eventually. Its rather foolish to believe encryption data is any different then any other personal property in a criminal or act of war against a Country. Apple is very foolish to believe anything in privacy cannot be reversed. My other question about this specific case, is why is this iPhone even being treated as personal? I understood early on that this was a phone assigned and that it was the property of the County? If we have even more attacks I think Apple's arguments will fail to impress more and more. People value security and safety over privacy every single time. If terrorists begin to operate exclusively in the security of encryption. I think you will see more push for a way to access that information. I have said before, Apple thinks winning the battle is everything. But they may lose the war. A even bigger loss then they perceive this to be.
If someone is willing to quit over this, it looks like they want out of their job anyway. At the end of the day, Apple is not a champion for our rights. Apple is a company that sells consumer electronics. We are the guardians of our right and don't you forget it.
For an Apple employee to make this confusion, whether it's Tim or anyone on down, is a complete and utter theatrical non-sense.
The writer of the article long time NYT hack Markoff paints Apple as anitestablishment cowboys who want to defy the white hat USA government because they are big and arrogant. He is a troll.
The Constitution does not prevent the Executive from searching citizens. It requires the Executive's cause to be reasonable and approved by the Judiciary's. The requirements the Executive have satisfied in this case.
Both options would've sounded phantastical to the framers of the Constitution, but they are quite analogous to, for example, demanding a landlord's cooperation in opening up a tenant's apartment, or a bank required to open up a customer's safe deposit box.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Is that all, folks?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
people with the skills, experience, and talent to get another 6-digit salary paying swanky job in an hour with a phone call or two.
Apple developers and engineers do not have the skills to work at my company. We need more skills than working on consumer and fashion devices.
The same goes for Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! employees. If anyone thinks having those companies or any other big names on your resume opens up the doors anywhere, you're going to have a harsh reality check one day.
I did years ago. I had IBM on mine and it was actually detrimental to my being accepted. I had an phone interview by a director who said that he didn't like hiring IBM'ers. And he went on as to why.
That is Godwin's..
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
For once, your knee-jerk blind authoritarianism seems to be correct. I guess a stopped watch is right twice per day.
I am just trying to follow the money. We can agree many government departments are inflated. And the goal of any inflated organization is to stay afloat. So what publicity does the FBI gain by going through the motions? I am not talking about the young yuppies in Point Break that think they are actually saving the world. I am just wondering, is there consensus that the FBI already knows what is contained on the phone? And if not, why does it take an Apple engineer? Why can't come else, not from Apple, help the FBI?
Wrong.
You need 2/3rds of the politicians to do it - a much easier feat.
Then you STILL don't understand the issue. Apple DOES NOT HAVE the means to do what the DOJ wants without taking development resorces to come up with the means. You cannot subpoena that which does not exist. Apple does not want to do work to subvert their own product, and the DOJ is trying to subvert the meaning of legal process. They're also, successfully if you're any indication, confusing the public deliberately into thinking this is something Apple either has or can just give them.
Even if this were a simple case of, say, safecracking, the government cannot compel a locksmith to do work for it and crack a safe. This is much more involved than that because cracking that one safe at least wouldn't crack every other safe of that type on the planet.
"Indeed, hiring them could be a badge of honor...."
Perhaps, but it's not something that I'd count on.
Yes, it would look good on a resume but also signals that the person might quit at perceived notion of something that they didn't agree with, and that could be almost any company policy. But still, it would give the employee some serious street cred and probably make them seen as a solid person.
On the other hand, it could possibly signal a change in the perceived worth of an employee, in that the company needs to be aware of what they do lest it spark an exodus of employees who can find other employment without too much difficulty. (Although, to be honest, I don't hold out much hope for this scenario.)
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
We need more skills than working on consumer and fashion devices.
The fact you think that;s all Apple does assures me your company would be terrible to work for.
I don't like Microsoft either but I can still have respect for people that work there and the interesting things they work on. Apple is working on language design, chip design, obviously hardware design, and cutting edge advancements in UI on both desktop and mobile, not to mention possibly cars and VR... if you do't need any of those skills you must work at the most boring place on earth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just don't claim, the actual Constitution is on your side.
Never did. You shouldn't either. We are all totally dependent on the good will of people with guns.
You'll need roughly 2/3rds of the nation to agree with you — get on with it.
No I don't. I just need something nobody can break into. This Apple thing makes a good story. If it's true, I don't need your approval at all. Privacy will be mine, and you will just have to live with it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The Constitution does not prevent the Executive from searching citizens. It requires the Executive's cause to be reasonable and approved by the Judiciary's. The requirements the Executive have satisfied in this case.
You are tragically misinformed. Nobody is stopping the DOJ from searching the phone. The problem they are facing is that the data on the phone is encrypted. To circumvent that matter, the DOJ is asking Apple either compromise their own customers' security by making malware, or giving their security keys to the DOJ so they can do the same. That is a violation of Apple's free speech and essentially enslavery.
Both options would've sounded phantastical to the framers of the Constitution, but they are quite analogous to, for example, demanding a landlord's cooperation in opening up a tenant's apartment, or a bank required to open up a customer's safe deposit box.
Those aren't analogous at all, since the landlord and bank have the keys to the doors they are being asked to open. What is more analogous would be if a criminal buried his locked box somewhere, so the U.S. government demanded all shovel owners and shovel manufacturers to start digging for it, or be in contempt of the court.
"Both options would've sounded phantastical to the framers of the Constitution, but they are quite analogous to, for example, demanding a landlord's cooperation in opening up a tenant's apartment, or a bank required to open up a customer's safe deposit box."
Sure, but not if the box is on Alpha Centaury.
Only if that key opens up EVERY customer's safe deposit box.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
If they use the 'encryption breaking schemes' that they used on lavabit, the court just forces them to hand over the SSL keys.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It does not matter if they all quit. If there is even 1 that does it, it is all for naught. This may be a new person who is brought in for this purpose, a person threatened by blackmail or a young parent who needs the job to pay food for the kids.
What I do in these cases is point first to the law that we need a order from a judge. Next I will point to my managers and the companies lawyers and that will either mean my manager tells me to do it or he does not.
I will take no orders from anybody else. And yes, I have seen police officers escorted from the office because they did not have a search warrant or a court order.
Disclaimer: I live in Belgium, Europe, so YMMV.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Actually, as much as I hate to say this, I think I kind of agree with what is being said. The FBI is merely demanding that someone help them execute a legal warrant, and Apple is refusing to do so. For good reasons, I might add, but I could see how the FBI might have a valid argument there.
However, the real story here is not that Apple could be forced to do this, it is that Apple *can* be forced to do this because they can force a download of an OS to a customer device. In other words, Apple has the master key to the apartment, because they made it that way. The FBI is merely demanding that they use it.
There is no question of *changing* iOS to allow the FBI to do this. iOS already allows this by *design*. It's just a matter of changing the payload.
I just need something nobody can break into. This Apple thing makes a good story. If it's true, I don't need your approval at all. Privacy will be mine, and you will just have to live with it.
And that is why the DoJ is fighting so hard against it.
Thank God that Apple has enough money to fight them.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I'm with Apple on this whole mess but this "leak" is a PR move. Apple usually doesn't let their engineers talk about what they ate for lunch let alone matters such as this.
What if the employees were legally obligated to unlock the iPhone, and subject to "inpeding investigation" - type charge?
Sabatage
Agree to help, but at every turn undermine the effort with obscure bugs.
"Oh, you went through every possible combination and it still didn't unlock? Silly me, it was just recycling the first ten attempts the whole time. My bad!".
You could probably string along the FBI indefinitely.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Until Apple puts up the same fight to protect user's OTA data on the same iphones, All I see is marketing at action here.
Problem is the way things are going if they threaten to quit the government goons will probably threaten them and their families with detention and prosecution.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Is this where I post the XKCD with the guy being interrogated with the $5 pipe wrench for his keys?
Technical solutions are not perfect, if you want something safe, you need to make sure that everyone agrees that they won't touch it. For the FBI or NSA, you want legislation to back up your tech. That way, it's not even legal for them to try to break into it.
I don't think the 4th amendment is involved. The owner of the phone is not the murderer, its the employer. This owner has given the FBI permission to search the phone.
I think the government will tell them, "we're sorry. you can't quit", lol.
Even then, what the FBI is asking my still be illegal. https://backchannel.com/the-la...
If it comes down to it, and Apple is forced to do it, call their bluff. Tech people are so gutless, you know it's just a bluff.
Well, Apple — and its supporters — do. Just look elsewhere in this thread.
Why not?
Considering my upbringing, I'm likely to be better with a Kalashnikov, than you... Let's not go to, where turning the US into a failed state would take us...
Which is exactly the premise, the anonymous coward began with. Thanks for playing.
For it to become a law of the land you do need the approval of other inhabitants of the same land.
But we aren't discussing some hypothetical future phone, that will be impenetrable. The iPhone in question is vulnerable — and Apple is legally required to help the government exploit the vulnerability. Constitution is on the government's side — Apple know it and must be considering the cost of resisting below the benefits of publicity.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Actually the landlord / door analogy works well. Apple is not being asked to break the encryption, they are being asked to bypass the passcode. The passcode is very low tech and analogous to a door that allows entry.
Slavery is also likely a very poor analogy. If Apple has to spend the month they estimated they are probably entitled to be reimburse for their costs.
It is also technically incorrect that the alternate iOS that works around the passcode delay and auto wipe functionality is a mass surveillance tool. Apple could easily lock this alternate iOS to the single device in question. The FBI could no more change the embedded UDID used in such device locking than they could change the public iOS they now have, public and alternate iOS are protected from tampering by the digital signature.
The meme of this alternate iOS being applied to all phones is PR/Legal spin, its Apple framing the discussion in the most favorable light.
The only real issue is that if Apple can be forced to do this by one court then any court can also do this. The government's argument that this is a one-time thing is completely bogus. The FBI can not place any such limitation on any judge who may want an iOS device unlocked.
What law? The All Writs Act has never been used to order a company to write code for the FBI. In fact, CALEA which was debated by Congress two decades ago specifically took up this question and said it would not do so. The FBI trying to force a company to do by court order which Congress chose not to do by legislation is not legally sound.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is pretty simple, since Apple controls all staffing decisions, they could simply transition all the engineers capable of doing this into a separate team with completely different responsibilities. Worse case scenario, they could be placed in secretarial jobs with no access to the tools or code repositories. Meanwhile, Apple could assign actual secretaries to the job. I'm sure that would slow things down substantially.
Footnote: I am not denigrating secretarial work, I'm just recognizing that the average secretary was not hired due to their programming and security skills.
Only if that key opens up EVERY customer's safe deposit box.
It doesn't. The alternate iOS that bypasses the passcode delay and auto wipe could be locked to the single device in question. The FBI could no more change the device lock than they could alter the passcode functionality. Tampering is prevented by the digital signature, both public iOS and this FBI iOS.
The real problem is that this is not a one-time event. If one court can do it then any court can do it.
This is much more involved than that because cracking that one safe at least wouldn't crack every other safe of that type on the planet.
No. The "crack" can be locked down to the one particular device in question. This device lock down can not be tampered with, just like the passcode functionality can not be tampered with, all code is protected by the digital signature.
The problem is that if one judge can compel such technical assistance than any judge can. Its not a one-time thing, but a new court order would be required for each instance.
Not sure about safe-deposit boxes, but many landlords do use master-keys, which can open all apartments in their building. Their cooperation in opening up a particular apartment may still be legally demanded by the police (and backed by a court order) — nothing outrageous here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Slavery is also likely a very poor analogy. If Apple has to spend the month they estimated they are probably entitled to be reimburse for their costs.
Good ol' freedom of the USA right here. As long as the Commissar gives you some pennies for your forced labor, it's not *really* slavery.
Really? Because they didn't apply for a search warrant. That would require them to show that there is reason to believe evidence is on the phone. They asked to court for a writ to force Apple to make a means to unlock the phone. Not quite the same as using a key that already exists.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Simple answer is that if the FBI uses a clandestine decryption method, it will not only no longer be clandestine, but it will spur efforts to defeat that method.
The NSA has marginally plausible deniability now, and letting the FBI break that would not serve them well.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Not sure about safe-deposit boxes, but many landlords do use master-keys, which can open all apartments in their building. Their cooperation in opening up a particular apartment may still be legally demanded by the police (and backed by a court order) — nothing outrageous here.
That is a false analogy. Apple doesn't have a key to the iPhone.
It's easy to talk, not so easy to act. Would they REALLY quit?
Citizen Four showed us that Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple et al. were on the payroll of the NSA through PRISM. The difference between the FBI request and PRISM was that Apple was paid to give unfettered access to its servers and user data. The FBI wants it for free and that amy be the real basis of this argument otherwise how come no one at Apple protested PRISM? TMT
Unfortunately, it is also true that despite protests to the contrary, acquiescing to the FBI request this time, if it is indeed possible, would both open the way for the FBI and other agencies to request this in the future forever, and force Apple and others to ask this question -
Do I want to sell a product with encryption that cannot be circumvented?
Well, do they? DO we have a right to be secure in our possessions, to not be forced to incriminate ourselves by being forced to provide documents, messages, conversations, or merely to permit access to these, or do we have the right to not cooperate with an investigation and prosecution of ourselves?
Well, do we?
And can Apple sell products that include encryption that cannot be subverted? Notice I do not specify that this subversion be limited to government, but there is no method, resource, or force the government can exert that another determined and capable individual or group also cannot employ. That includes money or force.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The Constitution is NOT on the government's side. Code is speech, the DOJ are violating the First Amendment by attempting to force Apple to write malicious code to compromise the security of all of their customers. The government has no more right to do this than it does to force political dissidents to write apologies to them.
Slavery is also likely a very poor analogy. If Apple has to spend the month they estimated they are probably entitled to be reimburse for their costs.
Good ol' freedom of the USA right here. As long as the Commissar gives you some pennies for your forced labor, it's not *really* slavery.
Technically "USA Freedom" has never been about being immune from government orders except in very specific conditions. In general its always been about government orders being required to go through some process under judicial review. The founding father's were not anarchists. They merely wanted the rules to be written by an elected legislature and government's coercive powers to be subject to judicial oversight and in certain narrow circumstances limited by the Constitution. From the moment the founding fathers transitioned from revolutionaries to the "the government" they embraced the coercive powers of government. Actually, they also did so as revolutionaries. Commandeering property during the revolution and reimbursing the owners with "script" that would be worthless if the revolution failed.
And before you get all Constitutional keep in mind that the owner of the phone has given the FBI their approval to search it. The phone is owned by the employer not the murderer. Hopefully that detail limits this case in terms of it being a precedent.
What is the risk to the landlord in opening a tenant's apartment? It's not like the landlord is being searched or investigated, is it?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Slavery is also likely a very poor analogy. If Apple has to spend the month they estimated they are probably entitled to be reimburse for their costs.
Good ol' freedom of the USA right here. As long as the Commissar gives you some pennies for your forced labor, it's not *really* slavery.
Technically "USA Freedom" has never been about being immune from government orders except in very specific conditions. In general its always been about government orders being required to go through some process under judicial review. The founding father's were not anarchists. They merely wanted the rules to be written by an elected legislature and government's coercive powers to be subject to judicial oversight and in certain narrow circumstances limited by the Constitution. From the moment the founding fathers transitioned from revolutionaries to the "the government" they embraced the coercive powers of government. Actually, they also did so as revolutionaries. Commandeering property during the revolution and reimbursing the owners with "script" that would be worthless if the revolution failed. And before you get all Constitutional keep in mind that the owner of the phone has given the FBI their approval to search it. The phone is owned by the employer not the murderer. Hopefully that detail limits this case in terms of it being a precedent.
Except what the DOJ is requesting the court to force upon Apple under the All Writs Act is an unprecedented interpretation of that law which has no discernible limits. This is the dividing line between a police state and a republic.
I love that they are taking this stand but..... Apple Computers IS the establishment. They became what they once fought against a long time ago.
Just because an agency claims it, and a court agrees, and appeals ultimately fail at the highest court, doesn't make it true. It merely makes it legal.
Which is why appointing SCOTUS Justices is more important than and transcends presidential elections. They are above review, short of impeachment, and collectively exert both absolute power and defy review and correction.
Try impeaching one Justice, very difficult. Impeaching two, who could drive the Court in any direction they wish, exceedingly difficult.
Impeaching three to break a cabal? Ha. An Article Five convention would be easier.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I am wondering who will quit their 6-digit salary paying swanky job in the Silicon Valley, just because they do not agree with the law enforcement.
People who are financially secure and who can get gainful employment elsewhere. Describes more than a few Apple programmers. They might prefer to work at Apple all other things being equal but they don't have to. Honestly if I felt strongly about being ordered to do something I felt was unethical or harmful I'd consider leaving my job and I doubt I'm unique in that.
You think the DOJ either forcing Apple to write malware to compromise their customers' security, or demanding their security signing keys, is "by the book" and in line with the Constitution?
The second half clearly is allowed, if they pay for it. Problem is, what is the Apple firmware signing key worth? $500 Billion? Something more than DoJ can pay, to be sure. Constitutional problems over takings come down to the requirement to pay for what is taken. Generally, for a company to buy that item they would have to buy the whole company. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if they want something not for sale, they would have to buy the business to get it. If they government wants to nationalize Apple, they're allowed to take all the stock and pay market rate.
The first part isn't really clear in the general case, Constitutionally, because is that a taking or not? Unclear. But given the damage that it would do to Apple's speech, their intended PR that is their own prerogative, it would likely need to also cost many many billions of dollars. But with a communication device specifically, we don't have to worry about the Constitution, because the CALEA statute addresses this directly and the government is forbidden from asking for modifications of devices or systems.
Can you be convicted for "Oops"? Probably not.
The company can be. See BP, GM, Takata, etc. And if intentional actions can be shown then the penalties can be much more severe. See Enron, Arthur Anderson, and probably VW in the near future.
Seeing as source code is speech, the government cannot compel speech (yay america). However, we are fast approaching a time where technologies we took for granted will be backdoored or outlawed.
The hand-wavy idea that understanding the meaning of what you found in a search is part of the search is rather silly. I don't expect the SCOTUS to be impressed by that, though clearly at least a percentage of Magistrates are.
Nobody doubts that the DoJ has the right to demand that the County Health Department turn over their private encryption keys. The problem is, the owner of the phone (the health department) didn't store the device keys anywhere other than on the device. The only copies of the key are already in the FBI's possession.
Just like, if the safe key was melted down for scrap, then their might not be anything that the government has left to compel. Under CALEA, they explicitly cannot ask for modifications of a communication device.
The 4th amendment protections are not an issue - the dude is dead. The issue is that the government is trying to make Apple write new firmware when Apple didn't have anything to do with the attack. That new firmware could then be used to access other old phones like this one - breaking security for many people. You don't see a problem with people or companies being forced to do new work (in this case write new software) at the government's whim? Or did you not pay attention and think this is just "push button, unlock phone?"
Initially, the story was pretty innocuous : the FBI asks Apple to push a special firmware on a single iPhone so that they can recover data they have a warrant for. Apple said no.
On one side, it isn't an end-of-the-world privacy shattering demand that will doom us all. Provided that Apple is rightfully compensated for the work involved it is pretty benign (remember : only one phone will get the update, the FBI has a warrant). Maybe the compensation part is actually what started it all.
On the other side it is not like the phone contains the keys that will prevent WW3, investigations can continue without it. And Apple doesn't have to go out of its way to cover what looks a lot like a screwup from the FBI.
It has now evolved into a heated argument between some of the most influential people in the world. It has become symbolic, with technically very little behind it.
Except what the DOJ is requesting the court to force upon Apple under the All Writs Act is an unprecedented interpretation of that law which has no discernible limits. This is the dividing line between a police state and a republic.
Its unprecedented because its a new situation brought about by new technology. Unprecedented is a normal thing, it happened all the time over the course of US history. Tapping a telegraph cable was once an unprecedented thing. Tapping an analog phone line was once an unprecedented thing. There is nothing un-republic about this situation. Its going through a quite vigorous legal process with appeals and both sides well and competently represented, actually I'd favor Apple in this sense, one more bit of republic evidence. Maybe we'll need additional legislation to compel Apple to provide this technical assistance. Still, all very much a republic. Even republics can compel people to do things they do not want to do. Its all about legislative authority and judicial review, and the legislators and judges being directly or indirectly selected by the electorate.
Assuming you are anywhere near not joking:
The government saying "no you can't quit" will but right up against Government Conscription and the Slavery laws. And if you need that explained to you, you have a lot further to go than I had hoped.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Yep, the AC was unjustly modded. But it's an old comment, made by many people, including me, since the story first broke. It will take another person like Snowden to reveal to us and confirm that the FBI already has what it wants.
I'm likely to be better with a Kalashnikov, than you
Gotta love you armchair rebels... And Kalashnikov? Not very patriotic of you.. And you seem to completely miss the point.
Apple is legally required to help the government exploit the vulnerability
No, they are not. And hopefully they never will help. Now, if you want to go all fascist on them, be my guest. Just don't try to convince people that your government is better than any other tin pot dictatorship on the planet. And maybe that doesn't matter to you anyway, with the way you so zealously appeal to authority. I'm looking for a way to render it harmless, to remove its impunity. Man's law is fickle and capricious. The only relevant laws are the laws of physics. Only through those laws are my rights protected, and violated. Age old game of cat and mouse.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Ah, yes, a very novel legal strategy, I'll give you that. It would've been better, had you not misrepresented parts of it, but I shan't quibble. Most of the arguments so far have been around the 4th Amendment — protection against unreasonable searches....
Consider, for the sake of argument, government (backed by the Judiciary) wanting to search an otherwise impenetrable vault behind a coded lock. The vault-manufacturer can reveal the code. Do you believe, 1st Amendment is in any way applicable?
Before you say "yes", try to come up with a meaningful difference between a physical key, which the Amendment certainly does not protect, and a coded password...
You (and Apple) are on a shaky ground — in 2012, for example, a Federal judge has ordered a defendant to reveal her password. Maybe, she should've claimed the 1st, rather than the 5th Amendment — but that case remained inconclusive.
But in other cases, where people have succeeded resisting government's demand for passwords, they relied on the 5th Amendment, not the 1st.
Why wouldn't they use the 1st, if the password (or, indeed, computer code required to break it) were as obviously protected by it, as you and Apple imply?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
despite the trappings of Silicon Valley wealth still views the world through the decades-old, anti-establishment prism of its co-founders
Lock-in and walled gardens are anti-establishment? Save the bullshit for someone who cares.
Technical solutions are not perfect...
True, but it's all we have when the authorities want to violate the agreement and while we are subject to the whims of the 51% that can put a crazy person into office.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You can smack the dead guy with the $5 pipe wrench all you want. The guy who knows the passcode to the phone is still dead. You won't be getting the passcode to the phone from him.
you can't spell. ha, ha.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Growing up in the USSR, I studied details of Kalashnikov in high school. "Patriotism" has nothing to do with it — I was and remain quite anti-Soviet, actually, but a weapon is a weapon...
Well, if a valid court order issued by a duly appointed judge does not make something a legal requirement, what would?
Of course, it is better — dictators do not bother obtaining warrants from sceptical judges at all. And, if they do, they do it at gun-point...
Unless you are prepared to claim, that the government can never search a citizen and/or his property/effects, you can not seriously argue, that they are wrong in this case.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Fuck. The last dregs of slashdot experts are a really sad and stupid crew. I used to come here for the comments. Now I just come here to witness the implosion, the idiocy and vainglorious attacks on common sense and decency. Assholes.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
You can't spell either.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
yes they do, they have the signing key that allows software to be placed on ANY phone.
That is as much a master key as anything.
Actually, as much as I hate to say this, I think I kind of agree with what is being said. The FBI is merely demanding that someone help them execute a legal warrant, and Apple is refusing to do so. For good reasons, I might add, but I could see how the FBI might have a valid argument there.
Previous courts have ruled on what "helping" means especially on 3rd parties. The "undue burden" principle is often cited in that the government can ask for assistance but what is asks is limited in scope. For example if the police think someone else has buried bodies on your property, it can get a warrant to search your property. What it cannot do is force you to do the digging. Also it cannot effectively destroy your house while digging underneath it.
However, the real story here is not that Apple could be forced to do this, it is that Apple *can* be forced to do this because they can force a download of an OS to a customer device. In other words, Apple has the master key to the apartment, because they made it that way. The FBI is merely demanding that they use it.
No, Apple explicitly stated that it does not have the master key to an apartment in your analogy as it is wrong. First of all, Apple does not own the apartment nor leases it to the tenant. In this suit, Apple is a third party more akin to a door lock company that sold a door lock to a homeowner years ago (a lock in which the owner can and has changed the key). Apple does not have the key. It did however build a lock to defeat common lock-picking methods. What the FBI is asking Apple to do is to trick the owner into installing a new lock which is substantially easier to lock-pick.
There is no question of *changing* iOS to allow the FBI to do this. iOS already allows this by *design*. It's just a matter of changing the payload.
There is no question in that Apple may technically do what the FBI asks. The question is whether Apple should be forced to do so. In my analogy if a locksmith refuses to break into a house for the government, can the courts order him to do so? I think there are many precedents that say the government cannot force a third party to work for them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Unless you are prepared to claim, that the government can never search a citizen and/or his property/effects, you can not seriously argue, that they are wrong in this case.
Argument is futile. I don't care about court orders from a duly elected/appointed judge. I call it a warning shot, doesn't make it any better. It is dictatorship by consensus. I am seeking physical protection without flinging lead. The only relevant 'argument' is how to best accomplish that, not whether I should.
With the way you stand up for authority, it seems you brought a little of the old USSR with you, and you are grading us on a curve. A good diet and a comfortable bed will do that to ya.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually the landlord / door analogy works well. Apple is not being asked to break the encryption, they are being asked to bypass the passcode. The passcode is very low tech and analogous to a door that allows entry.
I disagree as the landlord analogy implies that Apple owns the property (the phone) and is not a 3rd party to the situation. A better analogy would be a door lock company. Apple made a lock that was harder to lock-pick and it did not set the keys for the lock but the tenant did. The lock was provided to Farook's landlord indirectly through a retailer. Over the years Apple has issued updates to the lock. What the FBI is asking is to trick the door into accepting a new update where lock-picking would work because the tenant cannot/will not issue consent to be unlocked.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The now former Apple Employees still have the knowledge. They could be forced to give up that knowledge. The only solution is mass hara-kari of Apple employees.
"It is also technically incorrect that the alternate iOS that works around the passcode delay and auto wipe functionality is a mass surveillance tool. Apple could easily lock this alternate iOS to the single device in question. The FBI could no more change the embedded UDID used in such device locking than they could change the public iOS they now have, public and alternate iOS are protected from tampering by the digital signature."
You are completely missing the point. Once this has been done once, the FBI will get a similar warrant for every single iphone they come across. Apple will be compelled to sign the code for each device.
For the FBI or NSA, you want legislation to back up your tech. That way, it's not even legal for them to try to break into it.
This brings up a question I've had for a while: what's the chance that the NSA doesn't already have the signing keys?
And... I really don't think NSA/FBI cares about legislation. At this point I think they do whatever they want. I'm sure they don't think they're criminals, but the evidence (Snowden) sure seems pretty clear to me that they routinely break many laws by arguing that they're not really breaking them. And, they'll continue to do that whatever new laws you pass.
Problem solved!
Give me a break. Nobody is going to prison if they screw up accidentally. You follow your documented processes, you do your stuff, stuff happens, you move on.
The entire "anti-establishment" premise of the summary is wrong. It is not anti-establishment for security professionals to refuse to break security.
It is professionally responsible. It's like if a priest is ordered to convert a parishioner to satanism, a doctor is ordered to harm a patient, or a cop is ordered to beat the crap out of an old lady.
I do not really understand how individuals or even a company can be forced to make or do something? Forbidding a company to make or do something I understand. But in the case of Apple, some part of the government forces them to create a particular kind of software. I can't even imagine that such a thing would happen in my country. That is just impossible. Never can a company be forced to create something. What kind of laws are giving the FBI the power to force individuals to do or create something?
The Constitution does not prevent the Executive from searching citizens.
Where in the constitution does it say the government is allowed to search citizens? Also how is this equivalent to a search? What this is is a violation of the rights of every Apple employee and every Apple shareholder. It's a human rights violation and you don't seriously believe those Libertarian revolutionaries who idealized the ideas of John Locke would be in favor of this sort of 1984-ish Big Brother gets to read everyone's mail bullshit. The government has absolutely no right to do this Let-North-Korea-Show-Us-The-Way every-citizen-is-our-bitch nonsense.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This is absolutely not a one time thing. Once created, Apple will be compelled (by court order) to do the same thing for every phone the FBI wants into. Why would you think otherwise?
Arraignment:
Obstruction of Justice,
Obstruction of a Federal Investigation,
Complicity in Murder,
Aiding and Abetting Murder,
Wire Fraud,
Conspiracy Against the USA,
Treason Against the USA.
Apple's "engineers", Members of the Board, and Executives including Timothy Donald Cook can expect several years in detention at Federal Prisons before, during and after each trial for each charge. That could be 14 to life.
Good riddance Queers.
Ha ha
NEOCON DETECTED
If you step back a bit from the focus on the iPhone and encryption technology, and look at the bigger picture for a minute? There are plenty of reasons to ask why the FBI should waste time and energy pressing this issue.
For starters, I understand when the San Bernadino shooter's place was searched, several "burner" flip phones were found. That should indicate, right away, that you're dealing with someone who was aware that govt. would try to get info from a smartphone, so work-arounds were purchased. The existence of the burners means there's a good chance nothing of use would be found on the iPhone in question.
Not only that, but we ALSO know the FBI could have easily gotten what they wanted off of the phone in question if they didn't screw up initially by changing the existing iCloud account password. Mistakes like that are similar to damaging any other evidence collected at crime scenes. (You know... such stupid things as somebody handling suspected murder weapons without using gloves and messing up the ability to pull useful fingerprints from it.)
It seems pretty blatantly obvious that this is not really about true concerns of there being critically important info trapped on this phone. (You've got one heck of a flimsy case if you really need THAT to successfully prosecute a mass murderer/shooter!) This is just another power grab attempt by the Feds, and I don't see ANY reason people should cooperate. Investigation of crimes was never supposed to be easy. It's difficult on purpose, because all sorts of steps should be taken to do it without trampling on individual rights. (As I always point out -- you *could* just make it law that the FBI can kick in random people's doors at any time of day or night. I guarantee giving them this ability would greatly increase the amount of crimes they prevented by catching people in the act of planning them, etc. etc. But you know what? We've decided we don't want to live in that kind of society.)
Yes, so it seemed to me from the beginning. But then you started stating opinions, on what is and is not legal and Constitutional — as if you do care, after all, about such things. Make up your mind, and do not argue laws of men, if you don't believe, their "dictatorship by consensus" ought to apply to you.
"Relevant" or not, that's not, what is discussed here... But, yes, by all means, do work on impenetrable phone — I'll buy one for myself, when it hits the market. You do not even need to "expand" the existing Bill of Rights to make such a thing. But iPhone is not it, so let's not deviate off-topic.
Criminals exist in all countries, and it is perfectly legitimate, useful, and even desirable for the police to hunt them. No Libertarian would contest this — even if they may object to harm done to the privacy (or property, or health) of the innocent in the process.
My assertion stands:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Uh, point of order here, but you are factually incorrect.
You are confusing 2 different issues here. There is a software distribution mechanism meant to deliver patches and upgrades. That does exist.
However the FBI is indeed asking Apple to change iOS, that is the "changed payload" they want. The request is to modify iOS so it doesn't trigger a device wipe after 10 incorrect password/PIN/gesture guesses. No one knows what the device password is (I'm taking everyone at their word for the sake of clarity) so the FBI will require considerably more than 10 guesses before they can break into the phone.
The big picture here though is to create this modified iOS and set precedent. The phone has a decent chance of:
A). Containing nothing of interest;
B). Contains mildly interesting extremist chatter but absolutely nothing actionable;
C). The phone is either already cracked, or is crackable, or the NSA already knows the message contents because they spy on everyone now.
You do not even need to "expand" the existing Bill of Rights to make such a thing.
Never said I would. That's something else you didn't pick up. The "impenetrable" phone does the "expanding". The iPhone may be impenetrable. If it is, then that is a good thing no matter what anybody thinks.
Criminals exist in all countries, and it is perfectly legitimate, useful, and even desirable for the police to hunt them.
Determining who is a criminal is also done by consensus, very possibly of other criminals. Anyone who disagrees with the majority is left out in the cold. Your entire wording on the matter is very revealing of your own authoritarianism. You see your enemy as an animal. Too bad you didn't leave that baggage at home. We have no need for such archaic thinking. Tell it to the politburo.
The state has no right to compel anybody to do anything, ever. Your assertion is weaker than a house of cards. It cannot stand, even in zero gravity. The state only has the power of its weaponry to assert its "rights". You merely side with them and rationalize their behavior. In return you are allowed to sleep in your own bed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually the landlord / door analogy works well. Apple is not being asked to break the encryption, they are being asked to bypass the passcode. The passcode is very low tech and analogous to a door that allows entry.
I disagree as the landlord analogy implies that Apple owns the property (the phone) and is not a 3rd party to the situation.
Apple owns the software, we just license it. What is being asked for is a change to the software.
There are tons of things the FBI could do to unlock those phones. But none of those things would result in a tool that will "just work" on any iPhone.
They should really just relocate their head-office to another country in which they already operate.
And take any developers that want to live overseas someplace.
I say have them set up a development centre in THailand, or the Philippines, and then with the influx of Apple Money, the developers, and their families will be living like wealthy estate owners, complete with house-workers, at a fraction of their current Bay Area living expenses.
They would lose the American Tax loophole, which exists because most countries charge taxes based on where management is located, to avoid what the US does: charges taxes based on region incorporated.
Thus, new tech boom begins in Asia, Massive gentrification, and infrastructure improvements paid for by private companies.
It'd be a Republican's dream.
And as a side-effect, would create a new middle class in the area due to the sudden creation of service economies; and raise wealth due to the influx of US$ (or whatever currency they would use to pay employees)
I would relocate if they gave me the option to (and keep my CA salary)
A half wit could tell the difference between "Apple" and "Apple Records". Congrats on being below that level...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A better analogy. The landlord has built physically secure apartments and installed doors that have no master key, that he himself cannot open. That is what sets his properties apart - his stock in trade. He has particular clients that are willing to pay more for their privacy. The government cannot legally rip out the doors, so they have obtained a court order asking the landlord to rip out all the doors and replace them with new doors they can crack; all at his expense.
Could be... but it is nothing less than utter naivety or willful ignorance that could make anyone think that the FBI will not turn around and ask for another phone to be unlocked 10 minutes after Apple were to unlock this one.... and to make the software in such a way that it would not be possible to modify it to work on any device *IS* impossible.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And the FBI is playing along because it supports their story that "strong cryptography is preventing us to get at the data of shooters and terrorists".
Which begs the $64 question:
Do we really give a Flying F--- that the FBI can't get at the data of shooters and terrorists, as long as they can get at the shooters and terrorists themselves?
Also: what precisely did the FBI do, or try to do, to prevent the San Bernardino incident in the first place?
Except that Apple does not have to make the change. The FBI has asked that if Apple does not want to do it, they can hand over their keys and the FBI will do it.
If Apple makes a system where patches are automatically accepted, they have created an expectation that they are like a landlord in some respects.
A landlord often has a key to carry out necessary maintenance on their property. Apple has keys to deliver patches and applications to their phones. Apple can provide the keys and access to the FBI and step away.
Either way, Apple has not installed those impossible doors with no locks. They have the pass key right there. Apple *may* be able to refuse the necessary technical expertise to the FBI, but if the FBI has people who have sufficient expertise, they can do it. The only reason Apple would actually do the work is so Apple can ensure that they keys stay in their possession so they can be sure the FBI won't use their keys to do whatever the hell they want in the future.
So the FBI is saying, open the one door or give us the key and we'll open it, but you won't know if we made a copy of it. But the lock is there to be used, irrespective of the argument, and that is on Apple.
It's just a matter of developing a new, custom payload that's 100% guaranteed not to screw anything up. It's not the same thing.
If the FBI was demanding that Apple install an existing payload (an internal development version or something like that), or sign an FBI-developed payload, it might be equivalent.
Log in or piss off.
This goes beyond searching. They have searched the bodies of the defendants, their homes, their phones, and so forth. They have run into a dead end in a very slim possibility that there may be more data. So they are conscripting the help of a third party. This is not searching with probable cause. It does not sound reasonable to me, though I admit that some people seem to think that acquiescing to any government demand in the name of terrorism is reasonable. As far as approval by the judiciary we won't know that until it gets to the highest court rather than treat a decision by some lower level judge as absolute.
A better analogy is asking a safe maker to open up a safe to which they do not know the combination, and to do so without damaging the evidence. This has been done in the past, though generally the safe maker doesn't have to do the manual labor only to point out some weak spots. In the case of the safes each request is independent and unique, and only someone naive thinks that the FBI is telling the truth that it is only going to have this sort of request only once. However if the safe maker makes too good of a safe that even they will have extreme difficulty in opening it, is it still reasonable to compel the safe maker to continue at great expense or hazard or loss of customers? How much of their time and payroll must they expend before it is unreasonable? How much certainty does the FBI need that the safe contains any evidence before subjecting the safe maker to this expense? Will presidential candidates declare that safes are not allowed to be too good?
Remember also that we have had senior members of the intelligence community suggest that all the FBI has to do is request the NSA do the hacking, and that the FBI is only requesting this of Apple in order to set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the security of the United States.
But should the FBI be able to compel *anyone* to help them? A random person on the street is held in contempt because that person refused to help in an investigation? Where in the constitution does the government have this power? Apple isn't quite a random person but its ties to the crime are extremely tenuous. It really sounds like the FBI is lazy or doesn't have the funds and is going to Apple for help as a convenience.
If the government somehow has the power to compel Apple to assist then I would strongly suggest that we change the government so that it no longer has this sort of abusive power. The government should be there to protect its citizens first and foremost, and part of that protection means it must limit and govern the actions of its law enforcement bodies.
Instead of abandoned trains, the world could be littered with abandoned iPhones... I wonder if they will take Cook to the State Science Institute to "talk" with him. Funny to realize even Guantanamo was forseen.
But Apple doesn't want to turn over the keys. Why should it? Why do you want Apple to hand over the keys? What is wrong with telling the government no? It's very clear that the government is only taking these actions to increase their power and not to help with any investigation of importance. When the former chief in the NSA for counter terrorism and cyber security backs Apple in this regard over that of the FBI, people should pay attention. In this matter the government is WRONG.
Apple may make this for just one phone, but the precedence will be set and the government can come back again and again and ask for more help. They claim that they won't but the government are known liars that should not be trusted. The government also consists of many organizations. The FBI can't make any promises on behalf of the DEA, the ATF, or all those DAs that are on fishing expeditions.
It should not require a constitutional amendment in order for the government to act responsibly. It is a clear abuse of power on the government's part to try and this precedent from Apple, even if it is not technically illegal. It's just a matter for someone higher up to tell the FBI that they're overreaching and to give up and close the case, there are better things for them to be spending their time and budget on.
You didn't read my last paragraph did you? :-)
Again, Apple does not have physical access to the door nor the actual keys that the tenant has set. In the case of the landlord, your analogy breaks down. The door lock is a much better analogy while Apple certainly knows its door locks that it sold better than anyone else, it did not set the tumblers when the tenant and not the owner set the keys.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The alternate iOS that bypasses the passcode delay and auto wipe could be locked to the single device in question ...
The real problem is that this is not a one-time event. If one court can do it then any court can do it.
Could be... but it is nothing less than utter naivety or willful ignorance that could make anyone think that the FBI will not turn around and ask for another phone to be unlocked 10 minutes after Apple were to unlock this one....
You read that second line above? :-)
... and to make the software in such a way that it would not be possible to modify it to work on any device *IS* impossible.
The device locking can not be tampered with. It would require Apple to resign the binaries if the device ID is changed. The point of Apple doing the work is to at least ensure there will be a new court order when a new device is targeted. If the FBI makes the changes and Apple merely signs an FBI produced binary then there will be no device locking and this version could be used without judicial oversight. **If** we have to go down that path Apple must make the changes to ensure the device locking.
Except that Apple does not have to make the change. The FBI has asked that if Apple does not want to do it, they can hand over their keys and the FBI will do it.
Which would be akin to the FBI asking the door lock company to have access to all of its trade secrets and make it so the FBI could pose as the door lock company anytime it wants. That is an even worse intrusion.
If Apple makes a system where patches are automatically accepted, they have created an expectation that they are like a landlord in some respects.
Not in the slightest. Every company today can issue updates and recalls of their own products; such a fix does not grant the company ownership of your house or property. Schlage does not own your house or door or even lock because they issued a fix to one of your door locks.
A landlord often has a key to carry out necessary maintenance on their property. Apple has keys to deliver patches and applications to their phones. Apple can provide the keys and access to the FBI and step away.
Again, your presumption that Apple is the landlord is the fault in your argument. Apple does not have the keys to unlock everything that you changed. AApple has the keys to ensure that you know that the new locks it delivers are genuine Apple locks. Again, because Apple has the technical ability to trick you into accepting iOS FBI Special Edition does not mean that it is right for them to do so. Also, as for Apple "stepping away", do you seriously believe after an hour the FBI is not coming with another phone to unlock. Apple can never step away from the situation.
Either way, Apple has not installed those impossible doors with no locks. They have the pass key right there.
You don't seem to be grasping the main concepts here. Apple does not have the pass key. It never did. The key was set by Farook based on the phone's unique ID.
Apple *may* be able to refuse the necessary technical expertise to the FBI, but if the FBI has people who have sufficient expertise, they can do it. The only reason Apple would actually do the work is so Apple can ensure that they keys stay in their possession so they can be sure the FBI won't use their keys to do whatever the hell they want in the future.
First of all, Apple has provided assistance. Some of which was ignored by the FBI. Second, considering the FBI botched something as simple as a backup, do you think the FBI has the sufficient expertise to do what it wants without botching everything. A serious consequence is that the FBI might unwittingly leak a version which hackers could use to weaken any iPhone. Thirdly, you are still not addressing the main point in that Apple (nor anyone) should be forced to work for the FBI.
So the FBI is saying, open the one door or give us the key and we'll open it, but you won't know if we made a copy of it. But the lock is there to be used, irrespective of the argument, and that is on Apple.
Again, Apple does not have the key. It merely built the lock; it doesn't own the door or the house. The FBI is saying create a new lock that they can lock-pick and trick the door into accepting it. It is no question that the lock has to be replaced is exactly what the FBI has demanded.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The lock is part of the door. The door, and its lock, are Apple's software. Apple is being asked for a master key that doesn't care about the tenant's pin setting inside the tumbler of the lock, the user's passcode on the phone.
FWIW, its not my analogy. I'm just saying the argument(s) made against it were flawed.
You are completely missing the point. Once this has been done once, the FBI will get a similar warrant for every single iphone they come across. Apple will be compelled to sign the code for each device.
No, you failed to read the next two sentences.
The first one to quit needs to be Tim Cook.
Nothing new in years, he should be ashamed of what he's done to the company that was so wonderful.
I wish they had something interesting to buy.
"The state only has the power of its weaponry to assert its "rights". You merely side with them and rationalize their behavior. In return you are allowed to sleep in your own bed."
--This is the essence of the problem.
This "mi" fellow has fascist tendencies... It sounds like he could be a media stooge for an interested party (agency?).
That's the same as saying the U.S. government has become extremely corrupt.
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that the government already employs people that have the skills to hack the iPhone, but simply doesn't want the public to know this?
Should be arrested and charged with treason.
There is always someone who will do anything that is asked of them in order to get a paycheck.
The lock is part of the door. The door, and its lock, are Apple's software. Apple is being asked for a master key that doesn't care about the tenant's pin setting inside the tumbler of the lock, the user's passcode on the phone.
There is no master key and there never was. This is a fact in the matter. Apple has set up its iOS so that it never knows what the keys that the user has set. What Apple is being asked to do is to create a new lock which is easy to defeat by lock-picking and replace the lock that exists with this new special lock. Again, no master key is involved. Apple has neither control of the house, the door, or any relationship with the tenant or landlord.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Funny thing about all of this is that the CIA and Homeland security are saying that we should not be trying to circumvent encryption in our phones as it keeps terrorists out of our business and that is far more important that trying to get into a phone that may or may not have any evidence. Steve Wozniak was saying that the phone in question was probably a bad phone to use as a test case by the FBI. They have all the data that came from the phone and to the phone. They even have the backup images of that phone on the iCloud. They know that phone has nothing on it because it was a work phone and all the data, text and voice coming to and from that phone do not indicate that it was used for anything but work. The phones with the incriminating evidence were the Android phones they destroyed. My view point is: 1. Refuse on the 13th amendment. Apple does not work for the FBI. No man should be forced to work for anyone else if they don't want to, of course the military draft would be the one exclusion to this. 2. The first amendment. Free speech. Since code is able to be copy written like a book then it would be considered speech. What we have here is the Government forcing the coders to speak in a manner that they don't want to. Then there is the Army Quatering act where the Army just can't come into your house and confiscate your property to help out with the war. So what happens if all these coders / engineers leave Apple? Then Apple can claim they can't help out and the government would have to move on. That is from a release from the FBI and prosecutor. One thing to note with Federal prosecutions there are no budgets as in state prosecutions. State prosecutions have budgets and they weight those when going after people and crimes. A small sheriff's department will try to determine the cost of an investigation and try to figure out ways to pay for it. The FBI can spend amounts that could put people on the moon and they just don't care. We as citizen's should care and we should let our legislators know how we feel because they hold the purse strings. I think we all need to contact our legislators and let them know that we don't think a go no where FBI investigation is a waste of money because in the end it will weaken national security.
Paul E. Bahre
The lock is part of the door. The door, and its lock, are Apple's software. Apple is being asked for a master key that doesn't care about the tenant's pin setting inside the tumbler of the lock, the user's passcode on the phone.
There is no master key and there never was.
The "master key" is what Apple is being asked to create. Apple even uses that phrase:
"it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks"
http://www.apple.com/customer-...
Apple has set up its iOS so that it never knows what the keys that the user has set.
This entire discussion is about the passcode, not the encryption key. Oh, and the 5C doesn't work that way, too old a hardware generation.
What Apple is being asked to do is to create a new lock ...
No, they are being asked to defeat an old lock.
Sorry little kid, there is no law at all covering this. None. Nada... Dont believe everything your republican uncle tells you.
"it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks"
The word you are missing is "equivalent".
This entire discussion is about the passcode, not the encryption key. Oh, and the 5C doesn't work that way, too old a hardware generation.
Which Apple does not have either. Er what? The 5C completely works that way. What the 5C does not have is certain features like TouchID.
No, they are being asked to defeat an old lock.
The old lock has multiple protections on it. The order by the court it to replace the old lock with a new lock with fewer protections.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." --Einstein
Casteism
They must say no. They have a duty of loyalty to their employer. They know that their employer is being compelled to direct them to write this code and does not actually want them to write it. To comply with their duty of loyalty, the must refuse. At that point, it would take a court order that specifically named those employees. It will be interesting to see if any court is willing to go that far.
The "master key" is what Apple is being asked to create. Apple even uses that phrase:
"it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks"
The word you are missing is "equivalent".
No, apparently you missed my quotes around "master key".
This entire discussion is about the passcode, not the encryption key. Oh, and the 5C doesn't work that way, too old a hardware generation.
Which Apple does not have either. Er what? The 5C completely works that way. What the 5C does not have is certain features like TouchID.>
No, from iOS Security Guide: ... Each Secure Enclave is provisioned during fabrication with its own UID (Unique ID) that is not accessible to other parts of the system and is not known to Apple. When the device starts up, an ephemeral key is created, entangled with its UID, and used to encrypt the Secure Enclave’s portion of the device’s memory space.
Additionally, data that is saved to the le system by the Secure Enclave is encrypted with a key entangled with the UID and an anti-replay counter."
"For devices with an A7 or later A-series processor, the Secure Enclave coprocessor also utilizes a secure boot process that ensures its separate software is veri ed and signed by Apple
Apple's https://www.apple.com/business...
The 5C does not have Secure Enclave, it's processor is older than the A7:
"Chip
* A6 chip"
https://support.apple.com/kb/S...
The 5C is based on the 5, not the 5S. Only the 5S has Secure Enclave.
No, they are being asked to defeat an old lock.
The old lock has multiple protections on it. The order by the court it to replace the old lock with a new lock with fewer protections.
No, again you confuse the passcode with the encryption. The only thing standing between the phone automatically decrypting its data is the successful entry of a passcode, often only 4 digits. Apple is only being asked to let the FBI past the passcode. Data is only strongly protected by encryption when it is copied off of the device. While it is still on the device it is really only protected by the passcode entry delay and automatic wiping if there are too manny failed passcode attempts. Which is why the FBI wants only these removed.
The problem with slavery wasn't about compensation, it was about compulsion. There's a massive difference between a volunteer and a slave.
The 5C does not have Secure Enclave, it's processor is older than the A7.
Just because the 5C does not have an A7 processor with the Security Enclave does not mean that it does not encrypt its files. If it didn't why the hell would the FBI need Apple to break the passcode? Why hasn't anyone at the FBI or Apple realized that the files can be simply copied off storage and the files retrieved? Why is it so important that Apple disable the Erase Data feature on this 5C if this feature does nothing? As of iOS7, all files are encrypted.
With the A7, Apple hardened the hardware of iOS devices but that does not mean that encryption was not done before the A7. Specifically with the A7, the encryption parts of the OS are now tied to a special hardware section which is separated from the rest of the CPU. I suspect that the A6 with the main part of the processor did the encryption but all files are encrypted with AES 256 bit keys.
No, again you confuse the passcode with the encryption. The only thing standing between the phone automatically decrypting its data is the successful entry of a passcode, often only 4 digits.
I understand the difference but you don't appear to do so. The passcode unlocks the processor to use all the encryption keys which you just contradicted yourself in that if the passcode didn't "decrypt", what is there to decrypt? Also the passcode is now 6 digits as of iOS 7 which was shipped on the 5C.
Apple is only being asked to let the FBI past the passcode.
Um no. Please get the details right. The exact wording of the court order:
Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
Apple is being asked to create a new version of iOS with substantially weakened security features so that the FBI can brute-force attack the passcode which they cannot do with certain features in place.
Data is only strongly protected by encryption when it is copied off of the device.
Um no, the data is encrypted ON the device in flash with 256 bit keys.
In addition to the hardware encryption features built into iOS devices, Apple uses a technology called Data Protection to further protect data stored in flash memory on the device. . . Every time a file on the data partition is created, Data Protection creates a new 256-bit key (the “per-file” key) and gives it to the hardware AES engine, which uses the key to encrypt the file as it is written to flash memory using AES CBC mode.
Why is so hard for you to accept this? If the data was not encrypted on the device, why hasn't any other computer expert (whether at Apple or the FBI) not copied the entirety of the phone's contents to disk by removing the chip and using a chip reader to copy all of the contents?
While it is still on the device it is really only protected by the passcode entry delay and automatic wiping if there are too manny failed passcode attempts. Which is why the FBI wants only these removed.
You link the security paper but you haven't read the paper obviously. While it is not immediately obvious, the automatic wiping feature does not wipe out all the data as this may take too long on a device with lots of files. What is wiped is all the encryption keys making the files basically useless if copied.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Two questions. Consider them both carefully.
The first one is why should us law enforcement be so special? If the FBI is allowed to do this then so should law enforcement from ny other nation, what if one of them does not just limit it to a single device?
Secondly, why on earth should Apple be expected to sign *any* binary that they did not author themselves?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Secondly, why on earth should Apple be expected to sign *any* binary that they did not author themselves?
When a court has ordered them to do so and they have lost all appeals.
Again, in such a scenario they would be morally obligated to make the changes themselves to ensure that the alternate iOS is locked to a specific device so that a new court order is required for each re-targetting to a new device.
The problem with slavery wasn't about compensation, it was about compulsion. There's a massive difference between a volunteer and a slave.
No. Compulsion is only one aspect of slavery. In addition to compulsion and lack of compensation there is also the inhuman treatment, the lifelong service, enslavement of one's children, the breakup of families, the ability to be murdered, etc.
Compulsion by lawful court order alone is not slavery. My father and millions of others were ordered to serve in the military, regardless of their desire to do so and whatever other plans they may have had. And there is something more familiar to millions today, being ordered to show up for jury duty.
I've always been of two minds about this. I admire taking such an action on principle, and certainly you don't want to be in the position of taking actions you can't tolerate. But on the other hand, if all the moral people leave, you get a company full of immoral people (in this case, a company with lots of clout). Is it better to stay and push back from the inside?
The 5C does not have Secure Enclave, it's processor is older than the A7.
Just because the 5C does not have an A7 processor with the Security Enclave does not mean that it does not encrypt its files.
No one said the 5C lacks encryption, this conversation is about getting to encrypted files on a 5C after all. What is being said is that an earlier statement regarding iOS not having access to the device's key is incorrect. Part of the device's key is only hidden from iOS with Security Enclave.
No, again you confuse the passcode with the encryption. The only thing standing between the phone automatically decrypting its data is the successful entry of a passcode, often only 4 digits.
I understand the difference but you don't appear to do so. The passcode unlocks the processor to use all the encryption keys which you just contradicted yourself in that if the passcode didn't "decrypt", what is there to decrypt?
No, you simply misunderstood what I said earlier, that Secure Enclave is required to hide parts of the key from iOS.
Also the passcode is now 6 digits as of iOS 7 which was shipped on the 5C.
No, Apple does not require 6 digits. 4 digits works too and many users are conditioned by previous experience to only use 4. Which is why I wrote "often only 4 digits".
Apple is only being asked to let the FBI past the passcode.
Um no. Please get the details right. The exact wording of the court order:
Did you read it? It describes the delay and autowipe that I mentioned elsewhere in the post.
Apple is being asked to create a new version of iOS with substantially weakened security features so that the FBI can brute-force attack the passcode which they cannot do with certain features in place.
Data is only strongly protected by encryption when it is copied off of the device.
Um no, the data is encrypted ON the device in flash with 256 bit keys.
You missed the important detail that encrypted data is not necessarily "strongly protected". The decryption key is stored on the device with only a weak passcode to protect it. This is weakly protected. When strongly protected the decryption key is not stored, it is regenerated as needed by prompting the user for a passphrase. This on-device storage of the decryption key compromises security, as we see with the FBI only needing to crack the passcode.
While it is still on the device it is really only protected by the passcode entry delay and automatic wiping if there are too manny failed passcode attempts. Which is why the FBI wants only these removed.
You link the security paper but you haven't read the paper obviously. While it is not immediately obvious, the automatic wiping feature does not wipe out all the data as this may take too long on a device with lots of files. What is wiped is all the encryption keys making the files basically useless if copied.
No. You merely describe the implementation detail for wiping. Whether it is the pre-iOS 5 (?) re-writing of flash or the more modern destructions of the keys the process is still referred to as wiping, erasing, etc. See the judicial instructions you cite for an example.
Not enforceable... since Apple would not have authored the binary, they would have no guarantee that it might not be used to harm them. It would be tantamount to a court mandating that an individual play Russian roulette... that doing such a thing might help the FBI in this one particular instance is wholly irrelevant to the fact that it has every potential to harm Apple (almost the *exact* same reason that Apple does not want to write the software themselves in the first place), and a court cannot rightfully order anyone or any company to do something that is self-destructive.
Of course, if justice is thrown out the window, then the court can do whatever the fuck it wants... and just throw the Apple CEO in prison until the company acquiesces. Apple will probably leave the USA entirely if it comes to that.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No one said the 5C lacks encryption, this conversation is about getting to encrypted files on a 5C after all. What is being said is that an earlier statement regarding iOS not having access to the device's key is incorrect. Part of the device's key is only hidden from iOS with Security Enclave.
Again, Apple does not have access to the keys. With the A7, Apple hardened the hardware from tampering; however, if Apple could access the keys in the A6, why the hell has no one proposed that as a solution to the FBI?
No, you simply misunderstood what I said earlier, that Secure Enclave is required to hide parts of the key from iOS.
You did not mention anything of the like earlier. You're exact words were "Oh, and the 5C doesn't work that way, too old a hardware generation." And even if I assume you are correct how does this add to the fact that Apple could or could not unlock the phone?
Did you read it? It describes the delay and autowipe that I mentioned elsewhere in the post
Your exact words: "Apple is only being asked to let the FBI past the passcode." What Apple is being asked to do is not "let FBI past the passcode." It is being asked to lower the security features around the passcode. If it let the FBI past the passcode, the FBI wouldn't need to brute-force attack it.
You missed the important detail that encrypted data is not necessarily "strongly protected". The decryption key is stored on the device with only a weak passcode to protect it. This is weakly protected. When strongly protected the decryption key is not stored, it is regenerated as needed by prompting the user for a passphrase. This on-device storage of the decryption key compromises security, as we see with the FBI only needing to crack the passcode.
I don't know what you mean by "strongly" protected as AES 256 bit is pretty strong for each file whether it is still on the device or not. What you didn't say is that weakest point of the system is the passcode and not the keys. Again Apple does not have those keys.
No. You merely describe the implementation detail for wiping. Whether it is the pre-iOS 5 (?) re-writing of flash or the more modern destructions of the keys the process is still referred to as wiping, erasing, etc. See the judicial instructions you cite for an example.
As of iOS7 (which we have been talking about since the beginning), wiping out the keys is what is happening when Erase Data feature is activated. Anything pre-iOS5 isn't relevant to the discussion.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Again, Apple does not have access to the keys. With the A7, Apple hardened the hardware from tampering; however, if Apple could access the keys in the A6, why the hell has no one proposed that as a solution to the FBI?
Once the valid passcode is entered iOS has access to the key, so brute forcing provides access to the key. On an A7 brute forcing can not be done because the delays are in hardware. On an A6 brute forcing can be done because the delays are in software and are therefore patchable. On a 5C modified firmware/iOS without delays effectively has access to the keys.
You're exact words were "Oh, and the 5C doesn't work that way, too old a hardware generation." And even if I assume you are correct how does this add to the fact that Apple could or could not unlock the phone?
A6 delays in software. A7 delays in hardware.
Your exact words: "Apple is only being asked to let the FBI past the passcode."
Removing the delay and auto wipe is how one gets past the passcode, brute forcing is getting past the passcode. Getting "past" something includes going straight through it.
You missed the important detail that encrypted data is not necessarily "strongly protected". The decryption key is stored on the device with only a weak passcode to protect it. This is weakly protected. When strongly protected the decryption key is not stored, it is regenerated as needed by prompting the user for a passphrase. This on-device storage of the decryption key compromises security, as we see with the FBI only needing to crack the passcode.
I don't know what you mean by "strongly" protected ...
The algorithm and the number of bits in an encryption scheme are not the sole determinants of the "strength" of protection. The protection is also dependent upon the strength of the passphrase used to generate a key, or in the iPhone case the strength of the passcode used to gain access to the on-device copy of a key.
I wrote: "The only thing standing between the phone automatically decrypting its data is the successful entry of a passcode, often only 4 digits. Apple is only being asked to let the FBI past the passcode. Data is only strongly protected by encryption when it is copied off of the device. While it is still on the device it is really only protected by the passcode entry delay and automatic wiping if there are too many failed passcode attempts."
When a court has ordered them to do so and they have lost all appeals.
Not enforceable... since Apple would not have authored the binary, they would have no guarantee that it might not be used to harm them ... a court cannot rightfully order anyone or any company to do something that is self-destructive.
That would be surprising news to the millions drafted into the military under the penalty of court sanctions (imprisonment) for failing to report for induction.
(almost the *exact* same reason that Apple does not want to write the software themselves in the first place)
That's just PR/Legal spin. Apple can lock this alternate iOS to the single device in question. The FBI could not retarget this alternative iOS to another device for the same reason they cannot work around the passcode in the public iOS. Both versions of iOS are protected from tampering by the digital signature. Apple would have to receive a new court order for every retargeting.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you please show me how the bolded part does not apply to what the government is after? You do understand you only have privacy for as long as there is not sufficient reason to get a warrant against you don't you?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I believe there was a search warrant, but, even if there wasn't, the owner of the phone is the City of San Bernardino, which has given permission to the FBI to do whatever they need.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Perhaps you need to reread the fourth, there is no expansion needed as the cause is probable, oath's have been made, the item has been described. What more do you want than a freaking warrant? The writers of the Bill of Rights sure didn't feel more is needed.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You would be correct - they have the actual owner's permission. We just happen to be in a situation where no one has an existing key to unlock it.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
"sufficient reason to get a warrant against you"
In this era of secret courts that concept of 'sufficient reason' no longer means what we think it means. Without meaningful genuine oversight this is all become whatever the government wants it to, at the moment.
We need to reject secret courts. While this current fight is more public, be sure they will become secret again if successful.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm more interested in making violations a physical impossibility, far beyond capabilities of written law. So, if Apple has an unbreakable product (which I don't believe, it's merely for the sake of argument), we are all better off for it. It would render the 4th and 5th moot. A little equalizer between us and the state is a good thing. Look at the bright side, there wouldn't be any Snowdens revealing your plots to take over the world and accompanying porn collection on the internet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Once the valid passcode is entered iOS has access to the key, so brute forcing provides access to the key. On an A7 brute forcing can not be done because the delays are in hardware. On an A6 brute forcing can be done because the delays are in software and are therefore patchable. On a 5C modified firmware/iOS without delays effectively has access to the keys.
While the delays are also in hardware on the A7, iOS has settings which can only be turned off or bypassed with a new version which the FBI wants. Whether it is A7 or A6, the demand would have been the same: Apple must deploy a new iOS version to bypass certain security features.
The algorithm and the number of bits in an encryption scheme are not the sole determinants of the "strength" of protection. The protection is also dependent upon the strength of the passphrase used to generate a key, or in the iPhone case the strength of the passcode used to gain access to the on-device copy of a key
Generally bit size or algorithm is not the single determinant, but I would argue that AES 256 bit encryption is pretty strong given computing today. Maybe in the future if quantum computing becomes feasible enough to crack the keys that is not the case today. The weak point is not in the encryption keys but the passcode.
What you didn't say is that weakest point of the system is the passcode and not the keys.
This was the flow of the conversation:
Me:Apple has set up its iOS so that it never knows what the keys that the user has set.
You: This entire discussion is about the passcode, not the encryption key. Oh, and the 5C doesn't work that way, too old a hardware generation
You mentioned that part later in a different part of the conversation addressing a different matter than whether the 5C does or does not have the necessary hardware to protect the phone.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.