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.
One of those faggots wrote goto fail. They aren't heroes.
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...
Just a marketing ploy, like I do? Are there actually people here that still think there encryption and phones are secure?
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.
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.
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 ?
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..."
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.
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.
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.
"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
I applaud the FBI in diligently rolling up this domestic terror cell, Apple's contempt notwithstanding.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.