Slashdot Asks: Should FBI Reveal to Apple How to Unlock Terrorist's iPhone? (latimes.com)

After reports that the FBI managed to unlock an iPhone 5c belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters without the help of Apple, Apple is now the one that needs the FBI's assistance. "The responsible thing for the government to do is privately disclose the vulnerability to Apple so they can continue hardening security on their devices," said Justin Olsson, product counsel at security software maker AVG Technologies. However, many experts in the field believe that the government isn't legally obligated to provide the information to Apple. As mentioned in Los Angeles Times, this creates a new ethical dilemma: Should tech companies be made aware of flaws in their products, or should law enforcement be able to deploy those bugs as crime-fighting tools?

Comments

Nope, Due Process.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...or should law enforcement be able to deploy those bugs as crime-fighting tools?

Um, no, law enforcement doesn't get to skirt around due-process just because it's inconvenient.

Re:DMCA?

[Duhfus]

No, DMCA has exceptions for law enforcement.

this is not unknown

[supernova87a]

Well, actually, we don't need to leave it to a bunch of internet commenters to decide this issue -- there is an actual process described as "equities review" which the Executive Branch is responsible for, when a cyber vulnerability is known, but not yet disclosed to the public:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blo...>href=https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/28/heartbleed-understanding-when-we-disclose-cyber-vulnerabilities

The considerations described here (in whether to reveal or keep secret a vulnerability) cover:

-- How much is the vulnerable system used in the core internet infrastructure, in other critical infrastructure systems, in the U.S. economy, and/or in national security systems?
-- Does the vulnerability, if left unpatched, impose significant risk?
-- How much harm could an adversary nation or criminal group do with knowledge of this vulnerability?
-- How likely is it that we would know if someone else was exploiting it?
-- How badly do we need the intelligence we think we can get from exploiting the vulnerability?
-- Are there other ways we can get it?
-- Could we utilize the vulnerability for a short period of time before we disclose it?
-- How likely is it that someone else will discover the vulnerability?
-- Can the vulnerability be patched or otherwise mitigated?

In this case, I might argue that this is becoming so well known (though the technical specifics have not been revealed), that the FBI/US had better tell Apple to make sure that other users of the affected phones can be secured -- while the intelligence value of the exploit is rapidly decreasing due to its publicity.

It's a 5C

[bill_mcgonigle]

Apple already knows it's hackable, that's why the 5S and newer have Secure Enclave.

Still, they should make the FBI rue the day they tried to destroy Apple's market, however they can. Revealing the San Bernadito phone as a ploy is the minimum they should pursue.

Yet, ultimately I hope Apple loses an inquiry about this break because it's better for all of us if they see the unconstitutional law enforcement agencies as adversaries.

There, now I've disagreed with both camps.