Slashdot Mirror
FBI Tells Local Law Enforcement It Will Help Unlock Phones (buzzfeed.com)
Salvador Hernandez, reporting for BuzzFeed: Just days after breaking into a terrorist's iPhone using a mysterious third-party technique, FBI officials on Friday told local law enforcement agencies it will assist them with unlocking phones and other electronic devices. The advisory, obtained by BuzzFeed News, was sent in response to law enforcement inquiries about its new method of unlocking devices. Though the dispatch does not explicitly state if the FBI will use the mysterious third-party method to unlock phones for local authorities, officials said the agency "will of course consider any tool that might be helpful to our partners."
The purpose of a lock is only to keep honest people honest.
Serenity now, insanity later.
Salvador Hernandez, reporting(TM) for BuzzFeed
Of note, in this particular case, the terror was so real that the /. editors couldn't manage to remember how to check for simple punctuation friendly to this platform before blessing the post. Either support unicode (I'm neutral on that), or just take a second to scrub the text. Or, where can I send a few lines of genius code I've come up with, which pre-processes submissions, automagically swapping strings representing curly quotes and apostrophes for universally accepted ones?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There does not appear to be anyone disputing that the mechanism developed by the FBI and their technology partner is not one supported by Apple. Legislation such as the DMCA and the Computer Misue Act might have some interesting influence on what is being done here... Obviously we have to bear in mind that if the current laws would look to prohibit what is being done here, then the laws will, *will* be changed. But you have to wonder if there are parties in this game that want to have their cake and eat it...
why do you think the fbi helping the police unlock iphones is a good thing?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
I have no doubt that the FBI's public proclamation of successfully unlocking the San Bernardino and now this intentionally leaked memo are part of a concerted effort to embarrass Apple by discrediting their encryption and privacy technology. I mean when was the last time you heard of the government bragging about having the ability to hack phones? You would expect the opposite since they wouldn't want such capabilities known. In the end Apple will win because this entire episode will motivate them to double down on their stated encryption/privacy policies and work even harder to lock down the phone to prying eyes.
They aren't just talking about the iPhone. This is just the FBI's childish and meaingless response on Apple and others adopting encryption and real security measures.
The FBI is just being a big baby and dragging it's feet in regard the to inevitable outcome of phones and computers being secure, even from them. There is no reason to take anything they say seriously. They are clearly not an organization anywhere near the frontier of hacking, so them extending an olive branch of sorta to cops is just a joke.
This is the multi billion dollar organization that had to hire outside hackers to break into an iPhone. This is just PR to try to make up for the fact that they look like fools asking Apple to help them and then asking for outside help. It's 100% proof that the FBI is mismanaged and/or cannot attract real talent. One issue is that almost nobody wants to work for the FBI.
They don't pay enough and their rules are stupid and no top of their field person is going to want to work under those conditions when they can just NOT do that and force the FBI to hire them as a consultant anyway, but that creates major lag in deal with issues and it's embarrassing and insecure to have to outsource such things.
Police departments all have the same problems. They can't even come close to hiring enough talent to deal with cyber crimes or any kind of computer forensics. However, the FBI is just not in a position to really help much, they are just not that big of an organization and their IT wing is very weak. I'm sure they are better equipped than police departments, but not by much.
It's still 100 times easier to secure a phone than it will be for the FBI or police to break it and that doesn't bode well for the future of computer forensics.
They publish it because it's meaningless PR, not anything real.
I agree that it is a PR case, but I think they are trying to get a bigger PR case by notifying other law enforcement agencies to dig out cases that went unsolved due to being locked out from phones or similar gadgets. If FBI can unlock them and more cases can be solved due to this, then FBI will have more data to support their cases that this technique is something they need.
So, this is a minor PR case which, I guess, FBI hopes will lead up to a big PR case with good data supporting it (many solved crimes which would have remained unsolved if the phones were to stay locked).
99% of people in tech--EVERYBODY who does not work with law enforcement and understands the issues--was against the FBI.
I think there's a very important difference between user freedom (FOSS software) and user privacy (what this is about) that you're missing. Apple puts on more of a show about caring than they actually do, but it's also obvious that they take more steps than just about any other company of their size towards protecting user privacy.
I think that their tendency in this direction arises as much from business goals as is does from any form of altruism. It doesn't take much in the way of mental adeptness to see that Apple's biggest competitor is in the business of learning everything it can about a person in order to target advertisements at users. Apple knows it can't succeed in this business, not without years of incredibly costly work and Google dropping the ball once or twice along the way. It's far better for them to try to deprive Google of what makes them successful by making privacy a feature of their devices, much like they've added other functionality that diminishes the ability to collect information or display ads. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually offer some kind of proxy service that makes online tracking practically impossible.
Really though, Apple is no different in this regard from any other company. Google didn't release their Google Docs because they care about users. Instead it was an opportunity to strike at an area where one of their main competitors (Microsoft) was heavily entrenched and disrupt their business model. You don't have to compete directly at something you're not good at if you can find a way to interfere with or outright nullify those advantages.
Why would the FBI publicly harass Apple about 'helping' break encryption when they already know how. Was it to show Apple were liars about their tech? Was it to save some cash from a 3rd party cracker? Or was it simply to gain some ground in the fear department with the American public? The articles and questions have been flowing, but the truth now is so muddied, I think we won't really know or understand until some new separate events unfold.
Nice appeal to authority. I see you win the argument.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"Just days after breaking into a terroristÃ(TM)s iPhone ..."
So does this mean that we believe they were successful? Are we going to take their word for it? You are free to agree with this government decree, but not me.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society. Choose which one you prefer.
At the end of the day, law enforcement needs to be able to do it's job. Like it or hate it, if encryption can't learn to play nice with the law, the only logical outcome is that encryption will cease to exist.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Using that argument, the US would still be a protectorate of Britain. You separatists didn't play nice with the law back then but now you're advocating it?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
The thing is if it is used in a criminal trial, it can become subject to discovery. And they will only be able to hide behind the "national security" lie for so long before judges get tired of hearing it.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack?
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
To remind you of the facts, this was the work phone of (one of) the persons who embarked on the terrorist attack... which they planned using burner phones that they took some pains to destroy (along with the hard disk from their computer) and succeeded in doing so in a way that the FBI could not recover information.
https://www.inverse.com/articl...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
So, the question is, would they make an effort to to destroy two phones, and not bother destroying the third phone, if the third phone actually had any information on it?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It will be interesting to watch if phone manufacturers use this to spur better encryption and security in next generation phones. Or will public opinion and government meddling make it go the other way..
It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.
Nope. That's a choice made by society, a trade-off between privacy and authority. Law enforcement may say that they "need" a way to access it, but the extent to which we allow law enforcement to access locked vaults is a decision that is made by society, and one of the possible decisions is "no, find a different way to gather evidence."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I'm Canadian. So I guess I would have been a nationalist :) The rest of your analogy I don't even think applies.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That's a misrepresentation.
The FBI had a search warrant, plus permission by the owner of the phone. Apple quite rightfully said that the whole mess has nothing to do with them. They sold the phone a while ago, they gave the FBI all the information they had about the phone, and that's it. And they didn't mind giving the FBI information, what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones, and inofficially hearing about a court case against them in the press and not from the FBI or the court.
Clearly since Apple didn't want to do what they are told, their lawyers, like every good lawyer would do, lists every single argument, no matter how reasonable or unreasonale, why Apple shouldn't have to do as they were told. One of these arguments, one of many, was the argument that creating this software is speech, and you can't be prevented by the state to use your right of free speech, _or_ to be forced to speak. But that's just one thing in a long list.
All of this was irony and stupidity. The government agency that the gunman worked or had access to the phone as it belonged to the government agency and FBI stupidity lost them that access. Then they told Apple that they had to provide them the key to the phone. Apple correctly told them that no such thing exists as only the user (and in this case the employer, until they lost it) have the key. So then the FBI tried to make the case that they could force Apple to rewrite their software and then force update the phone to allow the phone to be unlocked without the key. A case that the FBI lost in parallel in a court case in New York shortly after on the same issue citing the same law they were trying to use in California. Seeing the wind blowing against them, the DOJ backed out with as much "dignity" they could muster. The court, not using the legalise, did not like the idea that the government could compel a company, who was under no criminal charges themselves on this, to provide product development and assistance to the government against their will to undermine their own products and services. The FBI deserved to have their asses handed to them in shame on this.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
My premise is that when presented with the problem of an unbreakable lock, governments will either find a way to open those locks, or to prohibit the use of those locks, in the name of preventing crime and upholding justice. Can a power like this potentially be used against law abiding citizens? Of course. This is not a new problem, it just has a new medium. We need to ensure that law abiding citizens are protected, while criminals are not. Just like we always have. Do we try to work with law enforcement within the framework of the existing checks and balances we already have? Or do we treat law enforcement like the bad guy and refuse to work with them in any aspect? Each choice has consequences to society. Consequences we must be aware of and willing to accept. The consequences could be new laws, or even drastically redifining the role and effectiveness of law enforcement in our society.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones
This is such an important aspect of the argument, and it's so difficult to find any information on this. I hear this touted over and over again without any substance to back it up. Why would Apple's cooperation result in destroying the security of all their phones? From a technical standpoint, it seems extraordiary to claim that it's "all or none" when it comes to iPhone security and then offer no technical indication why this is the case. If you have any information on this I'd be happy to receive it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Nice appeal to authority. I see you win the argument.
The appeal to authority as a logical fallacy exists when you appeal to the authority of someone unqualified. This is identifying a consensus among qualified people who are unbiased.
While this can certainly be defeated logically, dismissing it out-of-hand as an appeal to authority is childish and fails to recognize that the world is complex and fields have experts. They can certainly be wrong--but simply saying "The FBI had a warrant" is not even close to a logical argument defeating the concerns of almost every expert in the free world. At most it is an answer to one constitutional concern that does not really apply in this particular case but will in the next one.
The FBI's statement was that they extracted the data from the phone. That does not mean the FBI has decrypted the data. Nor do I ever expect to see anything that indicates they decrypted it. They were far more careful in the wording of that statement than they were in anything in their legal wrangling with Apple.
The FBI had to claim they didn't need Apple's assistance any more. Apple's lawyers were severely embarrassing the FBI and their lawyers in the lead-up to the judge's decision. The FBI could not allow the judge to create the obvious precedent that was about to come. They had to vacate their case. No other conclusion makes any sense.
Anything that Apple would produce to use to unlock these phones would be signed with their cryptographic signature. There is no discovery value in obtaining the signature producing system. So Apple is protected in any case.
This whole issue was spun up to the level it was so Apple's Marketing department could differentiate their 'secure and updated' product from competitors in the media. The waves of spam and discussion that roll out even today, i.e. this article on Slashdot, are motivated to a significant degree by the Apple hype machine.
That's why this is an apple.slashdot.org article. If they don't get revenue from Apple for keeping this subdomain active, they should be.
Do we try to work with law enforcement within the framework of the existing checks and balances we already have?
It's so important that we ignore detractors and strive to do more of this. There is a sentiment within Law Enforcement where they refer to common citizens as 'civilians' that needs to be discouraged. Law Enforcement is a peer component of society.
From a technical standpoint, it seems extraordiary to claim that it's "all or none" when it comes to iPhone security and then offer no technical indication why this is the case.
A major security feature that prevents hackers from getting into an iPhone is the fact that an iPhone only accepts new firmware if it is signed by Apple. It's very hard to get firmware onto an iPhone. But it is easy to copy firmware including the signing key off an iPhone! And once the FBI has done that, they can install the same software, because it _is_ signed by Apple, on any other iPhone.
It's like your burglar proof home - it may be hard to break in, but you probably have nothing that prevents someone from breaking out. Apple had and has no reason to prevent anyone from copying their firmware.
And it does work this way. You don't get into an "unbreakable lock" without a warrant. A warrant from a third party legislator that reviews the evidence and determines if there's reasonable cause to believe the information behind the lock can be used to solve or prevent a crime. This is a good check that serves to uphold the constitutional requirement of freedom to privacy for law abiding citizens. One we have been using just fine for centuries.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's important to remember this argument isn't about encryption, but rather what a company and/or individuals rights are with regards to their encrypted data. Apple's horribly designed and implemented anti-theft system was actually enforced by California law. This kill switch on the encrypted data is the problem. Again, this kill switch only exists because Apple apparently selectively decides when they will follow intrusive laws. The kill switch is what Apple was served a warrant to help the FBI navigate, not the encryption.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You are correct sir. I would say Mr. Cook and his marketing team made one fatal error however. They should have tried to keep this as quiet as possible and chose another case to make their stand. Standing firm on the side of a known mass murderer immediately weakens your case with the masses. I don't know a single non-technical person taking Apple's side in this argument. And the technical people that do, seem to do so more as a matter of ideological principle, than one that has actually carefully looked at the circumstances and made an informed opinion.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This thing will probably escalate to Police confiscating phones now during pullovers, to see if you're even slightly crooked so they can take your money.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
It is a response to a flood of the same questions from multiple sources. It basically reads as "we will help if we can, as we always have, so stop bothering us."
It is definitely not a declaration that they can and will break into any and all phones.
Go on and read it, verbatim in tfa. Especially who signed it at the bottom.
It's important to remember this argument isn't about encryption
How's the weather over in Quantico, you pig?
It's my thread, I'll shit on it if I like. And "we" perhaps was used incorrectly, but I think you know Canada has similar laws and charters. Being Canadian doesn't make my opinion any less valid although, I agree it is a convenient scapegoat for you.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The only thing to stop you from breaking any law is the enforcement of it. So what they can do, is put you in jail for making such a lock. This is clearly something we don't want to encourage. Hence my desire to work with a balanced and checked law enforcement to restrict crime while protecting individual rights and freedoms.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Wait... I forgot...... Does Obama dump the screaming new born kids in the fire @ Bohemian Grove during the Cremation of Care Ritual , OR Just the High Priest? Drone The Grove 2016! Yes Grandma, for the last time there will be countless wave after wave of Drones flying above the Bohemian Grove streaming the Cremation of Care Ritual to YouTube and CNN, get over it and take your pills silly...
> It's my thread, I'll shit on it if I like.
This is the only correct thing you've said so far. You'll note, I've read your entire argument now. And, suffice to say, you're not even close to right.
Apple was not, for starters, served a warrant. They were given an order, done via the All Writs Act. The two are not even remotely the same but they each carry different emphasis on legal protections.
You're not just wrong, you don't understand the issue at hand and are basing your whole argument on this premise. Well, I guess you can move the goal posts if you want but that'd just be silly. You know I paid better attention than that.
Even if it *were* a warrant, the idea that a person can not be compelled to speak is a damned essential liberty. It's so important, we enumerated it as the 5th Amendment. And no, the number isn't an indicator of importance - they're all equally important.
Even barring that, making things the government can not access has been a long and healthy tradition and is a right for a reason. No, we can make unbreakable locks - the government is not all-powerful. And no, we do have a choice in the matter. In fact, we have a whole host of choice in the matter - up to, and including, violence.
The government should be scared of the people, not the other way around. Maybe now you'll understand but probably not. Ah well... You did your best.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The entire problem is that these devices are already designed so that you have no privacy or control. Precisely why this is being debated is because Apple has so much control over what you can and can't do with your phone, and they operate as the central hub for everything. If they didn't, they'd be absolved of the obligation to help.
So you're right, if one institution can access all your data, then so can everyone else. However that process starts with the manufacturer of the hardware and software. As long as they remain obsessed with controlling your entire "experience", other agencies are going to try to tap into that power.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
They are in violation of DMCA anti-circumevntion and other computer crime law. Turn the instruments they use against the people back upon them. They are also violating Rico.
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
We don't know that. No one knows what this iPhone was used for. That is why someone wanted to open it up and take a look, to determine *if* anything is there. As others have pointed out the murderers left plenty of evidence lying around at home, not all evidence was destroyed. Was this phone at home? Did they want to keep one working phone with them, so they used the less incriminating phone?
The only fact we know is that it was the County's phone and the County gave permission to open it and look. The owner consented to the search, so search and seizure rules would not apply as they normally do with an uncooperative owner.
That is complete BS. A public relations and legal maneuver that Apple used to frame the argument, the debate. If Apple had made the modification to firmware/iOS then they could have added code to lock fbiOS to one unique device. This locking to a device could not be tampered with, fbiOS being protected by Apple's digital signature. A new court order would have been needed for each new device, so at least there would be judicial oversight in the "near nightmare" scenario.
... Looking forward to iPhone 8 or 9 where all the security currently residing in firmware/iOS is moved into Apple's custom CPUs where it is unpatchable.
By forcing the FBI to go the internal or 3rd party route we now may have the "nightmare" scenario where a universal tool is available to all law enforcement, possibly with its use not done under proper judicial supervision. Apple is partly responsible for this. Yes, Apple was in a pretty f'd up situation, but that happens. Sometimes you have to deal with no good outcome, negative/negative decisions.
Well, at least for now
The order from the judge was first. The All Writs act was second.
If you're going to understand what this argument is about it's important you understand what it is. Lines like this:
"making things the government can not access has been a long and healthy tradition and is a right for a reason"
prove you have an understanding gleaned from popular mechanics headlines, not one from actual critical thought given to the case specifics.
The facts:
Apple phones are encrypted by default. The encryption is not directly reversible by Apple, nor anyone without access to the encryption keys. Encryption is acheived through one way mathematical formulas. The only way to reverse good encryption is through brute force. Apple phones run a program on the device that operate a "kill switch" for access to the encrypted data after a series of failed attempts.
The dilemma:
The FBI, through the order of a federal judge, asked Apple to help them remove the kill switch so they could access the data in its native form. Apple refused, erroneously citing global privacy conerns.
The result:
The FBI has now simply given up on the idea of going through "the front door" and has mounted the data in another way they can brute force it outside of this "kill switch". Apple has continuosly manipulated the story pretending like they would have to compromise every iPhone in existence, or give the FBI the keys to the castle for this to be possible. The truth is, they could have easily cooperated with virtually no reprecussions. The FBI simply wanted the designer of the booby trapped front door to help them disable it. Instead, they opted to carve their own door into the side of the structure. The result is nearly the same.
Now that you should have a more informed understanding of the case you can hopefully look less foolish when you try to talk about it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Apple asked the FBI to file their request to the judge secretly (as generally is done in these situations), the FBI filed it publicly and then started their own PR campaign to try to put public pressure on Apple.
The FBI then realized that Apple is also pretty good an marshaling public support, and that Apple can afford better lawyers; the FBI then took a tactical retreat.
So why is the FBI still talking so publicly about cracking phones? No idea, I don't see any tactical advantage in it. I think they've just got hurt feelings and it's a form of chest-thumping.
It's that simple. I don't think either company is good or bad or altruistic, but fundamentally Apple has every incentive to protect user privacy because it's a differentiator for them and thus helps them to sell more hardware--which is where they make all their money. Apple sets up all of their user-facing services such that Apple themselves often don't have access to user-data. For example, Apple isn't in the loop for Apple Pay--they have no knowledge of what things you've bought with Apple Pay. Why? because they don't care, they just want you to but another iPhone someday.
Google has a more complicated relationship with user privacy because they make their money selling targeted ads, and fundamentally they want to know everything they can about their users to better target ads.
Clearly Apple & Google compete--and probably there's a bit of the undercutting that you talk about, but there's a simpler explanation if you just look at where the companies make their money.
Real the legal blogs--the FBI was getting slapped around by Apple's lawyers.
The free speech argument seems silly--until you realize that prior precedent has ruled that "code" is "speech" and that the first amendment also protects you against "coerced speech"--and thus "coerced code". It seems a little silly to engineers, but that's the law.
There were a half-dozen other arguments that were all pretty strong.
They never claimed it couldn't be broken--in fact they disputed the FBI's claim that they needed "Apple's help" to break into the iPhone.
And, again, that's an order, not a warrant. At this point, I can only assume you're trolling. Read your own link. Hell, just CTRL + F and search for warrant.
You've stated that we're not allowed to create things that the government can't access. That's actually the most retarded thing I've heard all day and I've already explained why.
You can pretend you don't understand if you want. The world's full of stupid people and you can pretend to be one of them. I have no idea what would prompt you to do so but it seems to make you happy. Look at your OWN link. Search for warrant... No moving the goal posts but, even if you did, the same rebuttal applies that it is both perfectly lawful and necessary to be able to do so. We've had safes that can't be opened without risk of damaging the content. We've had evidence that could never be recovered.
We dealt with it like big adults. Be a coward on someone's rights. Leave mine alone.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
More importantly, search the article for "All Writs", as that was your claim. A judges order is a warrant. He writes the order on a peice of paper and thats what you call that thing. Call me a coward, pretend like the government is all over your lawn, do what you want. The facts speak louder than your hyperbole. That's why no one ever takes you seriously when you talk.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That will not work, because the damage is already done. Once the firmware is signed, unless Apple has a way to revoke that signature and get that revocation out to EVERY OTHER iPhone in existence, the firmware can be installed on any iPhone. It also makes creating such revocations pointless because Apple would need to resign the modified firmware every time the FBI / NSA / whoever wanted to use it, and then that signature would need to be revoked and sent out to all of the iPhones in existence for the revocation to be effective again.
This means four things:
1. There's a window of opportunity for the FBI / NSA / etc, to get the modified firmware installed on other devices before Apple can get the new revocation sent out. (Devices they may not have a warrant for.)
2. There's the possibility that the FBI / NSA / etc could block Apple's revocation update from reaching the devices. (The revocation must reach a given device for that device to be immune to the modified firmware being installed without authorization by a judge's warrant.)
3. This assumes that all iPhones in existence will have the needed storage space to hold ALL of these revoked signatures. (We already have 100+ requests just from Florida and New York. How many do you think would be generated in a year nationwide?) If the iPhone can't store the revoked signature, it will allow the installation of a firmware bearing that signature. Not to mention that the ever increasing list of revoked signatures will increase the time it takes for the phone to process firmware upgrades, and increase their size. Eventually the phone WILL run out of space to store those signatures and then that phone is vulnerable to anyone (not just law enforcement) in possession of a firmware it does not have a revocation for.
4. This also assumes that Apple's campus is perfectly secure, and that any and EVERY attempt to get such a modified firmware out of the lab and into the world would be caught before that firmware got out. Do you trust that Apple has that capability? Do you believe that every single person who may come into [direct contact with / direct access to] that modified firmware will safeguard it? That they will not be coerced / blackmailed / bribed / etc. into giving that modified firmware to those who would abuse it? Because that's one hell of a failure mode if you have to prevent the poaching of that special firmware every single time the attempt is made. I seem to recall that issue cropping up elsewhere in the US political system......
Long story short, it's better not to deal with this at all, than to make the attempt at doing so and put everyone (not just the criminals) at risk.
For extra credit, this is but one company and one product. Now think about how this would work for any product / company the government wanted to apply this to, and how much of a risk to the public would be created if this were to be attempted on every company and every product.
I was under the impression that the DMCA rendered circumventing a digital lock to be illegal.... so why is the US government, who created that law, boasting about how they are circumventing the digital locks Apple has created for its devices? Surely evidence is inadmissible if it has been illegally obtained.
Apple is arguing that writing software constitutes free speech. Therefore, forcing them to write software to help solve a crime would be infringing on their free speech. Except, the problem the FBI is encountering was created by Apple complying with a law that required them to write anti-theft software into their OS. Ironic, to say the least.
Apple isn't arguing that writing software is speech. Apple is repeating the declaration by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that source code is speech. This may have also gone to the Supreme Court; I can't find a current reference to it, although not being American, I may not be looking in the right place.....
Your claim that Apple has already implemented code in response to California's legal requirements doesn't hold water, either. Yes, Apple implemented anti-theft code that was compatible with California anti-theft regulations. This does not mean that the government now has carte blanche to require any "features" they feel should be implemented in Apple's software.
Apple could very well have thought that anti-theft code was a good idea, and implemented it anyway, even without California's regulations. I think it's a good idea, too. Does that mean I have to give up all my free speech rights, or I'll be a hypocrite? Of course not. Don't be an idiot.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Don't be stupid.
Please take your own advice. You don't think they wanted to have one device to monitor news, for calls, message, emails, etc. You think they wanted to be completely out of touch and blind?
... but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look ...
That's the point. But more importantly, criminals get caught or implicate others all the time because they make *** mistakes *** and *** forget *** things and occasionally get *** sloppy ***. Its not wishful thinking to examine a secondary phone, its prudent investigatory procedure. Prisons are full of people doing things you apparently would not expect them too.
Apple could very well have thought that anti-theft code was a good idea, and implemented it anyway
Then we should have, at the very least, been flooded in the media with the same "slippery slope" hyperbole we're seeing now. If they cared as much as they are pretending to at least. Or is it OK to inhibit free speech when the cause is agreed upon? Stange ethics this generation has.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In related news, they neglected to announce that the propaganda song-and-dance show worked perfectly and most of the public now believe that Apple courageously stood up to the FBI's demands and hadn't given them access years ago.
It's also important to note that the anti-theft law is only intended to brick a device to prevent it from being used on another network without the owners consent. The software in no way gives the ability to unlock a phone already secured, only brick it.
RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
Re: Anti-theft. Not forced speech. Apple was left in a position where they could modify the phone or not sell any more phones. The law applies only to new phones sold in California. It did not require specific performance.
Did you actually read the LA article you posted. Creating the back-door the FBI wanted would greatly decrease the value of the product in both China and the U.S, the U.S being afraid of Chinese exploits and vice versa. You would in effect set up a situation where smart phone vendors would be locked into a single government and unable to sell to potential adversaries due to security fears. There would be huge incentive for these exploits and backdoors to be leaked anyway. Next to follow hardware designers and chip fabricators. We are much better off with a few neutrally secure smart-phone vendors then dozens of fragmented hegemonies.
Your link to free speech being revoked is simply bullshit. Missing from the link is any order to divulge passwords, and missing from the summary is the accusation that actually got Terry Child prison time: mainly the pattern of behaviour and UNAUTHORIZED COMPUTER ACCESS to put himself in the position as the only person to know the passwords. It was not simple accident, but allegedly result of criminal behaviour that led to his position of sole password knower, criminal behaviour which he was thrown in jail for.
Computers and code are dumb and mechanical The same input leads to the same output. Prima Facie you can break the security of all or none. The burden of proof is on those who propose a back-door on why this would not be so.
The FBI might be able to keep this special "recovery" image secret, but if you add in the other agencies of other nations that would also demand it once it was written, somewhere someone will leak it. Apple keeps the ability to boot into a recovery environment because their techs may need to run software of a device that has corrupt, faulty, or replaced flash memory to repair, replace or update the primary OS. It has to run where there may not be network access and thereby can't run a device-specific approval request by Apple on every boot (like the update mechanism does), the only way to guard against a malicious/backdoor "recovery" image would be for apple to revoke the signing key, but such a revocation would only help phones that actually receive that update. (That phone you lost with racy picture of your mistress three months ago, still vulnerable if your wife actually decided to steal your phone and sit on it... good luck in family court)
So if Apple was just one of several software vendors for the iPhone hardware, you'd be a-okay with their refusal? I don't think the bundling has any legal significance. If bundled the user makes the trust decision on purchase, if unbundled upon installation. As much as I dislike the walled garden, the issue isn't relevant here. Unless you want to say a user ought to be responsible for vetting every update, then there is going to be a golden signing key to update vital parts of the OS... Mac has it, Windows has it, most Linux distributions have them, and there are ways for the end-user to lock the system to run only signed code. You can lock Mac, Windows, and Linux to run only software and firmware that is properly signed by third-parties. Does the court have authority to compels any and all of these third parties to create signed and compromised versions of their software?
I think it's the other way around, the FBI backing out of a case that will set the precedent that's the exact opposite of the one they were trying for.
How so? By not kneeling to the FBI overlords at their beckoning whims?
Because the FBI claims to have gotten help from someone else to break in and subsequently drops the case just when it's looking really positive they'll lose and set a precedent that the government can't make demands like that anymore? On top of that, they claim to have gotten into the phone, but of course we only have their word for it. (And that they didn't get into long before they made the demands on Apple for as far as that goes.)
Now I'm not saying Cook isn't a lowlife of some kind. After all, he is a CEO, and they aren't exactly known for morals. But I'm kind of wondering how you came up with your statement.
LoL. I agree, and have been making much the same points, as have other people.
I saw an FBI agent in an office store collecting sample printouts from various printers so he could build a model typeface database like they have for the old physical typewriters.
It took a while for me to explain it to the point where he finally got, but he eventually understood that the fonts used were determined by the computer, not the printer. They don't have any physical typefaces, and can print with any font you want. (Sure, there are some differences between the print heads, but it's pretty bloody minor in most cases and tends to have little to no distinguishing characteristics, especially since many components are sourced from other companies, and those can change several times in a single manufacturing run.)
Of course it's prudent. They are not likely to find anything, but it's worth looking.
But it's not "OMG if we don't crack this phone disaster! People will die! The terrorists win! It's either crack this phone or America is destroyed!"
It's a cover the bases thing. But like all things, it's a trade off, Do you understand that there are some good arguments that forcing Apple to write new software to drill a hole in their own security system may not be entirely a good thing? A trade off is a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the benefit is not very large.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Apple could have offered to set up a sanitised lab in Cupertino, or they could have offered to run the brute force themselves. It doesn't follow that the FBI was demanding a permanent backdoor. This is a lie Apple, and their frothing supporters, set up to fortify their position.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
They will have their own firmware that is signed by Apple and installable on every iPhone out there. When it leaks, anyone can make firmware for those phones. (And yes, it will leak). Pretty fucking simple really isn't it, when you're not being deliberately obtuse?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Perhaps they could have, but That's not what the FBI asked for though. They asked for software that they could run on arbitrary phones. The FBI asked apple to write, sign, and deliver software capable of bypassing security features. Additionally not every pin is four digits, it could be eight, in which case it would take years instead of days to brute force the phone. How many combinations would Apple be obligated to try? And even in thier own lab the bypass is not guaranteed secure, and the existence of such software would invite demands for access or copies from other nation-states.
Addtitionally Apple's involvement in a brute for is niether neccessary, nor are they they most qualified to carry out the attack.
Okay, how much work do you think a person or company should be required to do in order to comply with court orders? Does your answer change if the work is to create something the person or company thinks is harmful to them?
Apple handed over all the evidence they had. What more should they be required to do? The FBI went a lot farther than the Chinese government did in demanding the removal of security. Even if you believe the propaganda about the Childs case being just about passwords, we're still talking about handing over information already available. No court was going to order Childs to construct a way of breaking into the routers without erasing their configuration.
I don't really care about Apple's motives. I care about their actions, and approve of them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Of course the writ was so written, to cover up the intended coercion. Once Apple wrote the software, they would find themselves compelled to use it again and again, to the point where the software might leak.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You present no support for your argument. The third alternative is that the government can acknowledge that there's things they just can't do and go ahead anyway. A defendant may not be coerced to testify against himself or herself, and has the right to confront his or her accusers. It isn't generally illegal to destroy possible evidence of a crime (it gets complicated).
Currently, people in the US can use strong encryption, and can use passwords of arbitrary strength. This means that people already can protect their data so that the government can't get at it, and there doesn't seem to be a strong popular demand to prevent that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
When ordered by an independent court, a person or company should be required to comply with a reasonable amount of work, and perhaps be reasonably compensated for such. This is not an unusual request and happens all the time. Of course it is your right to refuse, but penalties may ensue if you're refusing a lawful court order (as with Childs). A deadbeat Dad probably doesn't want to pay child support, but it is his obligation. We all have obligations as citizens.
The motives are very important in this case. If this is just a public relations stunt by Apple (which at this point seems highly likely) then it erases their entire civil rights defensive argument. The law does not operate on absolutes, but rather on reason and careful consideration. If Apple could have assisted an investigation, with little harm to their company or the security and privacy of law-abiding citizens, then there's no reasons left they couldn't have assisted, besides utterly selfish ones.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You seem to have no difficulty in considering Apple's legal arguments "erroneous", without showing evidence that you know what they are, or what the actual US law says. However, you seem to have great difficulty in envisioning the situation if Apple had complied, and you are taking the FBI at their word while arbitrarily dismissing Apple's arguments and statements without understanding them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The facts are that the FBI had access to the phone, destroyed it, and eventually filed a court order asking for Apple's cooperation. The FBI had not bothered to ask Apple for cooperation first, and didn't even notify them that the order was on its way. Apple filed counterarguments, a good many people who should know agreed that Apple's arguments were generally valid, and the FBI withdrew the order. The FBI then claimed to have paid an Israeli company to break the security on the phone, and said no more about it.
Other facts are that strong encryption and passwords are permitted in the US, and US courts have been reluctant in general to require suspects and defendants to hand over passwords, since that at least comes close to self-incrimination. This has been the case for some time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Please be more specific on the "reasonable" amount of work, since there are two differing opinions on whether what the FBI asked for is reasonable. What the FBI asked for is an unusual request, and does not happen all the time. Apple did not refuse to comply with a lawful court order; instead, Apple challenged it in court, which they have a perfect right to do. That the FBI then withdrew the demand and did something else entirely strongly suggests that Apple would have been successful, and that the court order overreached.
The motives can be important. What are yours? Apple made an argument that complying with the order would have hurt the security and privacy of law-abiding citizens, and the FBI backed down.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes