I'd be highly concerned if a router only covered a two dimensional area. You definitely want to pay extra for the router that can cover a cube or a sphere.
Do you really think the FBI would stop at the one phone? They've already admitted that there are more cases awaiting this precedent to be set. If the unlock tool is set for one phone, then they'll just tell Apple to set it for a second phone, and a third, etc. As more and more phones are unlocked, the crimes justifying the unlocking would get less and less severe until local law enforcement can get an iPhone unlocked because they say the driver was speeding.
And if Apple ever closes the loophole, you can bet that the government will use the precedent to say that Apple is purposefully removing access they already had an thus is obstructing justice. Apple would be forced to push updates to weaken their security again.
He'd get the rabbits to pay for it. They'd win against the rabbits so much that they would cry "can't we just lose to the rabbits once", but Trump wouldn't let them lose because he only wins. (Except when he doesn't, but when he doesn't win, it was someone else's fault, not his and he'll throw a fit over it.)
And that's also just US cases. How many governments world wide would love to be able to break into an iPhone for law enforcement purposes? (Where "law enforcement purposes" might mean an actual crime was committed or that the phone's owner just did something to upset the ruling class.)
Usually companies served with a warrant can be compelled to provide something they already have. If the FBI needed the e-mails that someone sent via GMail, they could compel Google to serve them up. However, the question is can the government require a company to create something entirely new just to further an investigation? The FBI wants Apple to write software to remotely apply to the iPhone that would remove the "10 attempts and phone is wiped" restriction and that would let them try PINs in an automated fashion. This software doesn't exist right now in any form. The danger is that if Apple can be compelled to weaken their products "just this one time," then they'll be told to weaken them further for other investigations and they'll be told to write other software because the government demands it (and without compensation for their efforts).
Unfortunately, it's a wing that's being pushed aside by the GOP in favor of the religious right, anti-science zealots, and folks who see "terrorism" as the key to expanding their powers (while slicing and dicing our liberty). Here's hoping those people split off from the GOP and leave it to the libertarians. I might be likely to vote for a libertarian, but I'd never vote for someone like Cruz.
Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches? Warrant-based searches are explicitly supported in the fourth amendment you site. We've lived with court-ordered warrants since the country was founded, which strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement to obtain evidence against the sanctity and privacy of our homes and personal property. At this moment, if a judge ordered it, law enforcement could come into your home and demand access to absolutely everything you own. What is it, in your opinion, that makes a phone different than anything else that we consider personal or private?
Because they're not saying "Hey Apple, we know you have a key to this door so open it for us." Apple DOESN'T have the ability to decrypt the phone. What the government is asking Apple to do is write software to 1) remotely disable the "10 PIN tries and the phone is wiped" security feature and 2) allow PIN attempts to be automated from outside the phone. The FBI would use this to break into the phone rapidly (as opposed to trying 10 times and then having the phone's contents erased).
There are two big problems here. The first is that the government is telling Apple to write an entirely new tool - one that doesn't exist and one that will majorly compromise ALL Apple devices. They aren't going to pay Apple's engineers for this or compensate Apple for lost business due to being seen as less secure. Instead, they're just demanding that Apple drop everything and compromise their own security.
The second problem is that it won't be "just for this one phone." The FBI wants Apple to give them this ability but promises to only use it this one time. Does anyone really think the FBI will use this code once and then delete it entirely? Or will they keep it around to decrypt the next phone and the one after that? Does anything think the FBI would limit the use of this for terrorism related purposes or would they expand the use to murders, child abduction, etc? Of course, they'll use it multiple times for many different crimes. And as the use expands, it'll be easier and easier to for them to justify using it for less severe crimes. Eventually, they'll be able to decrypt your phone because they think you might have downloaded a copyrighted song.
The FBI isn't asking for a "one and done" decryption. They are asking for sweeping new powers in their fight against privacy and encryption - not in any fight against crime.
As many people have previously stated, I believe it has nothing to do with the data on the phone. It has everything to do with the FBI setting a legal precedent.
Exactly this. The FBI (and other law enforcement organizations) don't like the "encrypt everything" directions many companies are headed in. Sure, it protects our privacy, but the FBI and company would prefer to be able to look into any phone at any time. (They're REALLY like to do it without a warrant, but that's mostly another fight.) They needed a precedent setting case that would make Apple "look bad" for opposing decryption*. The obvious play was a case involving terrorism. After all, so many other reductions in freedom happened to "make us more secure from terrorism." Who would possibly be FOR more terrorism? So they push Apple to do it just this one time, because terrorism, and expected Apple to roll over. Of course, if Apple does give in, the "just this one time" will happen again and again and will expand from terrorism to "think of the children" crimes and other major legal infractions. Pretty soon, the county sheriff would be able to decrypt a phone because someone was suspected of jaywalking.
Of course, it also wouldn't stop with the US. Other law enforcement agencies in other countries would demand Apple give THEM the power to decrypt phones as well. Also, the code used would eventually leak to hacker groups who would use it to further compromise the security of Apple devices.
Apple sees the slippery slope very clearly and is thankfully pushing hard to avoid going down it.
* The FBI is actually asking for the ability to guess the PIN more than 10 times without the phone being erased and for these guesses to be automated to speed it up, but this is essentially amounts to a "decrypt this phone for us" request.
I agree with you about Rubio (and Sanders). I don't like Trump's ego would let him take the VP slot, though. He has to be #1 and if he's not then he was cheated and needs to attack/sue/blame someone else. When it comes down to it, I'm not sure who frightens me more: The egotist, loose cannon Trump because you never know what he'll attack next or the intelligently calculating, religious zealot Cruz because you DO know what he'll attack (science, religious freedoms for anyone who isn't Christian).
The problem is that there are official channels that Snowden was "supposed" to have used to report what he found, but other people who used the official channels wound up prosecuted for daring to report what they found. When you make an official channel and then attack anyone who uses it, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't use the official channels. You can't hold up an official channel as a valid alternative if people don't feel safe using it.
Let's assume for a moment that Snowden's revelations were of criminal government overreach of power (setting aside, for the moment, whether his reveals compromised non-US-citizen spying efforts since that's a different discussion), how should he have proceeded? Just put his head down and ignore what was going on because that was his orders? Try the official channels figuring that his fate would be different than all of the other people who used them?
The demands would never stop from US law enforcement agencies. And then they would roll in from governments around the world. And then some hacker group would get their hands on the "unlock" tool and repurpose it to break into any iPhone at any time.
If Apple breaks the encryption, there is no way that it will be just for this one phone and that's it.
I was called in for jury duty a few months back and the judge asked everyone who was called up whether they were ever victims of a crime or were ever accused of a crime. Most of those people were excused unless they could honestly say that it wouldn't color their judgment of the defendant. One of the people called up was a lawyer and they went back and forth about whether he could apply the law as the judge said to apply it and not how he, himself, understood the law. He wasn't selected for the jury and, on the way out, I overheard him say he'd never select a lawyer to be on one of his juries.
Unfortunately, I wasn't even called up. The defense attorney was asking people to describe themselves in one word and I was going to use "geeky" just to see the reaction (and because it's true).
I was most surprised that they seated someone who said she knew both of the lawyers (as she worked at the courthouse).
My wife was selected for a jury despite being family friends with the judge for about a decade. (Coincidentally, that same judge was presiding over the case I was called in, but not selected for.)
There were other whistle blowers before Snowden who tried to get the word out about what happened. They went through the official channels, found themselves charged with "unrelated" crimes, and were told by the judges that they couldn't use "whistle blower" as a defense. These people went to jail and the government overreaches that they tried to report were hushed up and continued happening.
Snowden knew that the same thing awaited him if he blew the whistle in this manner so he felt his only option was the flee the country while exposing what happened. You might argue about whether what he exposed was valid whistle blowing or whether he stepped over a line, but that's what a trial should determine. The problem is that a lot of powerful people were upset with Snowden revealing their operations. Even if his actions were 100% justified as a whistle blower, the history of treatment of similar whistle blowers doesn't make it look like he'd get anything approaching a fair trial.
Or maybe one administration would guarantee it but another wouldn't hold to that promise. Even if he somehow managed to get a fair trial and was acquitted, He might still face retaliation for his actions. He made a large number of powerful people uncomfortable and they don't like when people do that. There are many ways they could mess with him that don't involve "tried and convicted for 'leaking data' or 'treason'." Everything from "looks like he's got pics of kiddies on his computer now" to just "shot dead in a grocery store parking lot by a random stranger."
Finally, a "Greedo shot first" edit that fans can approve of. Greedo gets the first shot, but it goes completely wild, killing Jar-Jar. Han shoots Greedo a millisecond later.
Do judges have unlimited powers to issue orders? As another poster said, could a judge order a landlord to demolish all of his buildings because the police believed there were drugs hiding in one person's couch cushions? This judge is essentially ordering Apple to demolish their entire security apparatus "just for one phone." (In quotes because we all know it won't end at this one phone.)
Assuming a thief was going to use a key to get in (as opposed to breaking a window or using a bolt cutter on the lock), they would need to carry 100,000 different keys. Even if they could try one every second, it would take them over 27 hours to try them all. Contrast this with a hypothetical "TSA-Approved Home Lock" which had a master key hole that was the same across all locks. A thief could walk up with one key, put it in the lock, and be assured that it would open.
So, no, the "100,000 different combinations lock" isn't unbreakable, but it's a giant leap ahead of a line of locks that share the same master key.
This isn't even sacrificing liberty for temporary security. It's sacrificing definite security now (your device is encrypted) for a small amount of theoretical security in the future (maybe they use the decryption to catch a terrorist before he does something that might possible have impacted you). There is nothing that I've heard to justify this except people spouting "terrorism" as if that's society's root password.
Let's assume they could push an update just to that phone that lets the FBI in. Let's also assume that they drop their objections and do just this. Do you really think it'll be "just this one phone"? Do you think that other governments won't demand Apple let them into people's phones? Do you think Apple's update won't fall into a hacker group's hands who will use it to find exploits to get into any iPhone?
There is no such thing as "we'll just do it this one time". That's just the lie the federal government is telling to make themselves look reasonable in front of the judge until the next "just this one time" and the one after that, etc.
Actually, what they are specifically asking for is for Apple to create a software patch that will remove the "10 PIN tries and the phone is wiped" security restriction. This way, the government would be able to brute force their way into the device.
The problem is that it's not "just this phone." Once the government has this patch, do you really think they won't use it on other phones? Do you think other governments won't demand access? Do you think it won't leak to random hacker groups?
If Apple were to comply with the government's orders, they would weaken the security for millions of people just to possibly find some links from a dead terrorist to other possible terrorists who may or may not be active threats. I was originally going to argue that this was "trading liberty for security", but it's not even that. It's trading definite security for some nebulous possible claim of security.
I don't know how much you know about warrants and the Fourth Amendment, but they can't compel anyone to actually work for the government. Apple is being told that the warrant requires them to develop software on the government's behalf.
Exactly this. It's not like Apple has a "magic decryption key" lying around that they could use to unlock the phone. The hardware/software was designed purposefully so that they COULDN'T decrypt it. The government wants Apple to write a software update that will take away the "10 tries and the phone is wiped" security mechanism and apply it to this phone so that the government can brute-force their way in.
The bigger issue here is that - warrant or not - this isn't "just one phone." Once the government has the software update, they could apply it to any phone they want. In addition, other governments would demand that Apple give them the software update also. Inevitably, it will leak out to random hacker groups who could use it to find a way into iPhones despite the encryption. The government is not only telling Apple to do work for them for free, but is essentially telling them to ruin the security if their whole business "just for the phone of one dead terrorist."
Actually, the killers didn't use encryption at all. They used SMS to communicate. So crypto was hanging out on the couch, suddenly hears he's being blamed for this, and loudly protests "I wasn't anywhere NEAR there!"
Don't forget about air. I hear that terrorists breathe air. We need to completely destroy the Earth's atmosphere. Only then can we be 100% assured that terrorism will stop!
Slashdot Mirror
Heat your room during the winter AND charge your devices at the same time!
(Of course, during the summer this won't be very pleasant.)
I'd be highly concerned if a router only covered a two dimensional area. You definitely want to pay extra for the router that can cover a cube or a sphere.
Do you really think the FBI would stop at the one phone? They've already admitted that there are more cases awaiting this precedent to be set. If the unlock tool is set for one phone, then they'll just tell Apple to set it for a second phone, and a third, etc. As more and more phones are unlocked, the crimes justifying the unlocking would get less and less severe until local law enforcement can get an iPhone unlocked because they say the driver was speeding.
And if Apple ever closes the loophole, you can bet that the government will use the precedent to say that Apple is purposefully removing access they already had an thus is obstructing justice. Apple would be forced to push updates to weaken their security again.
He'd get the rabbits to pay for it. They'd win against the rabbits so much that they would cry "can't we just lose to the rabbits once", but Trump wouldn't let them lose because he only wins. (Except when he doesn't, but when he doesn't win, it was someone else's fault, not his and he'll throw a fit over it.)
And that's also just US cases. How many governments world wide would love to be able to break into an iPhone for law enforcement purposes? (Where "law enforcement purposes" might mean an actual crime was committed or that the phone's owner just did something to upset the ruling class.)
Usually companies served with a warrant can be compelled to provide something they already have. If the FBI needed the e-mails that someone sent via GMail, they could compel Google to serve them up. However, the question is can the government require a company to create something entirely new just to further an investigation? The FBI wants Apple to write software to remotely apply to the iPhone that would remove the "10 attempts and phone is wiped" restriction and that would let them try PINs in an automated fashion. This software doesn't exist right now in any form. The danger is that if Apple can be compelled to weaken their products "just this one time," then they'll be told to weaken them further for other investigations and they'll be told to write other software because the government demands it (and without compensation for their efforts).
Unfortunately, it's a wing that's being pushed aside by the GOP in favor of the religious right, anti-science zealots, and folks who see "terrorism" as the key to expanding their powers (while slicing and dicing our liberty). Here's hoping those people split off from the GOP and leave it to the libertarians. I might be likely to vote for a libertarian, but I'd never vote for someone like Cruz.
Because they're not saying "Hey Apple, we know you have a key to this door so open it for us." Apple DOESN'T have the ability to decrypt the phone. What the government is asking Apple to do is write software to 1) remotely disable the "10 PIN tries and the phone is wiped" security feature and 2) allow PIN attempts to be automated from outside the phone. The FBI would use this to break into the phone rapidly (as opposed to trying 10 times and then having the phone's contents erased).
There are two big problems here. The first is that the government is telling Apple to write an entirely new tool - one that doesn't exist and one that will majorly compromise ALL Apple devices. They aren't going to pay Apple's engineers for this or compensate Apple for lost business due to being seen as less secure. Instead, they're just demanding that Apple drop everything and compromise their own security.
The second problem is that it won't be "just for this one phone." The FBI wants Apple to give them this ability but promises to only use it this one time. Does anyone really think the FBI will use this code once and then delete it entirely? Or will they keep it around to decrypt the next phone and the one after that? Does anything think the FBI would limit the use of this for terrorism related purposes or would they expand the use to murders, child abduction, etc? Of course, they'll use it multiple times for many different crimes. And as the use expands, it'll be easier and easier to for them to justify using it for less severe crimes. Eventually, they'll be able to decrypt your phone because they think you might have downloaded a copyrighted song.
The FBI isn't asking for a "one and done" decryption. They are asking for sweeping new powers in their fight against privacy and encryption - not in any fight against crime.
Exactly this. The FBI (and other law enforcement organizations) don't like the "encrypt everything" directions many companies are headed in. Sure, it protects our privacy, but the FBI and company would prefer to be able to look into any phone at any time. (They're REALLY like to do it without a warrant, but that's mostly another fight.) They needed a precedent setting case that would make Apple "look bad" for opposing decryption*. The obvious play was a case involving terrorism. After all, so many other reductions in freedom happened to "make us more secure from terrorism." Who would possibly be FOR more terrorism? So they push Apple to do it just this one time, because terrorism, and expected Apple to roll over. Of course, if Apple does give in, the "just this one time" will happen again and again and will expand from terrorism to "think of the children" crimes and other major legal infractions. Pretty soon, the county sheriff would be able to decrypt a phone because someone was suspected of jaywalking.
Of course, it also wouldn't stop with the US. Other law enforcement agencies in other countries would demand Apple give THEM the power to decrypt phones as well. Also, the code used would eventually leak to hacker groups who would use it to further compromise the security of Apple devices.
Apple sees the slippery slope very clearly and is thankfully pushing hard to avoid going down it.
* The FBI is actually asking for the ability to guess the PIN more than 10 times without the phone being erased and for these guesses to be automated to speed it up, but this is essentially amounts to a "decrypt this phone for us" request.
I agree with you about Rubio (and Sanders). I don't like Trump's ego would let him take the VP slot, though. He has to be #1 and if he's not then he was cheated and needs to attack/sue/blame someone else. When it comes down to it, I'm not sure who frightens me more: The egotist, loose cannon Trump because you never know what he'll attack next or the intelligently calculating, religious zealot Cruz because you DO know what he'll attack (science, religious freedoms for anyone who isn't Christian).
The problem is that there are official channels that Snowden was "supposed" to have used to report what he found, but other people who used the official channels wound up prosecuted for daring to report what they found. When you make an official channel and then attack anyone who uses it, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't use the official channels. You can't hold up an official channel as a valid alternative if people don't feel safe using it.
Let's assume for a moment that Snowden's revelations were of criminal government overreach of power (setting aside, for the moment, whether his reveals compromised non-US-citizen spying efforts since that's a different discussion), how should he have proceeded? Just put his head down and ignore what was going on because that was his orders? Try the official channels figuring that his fate would be different than all of the other people who used them?
The demands would never stop from US law enforcement agencies. And then they would roll in from governments around the world. And then some hacker group would get their hands on the "unlock" tool and repurpose it to break into any iPhone at any time.
If Apple breaks the encryption, there is no way that it will be just for this one phone and that's it.
I was called in for jury duty a few months back and the judge asked everyone who was called up whether they were ever victims of a crime or were ever accused of a crime. Most of those people were excused unless they could honestly say that it wouldn't color their judgment of the defendant. One of the people called up was a lawyer and they went back and forth about whether he could apply the law as the judge said to apply it and not how he, himself, understood the law. He wasn't selected for the jury and, on the way out, I overheard him say he'd never select a lawyer to be on one of his juries.
Unfortunately, I wasn't even called up. The defense attorney was asking people to describe themselves in one word and I was going to use "geeky" just to see the reaction (and because it's true).
My wife was selected for a jury despite being family friends with the judge for about a decade. (Coincidentally, that same judge was presiding over the case I was called in, but not selected for.)
There were other whistle blowers before Snowden who tried to get the word out about what happened. They went through the official channels, found themselves charged with "unrelated" crimes, and were told by the judges that they couldn't use "whistle blower" as a defense. These people went to jail and the government overreaches that they tried to report were hushed up and continued happening.
Snowden knew that the same thing awaited him if he blew the whistle in this manner so he felt his only option was the flee the country while exposing what happened. You might argue about whether what he exposed was valid whistle blowing or whether he stepped over a line, but that's what a trial should determine. The problem is that a lot of powerful people were upset with Snowden revealing their operations. Even if his actions were 100% justified as a whistle blower, the history of treatment of similar whistle blowers doesn't make it look like he'd get anything approaching a fair trial.
Or maybe one administration would guarantee it but another wouldn't hold to that promise. Even if he somehow managed to get a fair trial and was acquitted, He might still face retaliation for his actions. He made a large number of powerful people uncomfortable and they don't like when people do that. There are many ways they could mess with him that don't involve "tried and convicted for 'leaking data' or 'treason'." Everything from "looks like he's got pics of kiddies on his computer now" to just "shot dead in a grocery store parking lot by a random stranger."
Finally, a "Greedo shot first" edit that fans can approve of. Greedo gets the first shot, but it goes completely wild, killing Jar-Jar. Han shoots Greedo a millisecond later.
Do judges have unlimited powers to issue orders? As another poster said, could a judge order a landlord to demolish all of his buildings because the police believed there were drugs hiding in one person's couch cushions? This judge is essentially ordering Apple to demolish their entire security apparatus "just for one phone." (In quotes because we all know it won't end at this one phone.)
Assuming a thief was going to use a key to get in (as opposed to breaking a window or using a bolt cutter on the lock), they would need to carry 100,000 different keys. Even if they could try one every second, it would take them over 27 hours to try them all. Contrast this with a hypothetical "TSA-Approved Home Lock" which had a master key hole that was the same across all locks. A thief could walk up with one key, put it in the lock, and be assured that it would open.
So, no, the "100,000 different combinations lock" isn't unbreakable, but it's a giant leap ahead of a line of locks that share the same master key.
And now I'm picturing Tim Cook offering this service to the US Government...
Tim (while petting a white cat sitting on his lap): "We can do this for you, but it'll cost *pinky to mouth* One hundred TRILLION dollars."
This isn't even sacrificing liberty for temporary security. It's sacrificing definite security now (your device is encrypted) for a small amount of theoretical security in the future (maybe they use the decryption to catch a terrorist before he does something that might possible have impacted you). There is nothing that I've heard to justify this except people spouting "terrorism" as if that's society's root password.
Let's assume they could push an update just to that phone that lets the FBI in. Let's also assume that they drop their objections and do just this. Do you really think it'll be "just this one phone"? Do you think that other governments won't demand Apple let them into people's phones? Do you think Apple's update won't fall into a hacker group's hands who will use it to find exploits to get into any iPhone?
There is no such thing as "we'll just do it this one time". That's just the lie the federal government is telling to make themselves look reasonable in front of the judge until the next "just this one time" and the one after that, etc.
Actually, what they are specifically asking for is for Apple to create a software patch that will remove the "10 PIN tries and the phone is wiped" security restriction. This way, the government would be able to brute force their way into the device.
The problem is that it's not "just this phone." Once the government has this patch, do you really think they won't use it on other phones? Do you think other governments won't demand access? Do you think it won't leak to random hacker groups?
If Apple were to comply with the government's orders, they would weaken the security for millions of people just to possibly find some links from a dead terrorist to other possible terrorists who may or may not be active threats. I was originally going to argue that this was "trading liberty for security", but it's not even that. It's trading definite security for some nebulous possible claim of security.
Exactly this. It's not like Apple has a "magic decryption key" lying around that they could use to unlock the phone. The hardware/software was designed purposefully so that they COULDN'T decrypt it. The government wants Apple to write a software update that will take away the "10 tries and the phone is wiped" security mechanism and apply it to this phone so that the government can brute-force their way in.
The bigger issue here is that - warrant or not - this isn't "just one phone." Once the government has the software update, they could apply it to any phone they want. In addition, other governments would demand that Apple give them the software update also. Inevitably, it will leak out to random hacker groups who could use it to find a way into iPhones despite the encryption. The government is not only telling Apple to do work for them for free, but is essentially telling them to ruin the security if their whole business "just for the phone of one dead terrorist."
Actually, the killers didn't use encryption at all. They used SMS to communicate. So crypto was hanging out on the couch, suddenly hears he's being blamed for this, and loudly protests "I wasn't anywhere NEAR there!"
Don't forget about air. I hear that terrorists breathe air. We need to completely destroy the Earth's atmosphere. Only then can we be 100% assured that terrorism will stop!