It's not a backdoor!
All it is is Apple preventing the phone from wiping after 10 attempts so the FBI can use Brute force on the crypto. The encryption is just as robust as it ever was.
yet he did nothing to obscure the $0.99 iPhone 5c that was issued to him from the local government. Does anyone really think he left any evidence at all on that device?
Yes.
Highly unlikely.
Yeah well good thing our criminal investigations are more robust than this.
Except it will open a pandora's box. Once the US government succeeds in forcing Apple to do this to fight "the bad guys", countries like China will force Apple to do the same simply to extend their surveillance state.
We already know the firmware is technically possible, so you are saying that the only thing preventing the Chinese government from demanding this now is that there is no legal precedent in the US court system?
Please go back and read that again.
Yeah we all know that once law enforcement gets access to something they NEVER ask again. The disengenuousness of people claiming this is only about one phone is astounding.
Maybe because those people know how court order works, and know how signed apps work.
But if you prefer conspiracies and wild speculation, then maybe just make stuff up instead...
Wow. This is your laissez faire attitude how a criminal investigation should operate?
6) We already know that this was not a big ISIS plot or anything like that.
How do you know that there isn't some agent provocateur involved (whether ISIS or other organisation?)
It was a 'lone gunman' kind of a thing...so it's unlikely that there is anything on the phone that would incriminate anyone else who isn't already incriminated.
A lone gunman that had at least two people involved? Great detective work so far...
7) If they succeed - you can bet that Apple's next phone will make it impossible to circumvent the security with an OS upgrade by putting more stuff in ROM.
They already use a different security model for iPhone6
The reason MOST people are agreeing with the Fed is that they didn't take the time to look at the facts.
Thanks for telling me what my opinion is. I think the Feds should be able to get access to information if they have a court order for it. And if you have the ability to give that access, you should be compelled to deliver it.
It is a pillar of how criminal investigations and the Justice system work. We already know that Apple can create a specific signed firmware that will only run on one device, so why not use this capability?
The slippery slide/pandoras box argument doesn't really have any merit based on facts, only conjecture.
From his time as Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates was all about removing choice,
Apart from the fact that MS OSes supported more hardware and had more backwards compatibility than any other vendor in the history of computers you mean?
Once that is done, you have basically a master key. It doesn't matter that the FBI has a nerfed version that only works on one phone. One it's out, the barrier to developing it for other phones Is a lot lower
No it isn't. Since the hardest part in this equation is getting the court order.
The next phone will still require a court order, since Apple will have to sign any firmware for any different device.Also the security model on IOS changed after the 5C, so any device built after it won't work anyway.
And don't even bother with the precedent argument. The FBI have already nullified this by explicitly specifying it a once off request. Any future argument for precedence won't hold water in an actual court (rather than the kangaroo court that is Slashdot, where people don't seem to understand how legal precedence works)
Why scrub after it gets sent and not before? Your identifying data is going over the internet - not good.
Exactly. My guess is that the data is worth more to them and who knows if they can attach a name to it.
Taking the tin foil hat off for a sec, one technical reason I can think of is that it's easier to have one centralised scrubbing engine than millions of them in various states of operation on everyone's machine.
But I'm guessing that you're not actually interested in a technical discussion...
Many people were on the ethanol bandwagon due to the notion that alcohol could be made and less oil used for fueling cars and machinery. But there was a huge issue not considered.
I think that was considered, and was dealt with via market forces.
Farmers raising crops to create ethanol caused the price of food to severely increase. After all the land once farmed for food was suddenly farmed for fuel.
Um, you know you there is no such thing as an ethanol tree? Ethanol is made from feed crops, that either get sold for food/feed or fuel depending on who pays the most.
So the next idea was to use more land to make crops.
I don't recall that. I'm sure in some third world countries with no regulations it happened, but in most cases farmers simply trade unprofitable crops for profitable ones.
A big part of the issue is that voters demand 'total security' from their governments - Citizens expect to be wrapped in a big, warm security blanket. You can't have total security and total liberty, so the governments dispense with liberty. Voters don't mind because hey, their kids are 'safe.'
Hmmm, yet you prefer to be dead? Strange definition of liberty...
Same here. I was born elsewhere and have lived in 4 countries on 3 continents, and traveled to dozens of others. Australia ticks more boxes than any other for my requirements (climate, quality of life, high standards of living, income, low crime, friendly people, casual approach to everything etc).
And it doesn't seem to be just our opinion, Australia has 3 cities in the top ten for most livable cities http://www.economist.com/blogs...
Sure, but you realise how big the place is, and also how small our population is? We are a first world country with super high standards of living and a population density that is a fraction of your cities - none of which compare in liability in my opinion (and I actually loved living in NYC).
Yeah but you pay over the odds for absolutely everything.
You get what you pay for... and those costs contribute to a higher standards of living across the board.
So yeah, things cost a little more, but you have less chance of being murdered or made homeless. I know which I prefer.
Funny isn't it. For years Slashdot has been bashing the 1%ers and their parasitic ways, but when now it's one of theirs, suddenly it's everyone else's fault.
Fuck Apple, Google, Facebook etc. These leeches need to start contributing like the rest of us.
What is lost when people blame Google or Apple or Microsoft for these things is the message: your government sold you out.
What a load of shit. The tax laws are a culmination of hundreds of years of add-ons, concessions, modifications etc for whatever was required on the day, with the intent to create a fair system. "The government" is just people like you trying to do the best they can, and corporations are also just people doing whatever they can.
This situation is because corporations now spend far more resources looking for holes in these laws than any public office could ever hope to to counter them. So they have an unfair advantage. The only real solution is to allocate more funds to the public service to allow them to address these issues correctly, or impose harsh penalties as a deterrent. Either way you you'll just bitch and moan that "The government" is stealing all your money...
If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal.
And if it turns out they can't avoid it, then they did indeed owe it, and it was fraud.
Good thing we have courts to decide these things, rather than what you (not you personally, the collective you) happen to believe on any given day.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should drop what they're doing and do whatever they're told by the FBI.
Nope, never said that. Strawman
This is not a mass murder case.
Yes it is.
This is the tail end of the follow-up investigation from a mass-murder case, and the only reason the FBI has any trouble is that they screwed up earlier.
Twist it however you like, it's still part of the case.
There's no particular reason to think that cracking this iPhone will do much of anything.
Apart from possible conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism you mean?
Justice has been served as much as it's going to be, since the murderers are dead. This is not the pursuit of justice, but maybe a little extra security. Breathe a little.
Oh so you are the judge of that? I thought we had people who are paid to perform this role, you know we call them judges, which is why this case has been presented to them, rather than 'some guy on the internet'.
Do you think that companies should be required to harm their own businesses for such investigations?
By 'harm' you mean 'contribute', then yes absolutely. Or do you expect to live in a civilised society without contributing to it in any way?
And has the DOJ pinky promised to never ask again in the history of the universe? No. It is not a one time only request. It's one time only until the next time.
Yes it is, and it even says so in the court order. Oh but wait you're applying your tin foil hat logic here...
Plus as soon as Apple gives in there are plenty of non-DOJ players in the wings wanting help in their fishing expeditions.
Which wouldn't work since newer Apple phones aren't vulnerable to this method.
The NY DA who has over a hundred phones in a vault wants them cracked even though there's not necessarily any evidence on those phones. Once the precedent is set it becomes very difficult to rein back in police powers to a reasonable level again.
There is no precedent, if you understand the legality and technology of this specific request.
The specific thing requested here wouldn't work again. If the police tried to use it again it would fail. If they tried to go to court for carte blanche access, they would fail.
There is no way this scenario can happen with this request.
At the very least we need this to get to the highest court. Right now we have a relatively low level judge making this decision. Apple has every right to fight back and make use of appeals.
Slashdot Mirror
If the phone is locked how can Apple install a new operating system on it?
The existing backdoor which Apple fanboys refuse to acknowledge.
It's not a backdoor!
All it is is Apple preventing the phone from wiping after 10 attempts so the FBI can use Brute force on the crypto. The encryption is just as robust as it ever was.
Anything Apple does for the US, it will be required to do in all countries it sells. That includes China.
Yeah because the Chinese government simply will not act unless a US court has given them the green light...Seriously?
yet he did nothing to obscure the $0.99 iPhone 5c that was issued to him from the local government. Does anyone really think he left any evidence at all on that device?
Yes.
Highly unlikely.
Yeah well good thing our criminal investigations are more robust than this.
Except it will open a pandora's box. Once the US government succeeds in forcing Apple to do this to fight "the bad guys", countries like China will force Apple to do the same simply to extend their surveillance state.
We already know the firmware is technically possible, so you are saying that the only thing preventing the Chinese government from demanding this now is that there is no legal precedent in the US court system?
Please go back and read that again.
So it's no "childish view" of the world..
That's precisely what it is.
Yeah we all know that once law enforcement gets access to something they NEVER ask again. The disengenuousness of people claiming this is only about one phone is astounding.
Maybe because those people know how court order works, and know how signed apps work.
But if you prefer conspiracies and wild speculation, then maybe just make stuff up instead...
there probably wasn't anything important on it.
Wow. This is your laissez faire attitude how a criminal investigation should operate?
6) We already know that this was not a big ISIS plot or anything like that.
How do you know that there isn't some agent provocateur involved (whether ISIS or other organisation?)
It was a 'lone gunman' kind of a thing...so it's unlikely that there is anything on the phone that would incriminate anyone else who isn't already incriminated.
A lone gunman that had at least two people involved? Great detective work so far...
7) If they succeed - you can bet that Apple's next phone will make it impossible to circumvent the security with an OS upgrade by putting more stuff in ROM.
They already use a different security model for iPhone6
The reason MOST people are agreeing with the Fed is that they didn't take the time to look at the facts.
Thanks for telling me what my opinion is. I think the Feds should be able to get access to information if they have a court order for it. And if you have the ability to give that access, you should be compelled to deliver it. It is a pillar of how criminal investigations and the Justice system work. We already know that Apple can create a specific signed firmware that will only run on one device, so why not use this capability?
The slippery slide/pandoras box argument doesn't really have any merit based on facts, only conjecture.
If I instead ask them, "Should Apple give the U.S. Government unfettered access to everyone's iPhone?"
That question would be the least accurate of them all.
From his time as Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates was all about removing choice,
Apart from the fact that MS OSes supported more hardware and had more backwards compatibility than any other vendor in the history of computers you mean?
Once that is done, you have basically a master key. It doesn't matter that the FBI has a nerfed version that only works on one phone. One it's out, the barrier to developing it for other phones Is a lot lower
No it isn't. Since the hardest part in this equation is getting the court order.
The next phone will still require a court order, since Apple will have to sign any firmware for any different device.Also the security model on IOS changed after the 5C, so any device built after it won't work anyway.
And don't even bother with the precedent argument. The FBI have already nullified this by explicitly specifying it a once off request. Any future argument for precedence won't hold water in an actual court (rather than the kangaroo court that is Slashdot, where people don't seem to understand how legal precedence works)
Why scrub after it gets sent and not before? Your identifying data is going over the internet - not good.
Exactly. My guess is that the data is worth more to them and who knows if they can attach a name to it.
Taking the tin foil hat off for a sec, one technical reason I can think of is that it's easier to have one centralised scrubbing engine than millions of them in various states of operation on everyone's machine.
But I'm guessing that you're not actually interested in a technical discussion...
Many people were on the ethanol bandwagon due to the notion that alcohol could be made and less oil used for fueling cars and machinery. But there was a huge issue not considered.
I think that was considered, and was dealt with via market forces.
Farmers raising crops to create ethanol caused the price of food to severely increase. After all the land once farmed for food was suddenly farmed for fuel.
Um, you know you there is no such thing as an ethanol tree? Ethanol is made from feed crops, that either get sold for food/feed or fuel depending on who pays the most.
So the next idea was to use more land to make crops.
I don't recall that. I'm sure in some third world countries with no regulations it happened, but in most cases farmers simply trade unprofitable crops for profitable ones.
And the irony is that it does nothing to make them safe. Criminals will still have guns and strong encryption, and the people now have less liberty.
But much less risk of being shot than your average "liberated" American.
A big part of the issue is that voters demand 'total security' from their governments - Citizens expect to be wrapped in a big, warm security blanket. You can't have total security and total liberty, so the governments dispense with liberty. Voters don't mind because hey, their kids are 'safe.'
Hmmm, yet you prefer to be dead? Strange definition of liberty...
Same here. I was born elsewhere and have lived in 4 countries on 3 continents, and traveled to dozens of others. Australia ticks more boxes than any other for my requirements (climate, quality of life, high standards of living, income, low crime, friendly people, casual approach to everything etc).
And it doesn't seem to be just our opinion, Australia has 3 cities in the top ten for most livable cities http://www.economist.com/blogs...
Sure, but you realise how big the place is, and also how small our population is? We are a first world country with super high standards of living and a population density that is a fraction of your cities - none of which compare in liability in my opinion (and I actually loved living in NYC).
Yeah but you pay over the odds for absolutely everything.
You get what you pay for... and those costs contribute to a higher standards of living across the board.
So yeah, things cost a little more, but you have less chance of being murdered or made homeless. I know which I prefer.
Draconian social rules and nigh fascist government does not count in my world as "super high standard of living."
Yet here we are...
Besides the fact that 90% of your country is completely uninhabitable by any sizable human population and you're all cluster-fucked to the coasts?
By cluster-fucked you mean still less density than most other western countries?
Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.
Do you work at NASA?
Funny isn't it. For years Slashdot has been bashing the 1%ers and their parasitic ways, but when now it's one of theirs, suddenly it's everyone else's fault.
Fuck Apple, Google, Facebook etc. These leeches need to start contributing like the rest of us.
What is lost when people blame Google or Apple or Microsoft for these things is the message: your government sold you out.
What a load of shit. The tax laws are a culmination of hundreds of years of add-ons, concessions, modifications etc for whatever was required on the day, with the intent to create a fair system. "The government" is just people like you trying to do the best they can, and corporations are also just people doing whatever they can.
This situation is because corporations now spend far more resources looking for holes in these laws than any public office could ever hope to to counter them. So they have an unfair advantage. The only real solution is to allocate more funds to the public service to allow them to address these issues correctly, or impose harsh penalties as a deterrent. Either way you you'll just bitch and moan that "The government" is stealing all your money...
avoid .... owe ... legal fraud
If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal.
And if it turns out they can't avoid it, then they did indeed owe it, and it was fraud.
Good thing we have courts to decide these things, rather than what you (not you personally, the collective you) happen to believe on any given day.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should drop what they're doing and do whatever they're told by the FBI.
Nope, never said that. Strawman
This is not a mass murder case.
Yes it is.
This is the tail end of the follow-up investigation from a mass-murder case, and the only reason the FBI has any trouble is that they screwed up earlier.
Twist it however you like, it's still part of the case.
There's no particular reason to think that cracking this iPhone will do much of anything.
Apart from possible conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism you mean?
Justice has been served as much as it's going to be, since the murderers are dead. This is not the pursuit of justice, but maybe a little extra security. Breathe a little.
Oh so you are the judge of that? I thought we had people who are paid to perform this role, you know we call them judges, which is why this case has been presented to them, rather than 'some guy on the internet'.
Do you think that companies should be required to harm their own businesses for such investigations?
By 'harm' you mean 'contribute', then yes absolutely. Or do you expect to live in a civilised society without contributing to it in any way?
And has the DOJ pinky promised to never ask again in the history of the universe? No. It is not a one time only request. It's one time only until the next time.
Yes it is, and it even says so in the court order. Oh but wait you're applying your tin foil hat logic here...
Plus as soon as Apple gives in there are plenty of non-DOJ players in the wings wanting help in their fishing expeditions.
Which wouldn't work since newer Apple phones aren't vulnerable to this method.
The NY DA who has over a hundred phones in a vault wants them cracked even though there's not necessarily any evidence on those phones. Once the precedent is set it becomes very difficult to rein back in police powers to a reasonable level again.
There is no precedent, if you understand the legality and technology of this specific request.
The specific thing requested here wouldn't work again. If the police tried to use it again it would fail. If they tried to go to court for carte blanche access, they would fail.
There is no way this scenario can happen with this request.
At the very least we need this to get to the highest court. Right now we have a relatively low level judge making this decision. Apple has every right to fight back and make use of appeals.
Of course they do, that is how a court works.