Apple vs The FBI

mrincredible said:

So imagine this scenario:

Apple builds a single Mac Pro which has no network hardware built into it. That computer is used to encode the special software needed to decrypt a suspect's iPhone. It's kept in a vault which can only be opened by the concurrent fingerprint scans of the Director of the FBI,  a Supreme Court Justice and the Senate Majority and Minority leaders. Inside the vault the CPU is kept inside another vault with only a keyboard and monitor and sync cable for the device in question accessible.

It sounds ridiculous but I'm curious if there is any method which could be employed to safeguard the misuse of this software that would make people comfortable with it. I'm not sure there is. Who builds the vault? Who writes the code? What about the convenient human-sized ventilation shaft into the vault that lets out in a abandoned train tunnel that's only on an old engineering map in the archives at City Hall?

If nothing else, this is an awesome premise for a certain kind of film.

I don't think safeguarding the software is the main issue here. The scary thing about this court order is that the judge is ordering someone to work for the government.

Steve said:

Not an expert in either area, but I wonder if there could be a Takings clause or 13th Amendment argument raised here.  Seems pretty extreme that the government could compel a company to re-write its code that would result in the destruction of their business.  Who would buy an iPhone if it were so insecure?

there is a precedent actually that should have prevented the judge from issuing this order. I saw a reference to it today, I'll see if I can find it.

The Donald puts his two cents in:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-apple-boycott-219507?lo=ap_a1

Of course someone said he tweeted it on his iPhone.

One thing I've read in a couple different places, which I don't believe has been mentioned here, is that there is legal precedent showing that coding is considered speech. So it could be argued that what the FBI wants to do here is to compel speech, which would obviously be a first amendment issue.

(I'm no lawyer, so I can't vouch for the validity of this notion.)

LOST said:

The Donald puts his two cents in:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-apple-boycott-219507?lo=ap_a1


Of course someone said he tweeted it on his iPhone.

I'm always glad to hear it when Donald and I have differing opinions.

Legendary iPhone hacker weighs in on Apple’s war with the FBI

The following article was contributed by Will Strafach, a mobile security expert who made a name for himself as one of the most widely known and respected iOS hackers in the world.

http://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-backdoor-will-strafach-opinion/

I'm still not buying this. Can the code that is involved be much more involved than this?

if [number of failed attempts] > 10 then

kill the phone

end if

drummerboy said:

I'm still not buying this. Can the code that is involved be much more involved than this?

if [number of failed attempts] > 10 then

kill the phone

end if

If it were that simple, iPhones would be being hacked left and right, all day every day. It's not really a matter of how complex the code is. It's a matter of how complex it is to install on a (locked) phone.

And more importantly, it's matter of whether or not the government has the right to force a private company to create work product against their will.

BrickPig said:

And more importantly, it's matter of whether or not the government has the right to force a private company to create work product against their will.

well, yeah I agree on that point.

There's good technical coverage of the issue on Tech Crunch. I came across on the "70 phones" that have already been "unlocked", according to the media.

link

My emphasis.

Specifically, I keep seeing reports that Apple has unlocked “70 iPhones” for the government.
And those reports argue that Apple is now refusing to do for the FBI
what it has done many times before. This meme is completely inaccurate
at best, and dangerous at worst.

There are two cases involving data requests by the government which are happening at the moment. There is a case in New York
— in which Apple is trying really hard not to hand over customer
information even though it has the tools to do so — and there is the case in California,
where it is fighting an order from the FBI to intentionally weaken the
security of a device to allow its passcode to be cracked by brute force.
These are separate cases with separate things at stake.

The New York case involves an iPhone running iOS 7. On devices running iOS 7 and previous, Apple actually has the capability to extract data, including (at various stages in its encryption march) contacts, photos, calls and iMessages without unlocking the phones. That
last bit is key, because in the previous cases where Apple has complied
with legitimate government requests for information, this is the method
it has used.

It has not unlocked these iPhones — it has extracted data that was accessible while they were still locked. The process for doing this is laid out in its white paper for law enforcement. Here’s the language:

hmm. that didn't work too well...

And so the slip down the slope begins:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11097044/us-forcing-apple-to-unlock-dozen-iphones-says-wsj