View Full Version : Should Apple give it up?
iris lilies
2-22-16, 2:30pm
The FBI wants proprietary information about Apple products which threatens everyone's phone security.
Trump and supposedly other Republican candidates tell Apple to give it up.(I only heard Trump, haven't listened to the others but one report said they all agree.)
Hillary, being the excellent finger-to-the- wind politician that she is, sees both sides and will not take a stand.
Bernie said he is a constitutionalist and is not is favor of forcing Apple to give their trade secrets. Rand Paul (no longer a candidate) agrees.
Giving the feds carte blanche access to my phone data seems way wrong. What am I am I missing n this point of view? Would they have to go through a court process to get into my phone once they have the technology? Would smeone immediately make software that I could buy to block feds?
what say you?
apple is making the right decision in saying no.
this would be a key to all their products.
it would open the door to even less privacy for us than we currently have.
its not a simple decision that would just help solve a case.
its a far reaching decision that could contribute to a future big brother dystopia.
i read that the FBI opened the phone and then changed the password.
now they can't get back in.
they aren't telling the whole story.
if they hadn't done that, apple could have helped them access iCloud backups.
that would have given them everything needed without building a backdoor that threatens us all.
Miss Cellane
2-22-16, 3:46pm
First, if Apple is to be believed, what the Feds are asking for doesn't exist. The Feds want a "back door" into the iPhone OS, and Apple claims that there isn't one. So to create what the Feds want, Apple would have to create software that would allow any iPhone to be hacked. And who is going to pay for that?
And that software would be in the hands of the government. One would hope that a search warrant would still be needed to access the data on phones.
Of course, there's nothing to stop Apple from creating a new OS that the software won't work on, and also figuring out a way to upgrade all working iPhones in existence to that software, but that's a very expensive proposition.
Apple's position is briefly outlined here: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
I agree with both responses. Additionally, if American companies are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be putting back doors in their systems people and businesses will shop elsewhere for their technology.
If I had the feeling that this would only apply to just this one phone or to other under similar extremely rare circumstances, I would be on the side of the DOJ. I don't get that feeling.
Williamsmith
2-22-16, 4:38pm
You can believe me or be skeptical but the FBI does not need Apple's help getting into your IPhone or iPad or I anything. They are perfectly capable of doing that. They just want the convenience of doing it legally and they want to be able to use it for criminal prosecution as evidence. In the case of terrorism.....they can and will do anything.
Law Enforcement routinely obtains evidence that can not be used in court because it was obtained in violation of constitutional requirements. I was involved in one of the first cases, maybe THE first case where a homicide was solved by obtaining evidence from a hard drive that the suspect believed was wiped clean. The FBI has plenty of resources they don't talk about.
The answer is No. Tell them to do the work the old fashioned way. Earn it.
This is also a good time to point out that if one really wants to maximize the effectiveness of their iPhone encryption one should change their passcode from a wimpy four digit one to a robust, longer, alphanumeric code.
Yes, I think Apple should give it up for this one incident. I have no reason to fear the FBI getting info from my phone.
I don't find anywhere in the Constitution where we give the Federal government the power to compel an individual, or a company, to labor at its behest to produce a specific product with specific features.
The FBI is asking Apple to produce a special version of IoS, or to sign a version of IoS with its private keys so that the phone will load the customized version. This is a minor engineering effort, but it *is* effort, it's more than just "we are subpoening these existing documents, produce them...". It's more akin to "we want to you *write* these specific documents".
So, privacy issues aside, Apple is doing the right thing in resisting what to me seems to be an unconstitutional order. I realize that during wartime, some of the niceties get set aside (witness US industrial production control during WWII), but we aren't at war, and the Federal government hasn't seized control of the domestic economy for wartime purposes through any constitutional process yet, right? Right?
Unless you think "the War on Terror" is a real "war", and that we will always be at war with Oceania....
iris lilies
2-22-16, 6:07pm
I don't find anywhere in the Constitution where we give the Federal government the power to compel an individual, or a company, to labor at its behest to produce a specific product with specific features.
The FBI is asking Apple to produce a special version of IoS, or to sign a version of IoS with its private keys so that the phone will load the customized version. This is a minor engineering effort, but it *is* effort, it's more than just "we are subpoening these existing documents, produce them...". It's more akin to "we want to you *write* these specific documents".
So, privacy issues aside, Apple is doing the right thing in resisting what to me seems to be an unconstitutional order. I realize that during wartime, some of the niceties get set aside (witness US industrial production control during WWII), but we aren't at war, and the Federal government hasn't seized control of the domestic economy for wartime purposes through any constitutional process yet, right? Right?
Unless you think "the War on Terror" is a real "war", and that we will always be at war with Oceania....
Every pundit Ive heard who siding with Apple say its only a matter of time until they lose. That is too bad.
The problem with giving it up for this one incident is that it won't end up being for this one incident. A commenter on the following article sums it up nicely:
"What they’re _actually_ doing is a far smaller overreach than handing over the keys to the kingdom. The implications are just as significant, though– once the signed iOS firmware with weakened security exists, every police department in the world will immediately request the same thing for every criminal investigation, and more importantly foreign powers like China and Russia will get it for espionage purposes. And at that point, the iPhone is an unlocked door."
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/02/the-lowdown-on-the-apple-fbi-showdown/#more-33938
Creating backdoors to technology security is really really a bad idea. Just one example, what if all the computers that our banking systems run on had backdoors and Russian hackers figured out how to utilize them?
If I were a betting man I'd say that Apple is already working on a reconfiguration of the way they've structured security in iPhones to eliminate the possibility of this type of backdoor in future devices and operating systems.
Iphones of the generation past the older one that is the subject of this case have security features that are a quantum level more difficult for anyone to compromise. The approach used in this case wouldn't work on those phones.
This is the reason why there is the push to have the designers required to install backdoors at the factory. I used to design and manufacture very high security communications devices. This is the same BS they tried to ram down our throats with encryption with the Clipper-chip key-escrow business back in the '90s, and with features in internet routers/gateways/bridges even earlier than that.
I don't trust the government with my keys sitting in their possession, or with an easy way to monitor all of my communications freely, or to easily insert themselves into the middle of my communications stream. And recent behaviour by our government bears out my concerns all those years ago.
Luckily, unless they start taking software engineers out into fields and shooting them in the head, it is easy enough to produce more crypto solutions and release them freely into the wild.
My DIL is becoming a bit of a privacy expert--she has appeared before the State legislature on matters of protection of privacy of college students, and she is, not surprisingly, against Apple cooperating with the FBI on this. So am I.
There's also the unfortunate spy-vs-spy problem with this approach to "keeping us safe".
Creating back doors, key escrow systems, man-in-the-middle tap points, and all that other rot won't stop a half-way intelligent opponent from easily working around things in a fashion(*) that is almost completely undetectable to our nation-state's top intelligence resources, but those things *will* allow the government, compromised government employees, and other nation-state actors the ability to monitor and analyze our normal law-abiding citizens' traffic.
(*) I have software sitting on a machine in my server room here that could be used to transmit relatively large quantities of data in an undetectable fashion either point-to-point or point-to-many-points, as well as the simple protocols for using it. It's been sitting there since 1985, and is by no means state-of-the-art, with a week or two's effort now I could productize something far superior that takes much better advantage of the current worldwide computing/data ecosystem. And I know there are guys smarter than me who are still active in this field who probably have vastly better things already implemented.
freshstart
2-22-16, 7:16pm
I'm with Apple and glad they aren't rolling over
I wonder if all of you would feel the same if you had lost someone at the San Bernardino massacre? It just seems strange to me, to put privacy ahead of safety.
I wonder if all of you would feel the same if you had lost someone at the San Bernardino massacre?
I would, yes.
It just seems strange to me, to put privacy ahead of safety.
You have to look at the long-term bigger picture. We're safer, all of us, if we have liberty. And when we are asked to sacrifice liberties and to allow the government to operate outside of the powers we grant it in response to what, in the big picture, is a minor risk, well, we need to say no.
Miss Cellane
2-22-16, 10:40pm
I wonder if all of you would feel the same if you had lost someone at the San Bernardino massacre? It just seems strange to me, to put privacy ahead of safety.
Unlocking this phone won't bring those people back. And since the shooters are dead, there's probably not going to be a trial.
In fact, I can't find anything anywhere that states what the Feds hope to accomplish by accessing the information on that phone. There's a chance that there's something useful in the great fight against terrorism, but no guarantee. The couple that did the shooting smashed their cellphones at some point. The phone in question is the guy's work phone, so there's a possibility that there is nothing but work-related stuff on there, which would mean no useful info for the Feds. This is not a case where law enforcement knows there is something on the phone that they need; it is simply a hunting expedition.
I pulled this off of CNET:
The FBI wants to know who Farook was communicating with and which websites he might have visited in the days leading up to the December 2 massacre. Access to computers and personal phones owned by Farook and his wife would help, but the couple smashed their personal phones and removed the hard drive from their computer. Farook's iPhone 5C, given to him by his employers at San Bernardino County in southern California, may be one of their last options.
Williamsmith
2-22-16, 10:41pm
I wonder if all of you would feel the same if you had lost someone at the San Bernardino massacre? It just seems strange to me, to put privacy ahead of safety.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring the builder or owner of your residence provide a key to your residence to the local police department? Anytime you changed the locks a new key would have to be provided. Of course, that key would only be used if the government was seeking evidence of criminal activities.
Is your iPhone different? It contains all manner of private information. There is a difference between serving a search warrant on a residence and compelling a company to create a key that will not only open the iPhone in question but will open all iPhones. This is information that does not belong to Apple. If Apple stores information such as text messages or a telephone registry then it is subject to seizure by search warrant or subpoena.
So so let's say Apple furnishes the technology. IPhones represent the holy grail of intelligence gathering. And what's great about them is you don't have to break into a house, attach tracking devices, set up wiretaps, and develop informants. All you have to do is steal the phone and extract the information. It makes fishing very easy.
I would too. The likelihood of terrorist attacks is small compared to virtually any other risk any of us faces, at least based on the statistics of how many people have been harmed by terrorists in the US since 9/11. And the potential negative consequences of broadening this intrusion into our privacy are vast. Both from government over-reach and from the unintended consequences of a hack into iPhones even existing.
IPhones represent the holy grail of intelligence gathering. And what's great about them is you don't have to break into a house, attach tracking devices, set up wiretaps, and develop informants. All you have to do is steal the phone and extract the information. It makes fishing very easy.
iPhones are even better than that. They have cameras, microphones, GPS, clocks, and are constantly connecting to the Internet via wi-fi or the cellular infrastructure. Consider how handy a remotely-activated feature to allow law enforcement real-time or logged access to those peripherals would be...
I mean, how cool would it be if they could just turn everyone's phone into audio/visual surveillance devices, with positioning and timestamp information? We'd all be *way* safer, right?
I already, with participation of law-enforcement, use some of the phone features we don't talk about much to help with search/rescue events to locate the subjects of our search...
We are already being warned to not have private conversations in front of our smart TVs. Hmmm ...
We have the rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Security is secondary to all three of those, in my book.
We are already being warned to not have private conversations in front of our smart TVs. Hmmm ...
We have the rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Security is secondary to all three of those, in my book.
My mother had a very old aunt, Aunt Bertha, who passed away when I was very small but heard lots of stories about. She had a tv in her bedroom and apparently one of the things she did was cover the tv with a towel every evening during the 10:00 news while she changed into her pajamas. She was certain that the newscasters could see her changing clothes. "They're just staring right at me! I know they can see!" I imagine if she was still alive she'd be saying "I told you so!"
They don't highlight this fact, but you can turn off your snooping tv's monitoring of your movements and conversation. We just got a new tv and making sure that it wasn't monitoring us and reporting back to the mother ship was the first thing I did before we even watched anything on it.
ToomuchStuff
2-23-16, 3:12am
The government could have just filed a FISA warrant for the technical documentation, and used its own government employee's to develop what they need. (if possible, to do what they want)
What this does, besides getting a company to do their work for them, is prove that something is possible that the government has been pushing for, for some time, back doors. If Apple is forced to do this, then they will take this as a show me, and also use it in their legislative efforts, to require them. (as well as other government agencies to develop their own, that won't be public knowledge) Apple will also have to expect more FISA warrants (ones we don't hear about), especially since the NSA has been told to stop collecting data. And the government hopes to gain public support to do it, with the same emotions, they used to strip our rights, while getting us to agree with it, via the Patriot act.
This also brings back an old case that I remember; Kevin Mitnick.
For those of you who don't know the name, back when the government was afraid of him, several things happened:
He phreaked the NSA. He was once arrested and during the arrest, the uninformed were "careful, he has a logic bomb" (sorry bae, hope you weren't drinking when reading that). He was locked away in solitary confinement, for a year, because the government convinced a judge, he could whistle into a phone and launch our nuclear missiles. And the part I often wonder............
The government kept his hard drive, and his lawyer successfully argued, that if he was forced to review the passphrase/password, that that, violated his fifth amendment right.
They are required to return his property after a certain point (his time served, probation over), and to the best of my knowledge, they never did. Many of these same aspects as well as some of the ones that caused Groklaw to shutdown, are in this same case.
This may be of interest:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175
And the book she quotes from here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy99/lesson1/malamud/mal_index.html
Janna Malamud Smith,"Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life"
listing her quotes which are relevant:
One way of beginning to understand privacy is by looking at what happens to people in extreme situations where it is absent. Recalling his time in Auschwitz, Primo Levi observed that "solitude in a Camp is more precious and rare than bread." Solitude is one state of privacy, and even amidst the overwhelming death, starvation, and horror of the camps, Levi knew he missed it.... Levi spent much of his life finding words for his camp experience. How, he wonders aloud in Survival in Auschwitz, do you describe "the demolition of a man," an offense for which "our language lacks words."...One function of privacy is to provide a safe space away from terror or other assaultive experiences. When you remove a person's ability to sequester herself, or intimate information about herself, you make her extremely vulnerable....
The totalitarian state watches everyone, but keeps its own plans secret. Privacy is seen as dangerous because it enhances resistance. Constantly spying and then confronting people with what are often petty transgressions is a way of maintaining social control and unnerving and disempowering opposition....
And even when one shakes real pursuers, it is often hard to rid oneself of the feeling of being watched -- which is why surveillance is an extremely powerful way to control people. The mind's tendency to still feel observed when alone... can be inhibiting. ... Feeling watched, but not knowing for sure, nor knowing if, when, or how the hostile surveyor may strike, people often become fearful, constricted, and distracted.
Safe privacy is an important component of autonomy, freedom, and thus psychological well-being, in any society that values individuals. ... Summed up briefly, a statement of "how not to dehumanize people" might read: Don't terrorize or humiliate. Don't starve, freeze, exhaust. Don't demean or impose degrading submission. Don't force separation from loved ones. Don't make demands in an incomprehensible language. Don't refuse to listen closely. Don't destroy privacy. Terrorists of all sorts destroy privacy both by corrupting it into secrecy and by using hostile surveillance to undo its useful sanctuary.
But if we describe a standard for treating people humanely, why does stripping privacy violate it? And what is privacy? In his landmark book, Privacy and Freedom, Alan Westin names four states of privacy: solitude, anonymity, reserve, and intimacy. The reasons for valuing privacy become more apparent as we explore these states....
The essence of solitude, and all privacy, is a sense of choice and control. You control who watches or learns about you. You choose to leave and return. ...
Intimacy is a private state because in it people relax their public front either physically or emotionally or, occasionally, both. They tell personal stories, exchange looks, or touch privately. They may ignore each other without offending. They may have sex. They may speak frankly using words they would not use in front of others, expressing ideas and feelings -- positive or negative -- that are unacceptable in public. (I don't think I ever got over his death. She seems unable to stop lying to her mother. He looks flabby in those running shorts. I feel horny. In spite of everything, I still long to see them. I am so angry at you I could scream. That joke is disgusting, but it's really funny.) Shielded from forced exposure, a person often feels more able to expose himself.
As I understand it, the technical issue isn't really the code for the desired features, that would be trivial to implement by the Feds themselves. However, the phone won't accept an unsigned version of the operating system/firmware, and to sign it requires Apple's private key. Which could be used to sign any old other code someone wanted to drop on the phone.
The Feds offered to let Apple do all the development work and so on, to keep the key unexposed, but that would require Apple to develop something against their will, and then you run into the other constitutional problem.
This whole mess wouldn't really have come up in the first place except the idiots first in possession of the phone changed its appleid password, rendering all the nice online icloud backups of its data no longer able to be examined.
Or so I've heard.
Williamsmith
2-23-16, 5:05am
From Tim Cook's letter to Apple Customers, February 16, 2016
Cook has been forced into a very precarious position. He holds the key to access to private information that intelligence agencies want unlocked. The FBI is simply the messenger and conduit here. There are other darker more nefarious players who don't like to or don't feel restrained to play by the rules. Ourngovernment is really hanging him out to dry.
A Dangerous PrecedentRather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
There are other darker more nefarious players who don't like to or don't feel restrained to play by the rules. Ourngovernment is really hanging him out to dry.
Should Tim Cook be afraid?
Williamsmith
2-23-16, 9:29am
Should Tim Cook be afraid?
In order to fairly answer this question, one would have to literally be in Mr. Cooks shoes and know what he knows about the business, the build up and what decisions he might have had to make.
Suppose we consider some things.
That the process of making a public release to customers, part of which I quoted above, is truly a monumental moment on the part of such a successful business.
That the court did not impose restrictions on Apple regarding discussion of this in the public square, is astounding.
That at a person such as Edward Snowden, a patriot to be honored or a treasonous spy to be hung - take your choice, would weight in by Twitter on the matter - is he still in Russia....where is he really?
That other tech Mavericks like for instance, Google, have remained silent on the matter. You would think this issue would impact their business going forward. Isn't encryption and security the foundation of modern communications?
That China has agreements with Apple regarding encryption that might be compromised.
That ISIS and all that makes up the terrorism network globally need to stay on top of the way this unfolds.
That surely, before this all became public there were many communications between federal law enforcement and perhaps even the White House regarding let's say, Apple "assisting" them in certain intelligence gathering operations which if recent events are evidence of anything, it might be that Tim Cook said to go pound salt.
So you make of it what you will but I would not choose to be Tim Cook and have his wealth at this time. It makes one wonder what stresses Steve Jobs had prior to his demise.
Bae would have a better technical knowledge....I only know the process of calculated maneuvers by people who feel the future of the world depends on their action. It is heady stuff. I am sure Mr. Cook would rather be floating in a sailboat somewhere in the Bahamas without a smartphone to be found rather than at work today.
Some things to think about.
Charlie Rose was interviewing Bill Gates today and Charlie asked if Apple would get access to the phone themselves and then give the feds the data, without actually giving the feds access to the codes. Bill thought for a little and said, yes, that would seem to solve everything. It would only partially remove some of the privacy issues, but could be a comprise solution. They brought the fact that there are over a hundred cases in the courts where some judicial department was seeking access to iphone information and if it did end up going through the court system it could set up precedence for these cases and also into the future.
Of course now it turns out that it's not just one phone but a dozen phones from various criminal investigations around the country.
Perhaps Apple could open up an iPhone forensics department, charging $$$ for the service of opening up each phone for law enforcement folks.
Of course, that might lead some folks to switch to using Android phones, or the Blackphone from Silent Circle. And might also scare off iCloud customers in general.
Or burners. If I were plotting a crime, that's what I'd use.
Williamsmith
2-24-16, 10:02am
Perhaps Apple could open up an iPhone forensics department, charging $$$ for the service of opening up each phone for law enforcement folks.
Of course, that might lead some folks to switch to using Android phones, or the Blackphone from Silent Circle. And might also scare off iCloud customers in general.
The holy grail of potential evidence use to be the personal home computer. Any homicide task force I ever worked had a forensic specialist assigned who's specific task was to collect facts brought to him/her, build an affidavit of probable cause and file a search warrant application with the judge. Almost always a suspect could become a defendant by this means. I can't tell you how many computers I seized and how much evidence was developed from them. So now the home computer is the iPhone. Law enforcement is not going to let this potential go by the wayside. And they need this court case won so they can compel private industry to comply under threat of arrest. And they don't have to pay a dime. Do it or else.
I used to to serve search warrants on banks. I ran up against lots of people unwilling to comply. First I took the nice guy approach and usually that worked. As long as they could spin it that they were bending over backward for you and that this was a special exception....they were happy. A few times it got ugly. If the nice guy approach doesn't work, well it ain't funny anymore when the District Attorney calls and tells you the judge says you must comply or be arrested. I once threatened to shut down a branch office during business hours. I told the branch manager that I was going to do what I was lawfully commanded to do and that was search their records for the evidence detailed on the search warrant. However long that took........or they could help me and I would get out of their hair. Ten minutes later I was satisfied and on my way with photos of a murderer using my victim's stolen atm card.
I don't see how Apple can win but I think Cook is doing the right thing. Although, there are probably some FBI Bureau Heads pissed off right now.
Miss Cellane
2-24-16, 10:53am
A similar issue comes up with libraries. Most librarians will cooperate with a court-ordered search warrant, and release the patron's borrowing information, but there has to be a search warrant.
And a great many libraries do not keep a history of what books a patron has checked out. Current books that the person has out right now, yes. And possibly a bit of history on over-due books or ILL books or the like, but certainly not the majority of the books you've ever checked out. It can be a bit frustrating for the borrower, who would like to check "the blue book with the picture of a sailboat on it that I had out last year," out again, but it does preserve their privacy.
And yet, now I can see some government official wanting this and demanding it and expecting the library to write the software that will retrieve the info. Even if the info no longer exists.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.