Not sure if this deserves its own thread, but it seems like it might be a pretty interesting precedent, depending on the outcome of this argument.A state judge has ordered Apple, as a company, to decipher the encryption locking Syed Farook's phone, and Apple/Tim Cook is refusing. I'm not sure where I stand personally. I'm certainly against our government's encroachment on civil liberties going all the way back to the Patriot Act, but for some reason, I feel like this is something that Apple needs to do. What if down the road someone uses an iPhone to rig a bomb, and the only way to defuse it is to get into it...would Apple refuse then? Sure, that's a Mission Impossible type scenario, but not much different from the real-life argument going on currently.http://us.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
2/17/2016 8:17:06 AM
If the judge is ordering it, isn't that essentially a warrant, or has a warrant been issued? If they have a warrant I don't see the issue.
2/17/2016 8:52:39 AM
It's not about simply unlocking the phone:
2/17/2016 8:54:58 AM
Oic
2/17/2016 9:06:49 AM
I don't see how the requests are any different though. They say the FBI wants a new OS to install on Farook's phone, but how is that really any different that ordering them to simply come up with an app or something that circumvents the encryption/password? Same thing, just different paths to get there.
2/17/2016 9:20:25 AM
Or you could read the article.
2/17/2016 10:10:58 AM
Yeh, this is a tough one. Once the door is opened to one phone, it's opened to all phones, defeating the entire purpose of their security measures. It's not as simple as, just do it on this phone.
2/17/2016 10:28:43 AM
Trump is giving his opinion on this. He thinks Apple should comply. Foreshadowing for what kind of president he would be.
2/17/2016 11:45:04 AM
He's probably pandering to the morons who think, "OMG, TURRISTS. FUCK THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES!" because they don't have the capacity to consider the ramifications of such actions, nor that their own liberties very well may be impacted. But if they did, they still would want Apple to do this, 'cause, "IF U AIN' GOT NUTHIN' TAH HIDE, THEN U AIN' GOT NUTHIN TO WORRY 'BOUT".
2/17/2016 11:47:27 AM
My understanding is that the fbi is asking for a way to brute force the passcode, they're not asking for a way to get the encryption keys for anything. this isn't really a backdoor and is probably something the iPhone hackers already know how to do. But maybe I'm not understanding something here...
2/17/2016 12:38:52 PM
Apple has been fairly outspoken about security and encryption issues. This is about preventing a precedent that will be used to force built-in backdoors.
2/17/2016 12:55:54 PM
This one is nasty. I'm not sure this is a slope i would be willing to put my footing on. In terms of the precedence being set here, a tech company isn't worth its weight in buttholes if it can't ensure the protection of user data.
2/17/2016 12:56:17 PM
2/17/2016 1:23:53 PM
We mist unlock this phone so we cam find plans for an attack that already took place
2/17/2016 2:19:38 PM
2/17/2016 2:27:31 PM
This is something the national security/intelligence complex has been pushing for a while now. This San Bernadino thing is the first convenient excuse they've had to trot this shit into court and hope that the idiotic public jumps on their side without thinking it through.Building a back door into encryption makes encryption worthless, and opens phones up to all kinds of intrusions by people other than just government. How long before financial data is stolen right off your phone, or your employer plants child porn on your phone because you're threatening to sue over some kind of discrimination, or unscrupulous cops plant some kind of evidence directly onto your phone.It has all kinds of massive, far reaching and irreversible negative consequences with virtually zero actual benefit in terms of national security.This is a horrible idea, and I hope apple is able to show that they not only can't do this, but they will continue to refuse the idea of building in a back door.
2/17/2016 2:49:28 PM
^seconded
2/17/2016 2:52:49 PM
2/17/2016 3:02:08 PM
2/17/2016 3:49:51 PM
They don't want Apple to "create an OS" with this, they want a special firmware revision for the iPhone 5C model the San Bernadino attacker has for them to load on that single specific phone (allegedly) to bypass the lock code.They're not asking apple to change iOS they ship to consumers with this back door. They're not asking apple to disallow this backdoor in future phones either.
2/17/2016 3:54:49 PM
let's not be pedantic about OS vs firmwareonce it's created they can not uncreate it
2/17/2016 4:06:03 PM
I don't like the fact that the government is asking for this, and I don't like the fact that Apple is refusing. I'm torn.But, I feel like Apple is using this as a publicity stunt to tout their security.
2/17/2016 4:09:15 PM
2/17/2016 4:39:28 PM
2/17/2016 4:42:32 PM
2/17/2016 6:29:06 PM
in the words of Apple themselves:http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
2/17/2016 6:32:16 PM
^ lol, Tim Cook isn't going to say "firmware variant" in an email for the masses. That wording is for your mom and dad, not you and i.You and I both know that the task at hand isn't to "Create a new OS" and the intention isn't to deploy this to shipping iPhones.
2/17/2016 6:34:53 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+pedanticchanging those security features does in fact require changing the OS. once apple creates that, they can't uncreate it, and they have no guarantee how it will be used[Edited on February 17, 2016 at 6:38 PM. Reason : stop being a moran]
2/17/2016 6:36:55 PM
2/17/2016 6:52:21 PM
Great job Apple. I don't see how anyone thinks they should do this.
2/17/2016 7:18:16 PM
LOL, it looks to me like most of you are conflating this "encryption backdoor" issue with the one a few weeks ago, when congress et al was calling for literal encryption backdoors (separate "secret" passwords or keys or whatnot).This issue is different than that issue. Note that Apple's complaint isn't even that they have to create this security bypass, their complaint is that they they are being ordered to do so by a court order that they don't view as applicable, and are asking congress to clarify the condition where they must perform these bypasses (and congress might come back and say "anytime any law enforcement wants it-- and while youre at it, bake it into the shipping product"). Apple is fine doing the bypass, they probably just don't want to have to do it for every local department and government agency that asks-- because that's obviously a huge problem.I hope you all realize by now this is not an "encryption backdoor" issue, but an issue with legal procedure.No one is asking for an encryption backdoor, an encryption backdoor that's secure is impossible to begin with, and it wouldn't be possible to implement retroactively anyway (which is good... because no one is asking for this).
2/17/2016 7:19:26 PM
switch your argument... good call
2/17/2016 7:24:21 PM
[Edited on February 17, 2016 at 7:39 PM. Reason : eff it]
2/17/2016 7:33:48 PM
lol wtf dude
2/17/2016 7:43:49 PM
2/17/2016 8:07:25 PM
Richard Burr (R-NC) came out against Apple: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/17/apple-san-bernardino-terror-attack-court-order-iphone-richard-burr/80525170/Just FYI he's up for re-election this year, and the leading Democratic candidate is Deborah K. Ross, a former long-time state ACLU leader; I think she's on the right side of this issue: http://www.deborahross.com/#bio
2/17/2016 8:16:59 PM
Great to see moron and Burr in the same camp
2/17/2016 10:06:57 PM
One of these terrorists would not be dumb enough to save important contacts in their phone, or send damning emails. But in the government's mind, they have to be sure.But this can't be the first case where law enforcement has needed to get into an iPhone for evidence, so I'm not understanding why the FBI just can't use whatever has been used in the past. Or is this really the first case in which law enforcement has needed to get into an iPhone and can't?What the FBI is asking for is unreasonable.
2/17/2016 10:35:34 PM
http://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-care-about-apple-s-fight-with-the-fbi-1759639200[Edited on February 17, 2016 at 10:38 PM. Reason : h/t to TGD][Edited on February 17, 2016 at 10:40 PM. Reason : V he sadly knows nothing about what he types]
2/17/2016 10:37:35 PM
2/17/2016 10:37:45 PM
If Apple has private data in iCloud, they should be giving that to the authorities, subject to a warrant or court order. That's just how that ish should be. I've got absolutely no problem with that. But providing a hack for their own device? Hell no.Honestly, if you look at this, it really is uncharted territory to me. Warrants, as envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution, are premised on the notion that the authorities could always get at the subject of the warrant. If a guy kept some shit in a safe, the police could get into that safe, with or without that guy's help. This is frankly different. At the same time, if Apple complies with this request, it instantly makes every other device vulnerable, both to the government and to outside agencies. You won't here me say this often, but it's something which was largely unforeseeable by the drafters of the Constitution, and I think it's something which isn't covered. There's clearly a compelling government interest in gaining access to the phone's data, but no good way for them to d so. By the 10th Amendment, you would argue that whatever power would be necessary to compel Apple to act isn't granted to the Federal government, so the Federal government can't do it. But that still leaves us at the question of how to provide the government such a power, but how to also reign it in, while at the same time not also making devices vulnerable.[Edited on February 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]
2/17/2016 10:52:38 PM
2/18/2016 3:22:05 AM
2/18/2016 3:39:16 AM
Well, that article also makes it sound like the iPhone 6's have a completely different security architecture, and it didn't go into details but kind of alluded to it being "unhackable." I hate that word because nothing is unhackable, but it sounds like it would be a lot harder for the government to get into a newer iPhone.
2/18/2016 7:13:01 AM
^ that's referring to apples new secure enclave chip:Secure EnclaveThe Secure Enclave is a coprocessor fabricated in the Apple A7 or later A-series processor. It utilizes its own secure boot and personalized software update separate from the application processor. It provides all cryptographic operations for Data Protection key management and maintains the integrity of Data Protection evenif the kernel has been compromised.The Secure Enclave uses encrypted memory and includes a hardware random number generator. Its microkernel is based on the L4 family, with modi cations by Apple. Communication between the Secure Enclave and the application processor is isolated to an interrupt-driven mailbox and shared memory data bu ers.Each Secure Enclave is provisioned during fabrication with its own UID (Unique ID) that is not accessible to other parts of the system and is not known to Apple. When the device starts up, an ephemeral key is created, entangled with its UID, and used to encrypt the Secure Enclave’s portion of the device’s memory space.Additionally, data that is saved to the le system by the Secure Enclave is encrypted with a key entangled with the UID and an anti-replay counter.The Secure Enclave is responsible for processing ngerprint data from the TouchID sensor, determining if there is a match against registered ngerprints, and then enabling access or purchases on behalf of the user. Communication between the processor and the Touch ID sensor takes place over a serial peripheral interfacebus. The processor forwards the data to the Secure Enclave but cannot read it. It’s encrypted and authenticated with a session key that is negotiated using the device’s shared key that is provisioned for the Touch ID sensor and the Secure Enclave. The session key exchange uses AES key wrapping with both sides providing a random key that establishes the session key and uses AES-CCM transport encryption.https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf[Edited on February 18, 2016 at 9:34 AM. Reason : ]
2/18/2016 9:33:50 AM
2/18/2016 12:38:58 PM
I find it interesting, and terrifying, that a court can compel and uninvolved third party to undertake what I'm sure is a hefty amount of expense in equipment and personnel. Is this really any different than a judge issuing an order that I go spend weeks digging up a field where a killer may have buried bodies just because I happen to own a shovel? Granted, Apple has a unique skill set but the idea stands. Suppose Apple can't defy the order. Do they get compensation?
2/18/2016 2:05:07 PM
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/nsas-director-says-paris-attacks-would-not-have-happened-without-crypto
2/18/2016 2:17:46 PM
did they not try 6-9-6-9 or 1-2-3-4?
2/18/2016 2:18:33 PM
From all the stories I hear about No Such Agency, I would assume if Apple can do this, so can they. Why don't they just have the NSA do it?
2/18/2016 2:32:15 PM