Support NeoGAF

[Moosichu]

Someone else said it best:

Yeah, people should be asking, why is the FBI doing this for this case? What are their motivations?

 

[samn]

Sounds like it'd be specific to 5c

The guy I linked is talking about the secure enclave.

 

[SuperPac]

People died. End of story.

So you're saying that this mass shooting should also end in tougher gun laws - yet that's not happening.

hope the other big companies come out in support of this to prevent it going any further

In a perfect world that would happen. I'll be very surprised if any other company does since they have not before now when it would have been easier to do so.

 

[Blackhead]

hope the other big companies come out in support of this to prevent it going any further

In a perfect world that would happen. I'll be very surprised if any other company does since they have not before now when it would have been easier to do so.

? They did so less than 3 months ago: "Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Twitter, Facebook and 56 other technology companies have joined together to reject calls for weakening encryption..."

 

[Opus Angelorum]

It's a very difficult decision.

Imagine if a member of your family was killed and information concerning their attackers was held on a phone.

If you knew Apple could write something to remove the security layers but wouldn't...would that change your opinion?

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

I trust the US court system.

They can make a stand and stop selling phones in China/Russia if it's that important to them. That's really irrelevant to this case as far as US law is concerned.

There should be a way to do this while also protecting customers' privacy rights. Making a slippery slope argument that bad shit might happen if Apple does this the wrong way isn't a very valid argument.

You shouldn't trust the US court system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secret_law

Read it, and be afraid.

 

[Beefy]

Someone else said it best:

See if this is true then yeah Apple are in the right.

 

[Nozem]

It's a very difficult decision.

Imagine if a member of your family was killed and information concerning their attackers was held on a phone.

If you knew Apple could write something to remove the security layers but wouldn't...would that change your opinion?

Of course it would. That's why these decisions shouldn't be made by emotional attached people, but on a rational basis.

 

[Rudimental]

Won't they have to sit there with that individual phone and type the passwords into it, given that the device is encrypted?

 

[igordennis]

Anyone interested in iOS security should read this:

https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Thats a really impressive document. iOS is so complex i wonder if someone can even fully comprehend the source code. Like how many failsafes that security system has damn. The programmers that coded this stuff are some smart people.

 

[collige]

How would this hypothetical piece of software even work? Can you even forcibly execute code on locked phones?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Why doesn't the government create this software if they want it so bad?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I don't think there are backdoors, the FBI is requesting an iOS update with back doors. So technically an update is a way to do it. But it has to be signed and authenticated by Apple. I'd like to believe that the FBI would use this as a one time only thing, but with a tool that powerful it'll be abused. And were it leaked..... The possibilities for tremendous harm are enormous.

It doesn't matter, because you can't update a locked iPhone. What the government is requesting can only be applied to other phones.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Why doesn't the government create this software if they want it so bad?

You can't reverse engineer it.

 

[Nicktendo86]

See if this is true then yeah Apple are in the right.

I agree.

 

[Zeyphersan]

You can't reverse engineer it.

You also can't force someone to create something against their will through a court order

 

[kitchenmotors]

I would like to see the court throw Tim Cook's smug ass in jail for disobeying the order.

Man, some of the replies in this thread are down right pathetic.

Maybe push aside your anti-Apple fanboy stance for a second to think clearly about what a move like this would mean. I, for one, am happy Apple is standing their ground. Protecting data of all Apple users is important and creating some sort of backdoor software is really dangerous, especially in the governments hands.

I feel like they're using this one case to try and persuade Apple to give them something they want for future use.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

You also can't force someone to create something against their will through a court order

I guess that's for the law makers to decide.

 

[Wereroku]

You also can't force someone to create something against their will through a court order

Yes you can.

 

[hodgy100]

But Apple itself hasn't explicitly said they can't do it(i.e open the phone up) but rather that they don't want to because it sets a dangerous precedent.

At the end of the day, again, I am having a really hard time believing that even Apple couldn't open it up. Take the phone, build a prototype to open the phone in private, open the phone, hand over to authorities and destroy the mechanism.

Some posts in here are beginning to read like Apple PR.

No you just clearly have little knowledge on how encryption works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

 

[poppabk]

It doesn't matter, because you can't update a locked iPhone. What the government is requesting can only be applied to other phones.

It sounds like this isn't true for whatever reason. If it was, Apple would have just said "It's impossible" and moved on.

 

[poppabk]

Man, some of the replies in this thread are down right pathetic.

Maybe push aside your anti-Apple fanboy stance for a second to think clearly about what a move like this would mean. I, for one, am happy Apple is standing their ground. Protecting data of all Apple users is important and creating some sort of backdoor software is really dangerous, especially in the governments hands.

I feel like they're using this one case to try and persuade Apple to give them something they want for future use.

They introduced a massive backdoor with the fingerprint reader though, just for their users convenience.

 

[jelly]

So what is Microsoft and Google's stance?

Do they offer the same thing on phones?

 

[Kurdel]

So what is Microsoft and Google's stance?

Do they offer the same thing on phones?

Microsoft would do anything for the government, Google has stuck to their encryption guns in the past with hangouts, but I don't know about phone unlocking.

 

[Angelus Errare]

They introduced a massive backdoor with the fingerprint reader though, just for their users convenience.

explain.

 

[onadesertedisland]

What could be on there that the NSA didn't already intercept?

 

[braves01]

Has Apple been approached about this kind of thing by foreign governments before, eg China?

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

In an ideal world, one many of you seem to think we live in, Apple could create a workaround and help in this case then that workaround is destroyed never to be seen or used again. However, once this precedent has been set Apple will be forced to comply in all future cases as well, which means they can't just destroy this backdoor key. In an ideal world this would be fine as it would never hit the public, but companies, FBI, etc are ran by people and that would make it very hard to contain long term. Therefore, putting the security of every iOS user at stake.

All that to unlock the phone and likely find even more encryption inside the device.

 

[Kuros]

Has Apple been approached about this kind of thing by foreign governments before, eg China?

They will have struck a deal to get the iPhone into China you would have thought. They have a specific variant for China Mobile lets put it that way.

 

[Somnid]

Has Apple been approached about this kind of thing by foreign governments before, eg China?

Probably most governments have approached them and they are fighting behind the scenes. Both China and the UK have some nasty initiatives to block devices that use encryption. If it turns out Apple can do this then they will undoubtedly ask for it as well.

 

[Milly Osworth]

So if you want to be a jerk you just put in the wrong pin 10 times on someones phone and its all gone?

 

[FyreWulff]

So if you want to be a jerk you just put in the wrong pin 10 times on someones phone and its all gone?

yes, but you have to wait longer each time you fail, so it takes a while to be an asshole.

 

[Kuros]

So if you want to be a jerk you just put in the wrong pin 10 times on someones phone and its all gone?

Well they would then be able to restore it from iCloud, which is also encrypted but in theory yes.

 

[Irminsul]

It doesn't matter, because you can't update a locked iPhone. What the government is requesting can only be applied to other phones.

I wonder if this really is the case. If so, the FBI is blatantly trying to set a precedent. If not, however, you could argue that there already is a backdoor (well, or at least a way for far easier brute-forcing) because it's somehow possible to change a locked phone's OS.

Microsoft would do anything for the government, Google has stuck to their encryption guns in the past with hangouts, but I don't know about phone unlocking.

Microsoft is currently fighting a court order to let the government access information stored on a server in Ireland. Obviously because if they'd hand out the data MS could kiss their European cloud market goodbye, but you're still wrong.

 

[Kuros]

I wonder if this really is the case. If so, the FBI is blatantly trying to set a precedent. If not, however, you could argue that there already is a backdoor (well, or at least a way for far easier brute-forcing) because it's somehow possible to change a locked phone's OS.


Microsoft is currently fighting a court order to let the government access information stored on a server in Ireland. Obviously because if they'd hand out the data MS could kiss their European cloud market goodbye, but you're still wrong.

I would be amazed if the Chinese gov haven't got a back door into the Chinese iPhone variant. That's just the cost of doing business there

 

[Kurdel]

Are the mods sleeping? Why do we still have 2 threads?

Microsoft is currently fighting a court order to let the government access information stored on a server in Ireland. Obviously because if they'd hand out the data MS could kiss their European cloud market goodbye, but you're still wrong.

Good to know!

 

[neurosisxeno]

explain.

I'm going to make assumptions here, but if you've seen any spy movie where they crack a finger print scanner you get the idea. Assuming you have a finger print of the suspect you could 3D print a replica finger out of something like silicone and use it to unlock the device--assuming the finger print reader would detect it and was actually setup. Some people don't setup Touch ID.

So if you want to be a jerk you just put in the wrong pin 10 times on someones phone and its all gone?

I believe you could still restore factory settings and recover from iCloud, but a lot of information would still be lost.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

So will apple write code that causes the program to delete itself after 10 uses?

 

[Htown]

Apple has responded:

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

As someone who doesn't like Apple's products and services at all, I have to say they are absolutely 100% making the right decision here.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"The end of encryption" arguement is a good one but its also one which has physical analogue which undermine it in many ways I don't think privacy advocates admit.

There is an backdoor into any physical lock, in fact we created a profession for it!

I'll still lock my door and lock things up because its prohibitive and their are many ways to monitor my stuff on top of just the lock. I can have cameras, alarms, physical placement, etc.

Why cook says this enables bad actors to use the same tools. I think back to things like that. And it's why I think the fear mongering about bad actors is rather flimsy from my point of view. Locksmiths exist and bank robbers exist but we still trust the safety of locks and banks.

I think their are many things we can do on top of actual encryption to keep things safe in the digital age. Things like monitoring, two step, biometrics, etc. Never mind even with a back door it will still be cost prohibitive for most "bad actors."

 

[poppabk]

explain.

Grab persons hand, put finger on sensor. Or find a fingerprint and create a fake. It may or may not have worked in this instance, given the timing, but in the vast majority of cases they would have a way to get access to your phone.

 

[numble]

Grab persons hand, put finger on sensor. Or find a fingerprint and create a fake. It may or may not have worked in this instance, given the timing, but in the vast majority of cases they would have a way to get access to your phone.

5 failed attempts and you need to enter the password. In the vast majority of cases they have not gotten access to phones via this method. If the suspect licks his thumb or deliberately uses the wrong finger, you're locked out.

 

[nobode]

"The end of encryption" arguement is a good one but its also one which has physical analogue which undermine it in many ways I don't think privacy advocates admit.

There is an backdoor into any physical lock, in fact we created a profession for it!

I'll still lock my door and lock things up because its prohibitive and their are many ways to monitor my stuff on top of just the lock. I can have cameras, alarms, physical placement, etc.

Why cook says this enables bad actors to use the same tools. I think back to things like that. And it's why I think the fear mongering about bad actors is rather flimsy from my point of view. Locksmiths exist and bank robbers exist but we still trust the safety of locks and banks.

I think their are many things we can do on top of actual encryption to keep things safe in the digital age. Things like monitoring, two step, biometrics, etc. Never mind even with a back door it will still be cost prohibitive for most "bad actors."

Isn't this kind of a bad comparison? Locksmiths and bank robbers exist, sure. And locks and banks are not 100% secure, sure. But aren't those not completely secure because of the limitations of the physical world?

I mean, people trust these tools to be the best security they can get. If someone can create an impenetrable house with impenetrable locks, or a 100% secured bank, I'm sure people would want it, but they simply can't because of physical limitations.

What you're saying with encryption, however, is to purposefully compromise a virtually secured system, and obfuscate it with other layers of security, to make a really hard to break, yet vulnerable security.

Also, access to information and access to materialistic objects might hold different values to people.

 

[Freyjadour]

It's almost like people in this thread don't even remember the Patriot Act.

Slippery slope is overwhelming misused, but this is a legitimate use and it has loooots of precedent. "Do you want the bad guys to win?" is a much, much more dangerous argument.

 

[M3d10n]

I'm on the camp of this being a ploy to get a precedent. They already have iCloud data (and possibly backups). Also, couldn't a government grade forensic lab be able to do things like dump the NAND so they can brute force without going through the software layer?

 

[Omegasquash]

People died. End of story.

"People died because of this thing, so I'm going to USE THEIR DEATH, AND THE TRAGEDY THAT OCCURRED to enhance my spying capability in the name of security."

People die because of rampant gun use all the time, and you don't see this kind of response from government agencies.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Not sure you understand what's happening here. Apple are being asked to remove the restriction on entering 10 incorrect PINs. This is entirely possible. They don't have to brute force the encryption key, they just have to brute force the 4 digit PIN.

The secure enclave firmware can be overwritten.

The whole phone is encrypted so no, it's not entirely possible. Not without completely breaking the security of iOS.

"Slippery slope" really is the most bullshit of arguments.

It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a full-on-Wile-E-Coyote-cliff. The FBI's argument is actually the one that more closely hews to the slippery slope fallacy.

No.

First of all if you really think Apple can't crack it's own technology, you're delusional.

Second, they want Apple to remove the mechanism, not hand that technology over to the FBI.

What scares me more is the attitude in here declaring Apple some kind of paragon for privacy, when all they want to do is keep people from knowing that they were bullshitting you in the first place.

I mean I'm all for some good conspiracy and fuck the government, and sorry to generalize here, but if my fellow countrymen and me were as scared of our government as you Americans, I'd move.

First I don't think Apple could easily accomplish it and if they did they would see the method they found as a vulnerability that should be fixed.

Whether or not Apple gives the FBI the method is moot. The FBI would simply compel them to do it again the next time(s) they needed it. As long as the vulnerability is kept open it is a major risk to public safety.

I don't really understand your 3rd point. What is Apple bullshiting us about? On what grounds are you making that claim?

It's not about trusting the Government. We live in a world where news of a major cyber attack comes out monthly and those are just the ones that get published. We live in a world where the North Korean government hacked Sony Pictures and did millions of dollars of damage.

The problem without government isn't that they are some evil shady group. They simply value offensive capabilities over defensive ones in Digital Security and they are dead wrong.

You know how this problem could be solved ? Apple provides the password, FBI opens the phone. Boom. That's the middle ground I am talking about. Apple doesn't have to break the encryption but just opens the phone for the authorities.

1) Guy was guilty of mass murder.
2) Authorities are trying to piece together what was he planning.
3) Court agrees the info in his phone needs to be seen.
5) Apple should help so the case can proceed, due process is done and victims get some closure.

Explain to me how accessing a phone is in any different than a search warrant or wire tap that courts usually authroizes case by case.


Unless you're not involved in terrorist/extreme criminal activities, I don't think the government will care about the nudes on your phone.

Apple doesn't have the password. That is how real security works. To even change the OS to allow brute force cracks would expose a huge security flaw. If Apple is aware of a major security flaw in their OS and they don't fix it, then they are putting their customers at risk. Bad actors will find the vulnerability eventually.

The US Government might not care about your nudes, but some Romanian hackers might find it a good way to blackmail you. That's the issue.

 

[neshcom]

We already live in a world where we know governments have taken advantage of security back doors for completely unnecessary, ineffective reasons and outside the law, so the idea that a slippery slope argument is paranoia makes no sense.

 

[LyleLanley]

See if this is true then yeah Apple are in the right.

Even if it isn't true Apple is still in the right.

 

[GameAddict411]

So what is Microsoft and Google's stance?

Do they offer the same thing on phones?

Nexus phones have had full disk encryption since 2014. But now it's a requirement for any smartphone that ships with Android marshmallow.