Support NeoGAF

[ginger ninja]

I knew you meant my post, ginger ninja. Show me how it's biased to hear a company talk up their serious approach to privacy for years only to be proven fully competent when the FBI comes forward with demands like this. If you are an Apple user you should be ELATED at this news.

I mean no offense but it honestly reads like a PR post. You could have just said, "Sweet, I knew trusting Apple was the rie thing to do" and that would convey the same message as you did.

Edit: I know it's rather petty to bring this up but when the second paragraph of their open letter begins with this, excuse me If I roll my eyes:

The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives.

 

[Irminsul]

This however isn't the same thing. I don't see FBI asking to completely break IOS security or allow a backdoor to all iphones here but rather a way to access the phone contents of a terrorist.

But where is the difference in the methods necessary to do such a thing? Because that's the only thing that's important. If there's no difference, the same methods can and will be (ab)used for different stuff.

And honestly, I don't see how there could be a difference. Methods and tools don't care about good intentions, as I said. So methods to access the phone contents of a terrorist can be used to access the phone content of everyone.

Either there already are backdoors in iPhones and Apple is lying or there aren't and there's nothing they can do.

 

[FyreWulff]

I agree with the stance here, although I do note that it doesn't actually seem to suggest that it's impossible to do so, which intrigues me.

It's not impossible for this specific model, but it also shows why pure software solutions with poor keys (4 digit numbers) don't make for good security. Which is why they've gone for fingerprint scanners to implement a form of 2-factor.

If they had used a lengthy text passphrase, the government could spend a million years and never find the key, even after Apple would remove a guess limit. Any physical form of 2-factor paired with that and you're moving up to trillions of years.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Glad Apple took a stand on this. I wish other companies would do the same.

 

[Irminsul]

I agree with the stance here, although I do note that it doesn't actually seem to suggest that it's impossible to do so, which intrigues me.

Well, brute-force is always a (theoretical) way. Whether it's infeasible to break the encryption is the more interesting question. You probably meant that, but if we're talking about semantics, we really have to be specific.

 

[oti]

Chapeau Apple. You're doing the right thing.

 

[Rootbeer]

I mean no offense but it honestly reads like a PR post. You could have just said, "Sweet, I knew trusting Apple was the rie thing to do" and that would convey the same message as you did.

Giving credit where it is due. Apple doesn't have to fight this, but they are. I admire when a company isn't just full of hot air.

Apple doesn't need me for PR, they are doing an excellent job on their own here.

 

[jediyoshi]

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

If you're repeatedly setting up the precedent, there's literally no distinction.

 

[mclem]

This isn't his Apple ID password (Which would be stored on Apple Servers)

For what it's worth (although not relevant directly to this): Any modern password for a public service shouldn't be stored directly anywhere, not even on the servers that use it; what would be stored is - at the very least - a salted hash

To put it as simply as possible, you enter a password at your end, it goes through a one-way conversion, then the answer is what's compared against the password database. Because it's a one-way conversion, you can't actually get backwards from the stored password to the original text that was entered.

So if they did want the Apple ID, I'd hope that Apple would find it difficult to give the authorities that, instead.

 

[mclem]

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.

Loosely speaking: Because with good encryption, what's in the safe depends on how you open the door.

 

[Beefy]

I wonder if people would be happy with Apple if some one they knew got murdered yet the evidence was all on a password encrypted IPhone. I can see it from both ways.

 

[thefro]

If you're repeatedly setting up the precedent, there's literally no distinction.

i don't see a problem as long as there has to be a valid court order.

Cook admitting it's possible for them to do this pretty much already screws them over with China.

 

[THRILLH0]

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

 

[mclem]

Well, brute-force is always a (theoretical) way. Whether it's infeasible to break the encryption is the more interesting question. You probably meant that, but if we're talking about semantics, we really have to be specific.

No, I was talking specifically about the 'removing the limit' side of things, whether that is possible. Certainly without the limit there's ways to get to the data with enough time and effort.

 

[Clefargle]

It's not impossible, but it also shows why pure software solutions with poor keys (4 digit numbers) don't make for good security. Which is why they've gone for fingerprint scanners to implement a form of 2-factor.

If they had used a lengthy text passphrase, the government could spend a million years and never find the key. Any physical form of 2-factor paired with that and you're moving up to trillions of years.

Interesting, so the Govt won't/can't use his fingerprints? Do they degrade that fast off a dead guy?

 

[Zeyphersan]

Interesting, so the Govt won't/can't use his fingerprints? Do they degrade that fast off a dead guy?

His phone is a 5C, which doesn't have TouchID

Also, in the future when something like this happens and they use a phone that can read fingerprints, it doesn't work all the time. Like after 48 hours or after the phone is rebooted

 

[samn]

The government haven't ordered Apple to unlock this phone. I don't know why people keep saying they should do this because the court order goes much further than that. They're ordering them to provide them tools to unlock this phone, which could be used to help unlock any phone.

I wonder if people would be happy with Apple if some one they knew got murdered yet the evidence was all on a password encrypted IPhone. I can see it from both ways.

If someone I knew was murdered I probably wouldn't be able to have an objective view of the situation.

 

[Trurl]

If Apple is standing up to the entire legal system, maybe it's not the government that we should worry about being too powerful.

 

[mclem]

I wonder if people would be happy with Apple if some one they knew got murdered yet the evidence was all on a password encrypted IPhone. I can see it from both ways.

Ultimately, it's reasonably easy to set up your own damn-near-impenetrable security with a little effort without needing any proprietary tools. I'm not sure I'd think it's particularly fair to lambast Apple for offering extremely simple access to similar security methods.

'cause I think that's the thing, here; it's not exactly that Apple are offering security - you can get that anywhere. It's that Apple are offering easy security, for the masses.

 

[FyreWulff]

If math is standing up to the entire legal system, maybe it's not the government that we should worry about being too powerful.

Fixed for reality

edit: I also looked it up, the "amount of tries" for the 5c is also all in software. Later phones (A7 and newer) have the try attempts in the secure enclave, meaning any later iPhones are more resistant to an upgrade attack.

 

[Random_Stranger]

I wonder if the people saying they are glad Apple won't help would be saying the same thing if they knew somebody who died in this attack.

Apple has a responsibly like all people do to help stop potential crimes, and terrorist attacks. This persons phone could have important data needed to catch others that want to do do harm to others.

 

[Ovek]

Cook admitting it's possible for them to do this pretty much already screws them over with China.

To be honest I'm surprised the iPhone was even certified for sale in China without some sort of back door. This was the country after all that developed its own WiFi standard so it could get in to any WiFi network it wanted.

It makes you wonder how much of Apples moral stance melted away in the need to increase sales and penetrate the wealthy market of China...

 

[Dishwalla]

The thing is too what happens if Apple did cooperate and help them unlock the phone(presuming they could), and there ended up being nothing on it?

Also one other thing I want to know is how do the Feds even know if the phone wiping option on the phone is even turned on or not? There's no way of knowing that unless you actually put in ten wrong codes and it wipes the phone, at which point it's too late anyways. It doesn't sound like they've even attempted to put in a code ten times, sounds like they are presuming that the phone wiping option is turned on.

edit: okay so watching TV news they are saying that they believe the phone wiping option is turned on, which means they don't know for sure. So what measures has the FBI been using to try and get into the phone for the last two and a half months?

 

[Beefy]

Ultimately, it's reasonably easy to set up your own damn-near-impenetrable security with a little effort without needing any proprietary tools. I'm not sure I'd think it's particularly fair to lambast Apple for offering extremely simple access to similar security methods.

I'm not having a go at Apple. All I am saying there is occassions when being able to see behind a password could help murder (etc) cases. Yes I know we can't trust our various Governments (and others) if Apple simply put a back door in. But how gutted would people feel if some one got off a murder or other charge simply because the court couldn't view a phone.

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm not having a go at Apple. All I am saying there is occassions when being able to see behind a password could help murder (etc) cases. Yes I know we can't trust our various Governments (and others) if Apple simply put a back door in. But how gutted would people feel if some one got off a murder or other charge simply because the court couldn't view a phone.

There would also be instances where forcing a suspect to testify would help the case immensely, but the 5th amendment isn't excused just to go after them.

 

[samn]

Fixed for reality

edit: I also looked it up, the "amount of tries" for the 5c is also all in software. Later phones (A7 and newer) have the try attempts in the secure enclave, meaning any later iPhones are more resistant to an upgrade attack.

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.

 

[FyreWulff]

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.

The secure enclave firmware can be overwritten.

Yes to the first part, the second would also erase the phone's internal decryption key, rendering it completely impossible to recover the data. This is how they do instant secure delete.

 

[SliceSabre]

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

 

[samn]

Yes to the first part, the second would also erase the phone's internal decryption key, rendering it completely impossible to recover the data. This is how they do instant secure delete.

That's pure speculation, and this guy thinks it's unlikely:

https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520

 

[Ovek]

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

The response from the court and government will most certainly be interesting and entertaining.

 

[Nozem]

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

What the fuck am I even reading here. Protecting your users data is important yo.

 

[ginger ninja]

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

Well it's not like he literally said fuck yo couch. They will be pursuing legal methods like appeals to higher courts and shit. Should be interesting.

 

[Nozem]

Anyone interested in iOS security should read this:

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

 

[Massa]

i don't see a problem as long as there has to be a valid court order.

Cook admitting it's possible for them to do this pretty much already screws them over with China.

So which courts do you trust? All the ones in the USA? Also China, Russia, and all countries Apple operates in?

 

[FyreWulff]

That's pure speculation, and this guy thinks it's unlikely:

https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520

Sounds like it'd be specific to 5c

 

[SliceSabre]

What the fuck am I even reading here. Protecting your users data is important yo.

People died. End of story.

 

[Moosichu]

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

If you got a court order saying that you should shoot lasers out of your eyes, and you protested saying it was impossible. Should we put your smug ass in jail?

Encryption is important.

 

[billeh]

Morning Joe saying Apple values terrorists over American lives.

People really have no clue.

People died. End of story.

Appeal to emotion. Who's to say they weren't using another encrypted service within the phone itself?
Like they inevitably will when people who have no idea what they're talking about legislate back doors.

 

[Nozem]

People died. End of story.

That is a rediculous argument. Someone died in a car crash, let's ban all cars. End of story.

Protecting the user data of millions of people is WAY more important than any single terrorist attack.

Tell me, are you ok with the government having access to all your data? Are you ok with the Russian or Chinese government having access to all your data? Are you ok with local criminals having access to for example your location data, so they can easily see when you're not at home? Or when you are not at home but your girlfriend is? Are you ok with criminals having your creditcard data?

 

[Downhome]

People died. End of story.

If you hurt or kill anyone then I'd say that should be grounds to break any written or written contract or TOS. All reasonable people should agree with that.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Apple has responded:

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

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

 

[OriginalThinking]

But where is the difference in the methods necessary to do such a thing? Because that's the only thing that's important. If there's no difference, the same methods can and will be (ab)used for different stuff.

And honestly, I don't see how there could be a difference. Methods and tools don't care about good intentions, as I said. So methods to access the phone contents of a terrorist can be used to access the phone content of everyone.

Either there already are backdoors in iPhones and Apple is lying or there aren't and there's nothing they can do.

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.

 

[thefro]

So which courts do you trust? All the ones in the USA? Also China, Russia, and all countries Apple operates in?

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.

 

[Nexus Zero]

I wonder if the people saying they are glad Apple won't help would be saying the same thing if they knew somebody who died in this attack.

Yes because the wisest decisions are made by the emotionally compromised.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Someone else said it best:

After reading Tim Cook's letter, I can't imagine any other reason why the FBI wants in the iPhone other than to set a precedent. They already have iCloud data, text messages, computers, and multiple flash drives from the shooters.

I figure the FBI is just using this case as a way to get support for the public for backdoors because there is nothing the data on the iPhone can tell the FBI that the FBI doesn't know already.

What's important to remember is that Apple gave the FBI access to everything that exists and still gave the FBI additional forensic advice.

That fact alone makes this look even more like a backdoor fishing expedition by the FBI.

 

[dimb]

I do not understand how it is legal to force a company to work on something without compensation. That what they are being forced to work on undermines the security of an operating system they've invested an enormous amount of time and money into is even more baffling.

 

[345triangle]

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

not when you're talking about breaking encryption. for heaven's sake.

 

[d00d3n]

I don't understand how so many US gaffers can trivialize this matter. Do you not want to live in a country that gets a disproportionately high number of high paying jobs in the technology sector? This overreaching surveillance shit is very expensive for your companies and ultimately for US tax payers.

 

[FyreWulff]

I don't understand how so many US gaffers can trivialize this matter. Do you not want to live in a country that gets a disproportionately high number of high paying jobs in the technology sector? This overreaching surveillance shit is very expensive for your companies and ultimately for US tax payers.

we lost our minds after 9/11

 

[E92 M3]

Not Apple's job to create backdoors for the FBI. I don't even use Apple but support their security efforts.