Judge in California on Tuesday ordered Apple to help the F.B.I. unlock an iPhone

[Independent voter]

judge-tells-apple-to-help-unlock-san-bernardino-gunmans-iphone.html

The husband and wife who shot up the company Christmas party in San Bernadino in California? Killing 14? Turns out the husband had an iPhone. The FBI wants to see what's stored on the phone but the phone is encrypted. The FBI thinks Apple can unlock the phone so they went to court and the Judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI.

I don't think the fed is out to get us common citizens but I wonder about places like China were the government there might want Apple to decrypt the phones of citizens there.

On the other hand, say there's a murder and law enforcement knows there is evidence on a phone but the phone is encrypted, shouldn't a judge be able to sign a warrant and make that data available to law enforcement? If it requires sending the phone back to the company and some physical key chip be inserted that decrypts the data, that could be the best of both worlds.

Oh yeah, Apple is fighting the decision.

[Noradin]

The idea with the chip might work, but I do not like it much.
Building in a backdoor in advance - that should be definitely illegal.

It is not like it is uncommon that one cannot get at potential evidence that we highly suspect is there because it would interfere with some baisc rights of the holder of said evidence.
(In many civil law countries you cannot force a child to give testimony against their parents for example. You also cannot force someone to implicate themselves or divulge the password of decrypted data.)

Asking Apple to help (after the fact) is fair game - but it shoud open Apple up for law suits if the succeed, because that would mean their encryption is faulty. At least in the EU they aren't allowed to include backdoors and if they succeed there is a resonable base for suspicion that there was one in the first place.

[Nengal]

I'm pretty torn on this, but I think if a person is tried and convicted of certain crimes, there a should be a way to decrypt the phone. I don't think decryption should be allowed before a conviction though. The person needs to be proven to be a societal threat through other evidence first. Then, the phone could be looked at to ensure there are no other victims.

But yea, a physical chip possessed by the company in conjuction with a post-conviction warrent would be OK to me.

[Astronom]

Why don't they just get the NSA to decrypt it? I thought the government had the resources to break any encryption around, surely an iphone shouldn't be a problem.

But no I don't think Apple should have to provide keys, or build in backdoors. Law enforcement has access to enough tools already.

[Rafoel]

Why don't they just get the NSA to decrypt it? I thought the government had the resources to break any encryption around, surely an iphone shouldn't be a problem.

But no I don't think Apple should have to provide keys, or build in backdoors. Law enforcement has access to enough tools already.

You thought wrong

[Daerio]

The idea with the chip might work, but I do not like it much.
Building in a backdoor in advance - that should be definitely illegal.

Whether it's illegal or not, this is what they've been doing, and continue to expand on. They don't have to worry about silly things like encryption when they've got built-in back doors to everything. Who cares about the legalty, rights, or the possible negative side effects.

Also, make sure you update to Windows 10!

[Hooked]

Why don't they just get the NSA to decrypt it? I thought the government had the resources to break any encryption around, surely an iphone shouldn't be a problem.

But no I don't think Apple should have to provide keys, or build in backdoors. Law enforcement has access to enough tools already.

Im sure they know everything that was on that iPhone, they are probably getting ready to take more of our freedoms because of the same group of people once again.

[Jtbrig7390]

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” - Ben Franklin.


So yes I highly disagree with the FBI wanting apple to build a backdoor into iphones or anything else for that matter. Bad enough Windows 10 is full of this shit.

"Remember to update to Windows 10"

[Flutterguy]

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” - Ben Franklin.


So yes I highly disagree with the FBI wanting apple to build a backdoor into iphones or anything else for that matter. Bad enough Windows 10 is full of this shit.

"Remember to update to Windows 10"

I love it when people misquote Ben Franklin.

[Ryme]

I don't think Apple have the ability to decrypt it anyway unless they log all the keys being thrown around, which I kind of doubt.

[Deleted]

I don't mind law enforcement being able to (with a warrant) open a phone, they of course cant force compliance from the owner, and i don't want my provider to have any way whatsofucking ever to backdoor it, but i don't mind the police having the ability to file for a warrant.

[Endus]

On the other hand, say there's a murder and law enforcement knows there is evidence on a phone but the phone is encrypted, shouldn't a judge be able to sign a warrant and make that data available to law enforcement? If it requires sending the phone back to the company and some physical key chip be inserted that decrypts the data, that could be the best of both worlds.

Oh yeah, Apple is fighting the decision.

That's pretty much exactly what this is. A warrant is essentially just a judge saying "yes, you have cause for that search."

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” - Ben Franklin.


So yes I highly disagree with the FBI wanting apple to build a backdoor into iphones or anything else for that matter.

The actual quote is as follows;
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Those two words are really, really important. Franklin was not saying that liberty should never be infringed for the purpose of safety. That's a flagrant misrepresentation.

[Tinykong]

That's pretty much exactly what this is. A warrant is essentially just a judge saying "yes, you have cause for that search."

They don't know evidence is on the phone, they are essentially fishing. A thing being encrypted is not proof of concealing malfeasance.

[Endus]

They don't know evidence is on the phone, they are essentially fishing. A thing being encrypted is not proof of concealing malfeasance.

That's true of pretty much any search. Again; a warrant is just a judge saying "yes, I approve this search, because you've demonstrated that it's justified". If he's issuing a court order, it's that functionally different. This is within the judge's authority.

[Orlong]

They don't know evidence is on the phone, they are essentially fishing. A thing being encrypted is not proof of concealing malfeasance.

Especially when its encrypted when you buy it. Every Iphone is encrypted with iOS 8 and later. Apple supposedly cannot unlock it even if they wanted to

[MasterOfNone]

its a federal investigation and dude and his crazy ass woman killed people. dont see the problem. esp with court order

[Loxic]

I find it difficult to believe that the FBI can't crack an iPhone without aid from the manufacturer. Silly...

[Gilgemesh]

I can see how a judge would want this, but the encryption decoding should not be their(apple's) responsibility. Building in ANY intentional security flaw into a device's software will guarantee that device becomes compromised. Every two-bit hacker on the planet will be digging for a way to break into the encryption via the "back door", and someone, somewhere, will figure it out. Then potentially millions of perfectly legal safely used devices are compromised, potentially spilling everything from credit card information to porn preferences to very naughty prying eyes.

Also...Isn't encryption, by nature, supposed to be uncrackable? Its very possible that apple can't break the encryption either, because if a back door WAS there and the world found out about it, it would be a free-for-all contest to find and break the system.

[Tinykong]

That's true of pretty much any search. Again; a warrant is just a judge saying "yes, I approve this search, because you've demonstrated that it's justified". If he's issuing a court order, it's that functionally different. This is within the judge's authority.

Not really. Searches are supposed to be specific and based on probable cause. A cop sees a person fleeing from the scene of a purse snatching clutching a purse, it's reasonable to think there could be evidence of the robbery in the purse.

That same person fleeing the purse snatching...their cell phone probably doesn't contain anything relevant. If it's encrypted, that's definitely not proof they are concealing evidence. I'm not saying that it's happening here, but opening up the ability for police to search your encrypted device without probable cause to believe there is evidence related to the crime you committed is essentially an electronic drag net, considering how much information can be stored on a smart phone.

We don't know what kind of evidence they believe is on the phone, or why they believe it's there. Someone saying "Yeah, he bragged about planning the attack on his phone" is a lot more reasonable than "This person who committed a crime has an encrypted phone, lets check it for evidence."

[Pejo]

From what I read, they're only ordering Apple to help circumvent the Incorrect PIN retry limit so it doesn't erase after X attempts. They'll still need to brute force the PIN. For me, this is not terrible in my books. I am not a fan of the agenda they'll surely push against always encrypted devices after this though.