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

[alexkeren]

No, no, no. Prior to the lawsuit they were given every opportunity to cooperate in not just any old criminal investigation, but a terrorist investigation. Today should be a reminder how critical that is. This whole backdoor, skeleton key spiel was throw up by Tim Cook after the lawsuit, which was the only way for them to pursue the matter further with them.

Apple raised there own stakes by being so pig ignorant and prideful.

Exactly, the original request, and original court order were just to unlock the phone. No new iOS required.

And in fact I have with a 3rd party app cracked my own iPhone because of Apple's awesome automatic encrypted password on backups when you don't check the option/try to restore after having done an update to iOS since last backup.

[Noradin]

McAfee also said he could decrypt the phone. But like Snowden, I fear he is just a crazy person that no one's paying attention to. I posted the white paper on iPhone encryption early on in this thread. It's pretty damn solid. In theory there are ways of getting the data off the phone, but it would still be encrypted. And to date, there is no real way around AES-256 other then brute force, which could take a billion years. In theory, a computer cluster designed specifically for the task could greatly reduce this time. But again, the best known methodology only removes a couple bits from the cycle. If AES has a flaw that could be circumvented, odds are it would be known by the hacking community before the FBI. There may be a flaw in Apples implementation, but without the source code there's no real way to tell.

Edit : iOS security docs

I always like the calculation how long it would take for humanity to produce the electric energy to power such a brute force method (a few hundred thousand years) xD

- - - Updated - - -

It would not break encryption for everyone. It would be pushed onto this one phone. The FBI has said repeatedly that they are willing to do all of this inhouse at Apple and never touch the tool.

Yes, and then the next time the judge tells them to hand over the key.

- - - Updated - - -

Law enforcement can request information that people actually have. Apple does not have the information, nor do they really have a way to get it. Law enforcement can NOT compel someone to write software, that is protected by the 1st amendment.

Yes, but if they made that software once, then they could be told to hand it over the next time.

[Celista]

But, it runs awry of the first amendment. They're attempting to force Apple developers to write code, and being forced to write anything, code or not, is the same as being forced to say something.

Ahh that is a good point. Interesting watching these legal dynamics play out, eh?

[Noradin]

If Apple had just unlocked it, hell did they even offer to just give them the data? Thats all the FBI wanted / needs. Apple could have done that all behind closed doors, on their own terms and without a lawsuit.

Yes, but after they created that code willingly once it can be demanded of them that they hand it over the next time, because only act of (not) creating the code is protected as Free Speech.

[TheTaurenOrc]

No, Apple said they can't without writing a custom build of iOS, the existence of which would compromise the security on all iOS devices.

Sure if they gave the FBI the custom iOS build, which the court order would have required them to do so. They could have kept it in house an destroyed it if they weren't being dicks about it.

They wanted them to use a key to open a lock. And Apple blew the whole thing out of proportion saying them want them to give them the key.

Think of it this way, if the FBI needs a safety deposit box opened they ask the bank to open it. They don't ask the bank to give them the key to keep forever so they can go back and open it whenever the hell they want. They only difference in this case was the 'bank' in this scenario would needed to make the key.

[Annoying]

Thats twisting the situation. The FBI never asked them for that, they asked them to help access the data on this one phone. When Apple said no and a lawsuit ensued which opened the can of worms over a backdoor and skeleton key.

If Apple had just unlocked it, hell did they even offer to just give them the data? Thats all the FBI wanted / needs. Apple could have done that all behind closed doors, on their own terms and without a lawsuit.

But no Apple decided to be arseholes and turn this into some marketing ploy about how they are the paragons of digital privacy. iCloud debacle anyone? They ain't fooling me.

The problem is that they did, in fact, offer to help them behind closed doors. The FBI insisted on a public court case to set precedent to be able to do it in the future.

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

Specifically:

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

And:

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack.

[Kujako]

Exactly, the original request, and original court order were just to unlock the phone. No new iOS required.

They can't unlock the phone, without building a new version of iOS.

[Deleted]

Sure if they gave the FBI the custom iOS build, which the court order would have required them to do so. They could have kept it in house an destroyed it if they weren't being dicks about it.

The FBI alone has like 200 phones they would like to unlock.
They could never 'destroy' it -

[Kaeth]

Think of it this way, if the FBI needs a safety deposit box opened they ask the bank to open it. They don't ask the bank to give them the key to keep forever so they can go back and open it whenever the hell they want. They only difference in this case was the 'bank' in this scenario would needed to make the key.

In this case, the FBI is asking the bank to create a new key to open a box for which no key presently exists, and then keep that key handy for future requests.

And in the wrong hands, that key can open other boxes owned by other customers of that bank... and once it exists there is no way to keep it perfectly secure. Cooperation with this "simple request" inherently reduces the security of the "bank" and all of its customers' assets.

[zhero]

I see no issue with this and I'm not sure why Apple is bothering to fight it, if true.


Search and seizure rules. I'm sure they can, but if they want whatever evidence they find to be admissible in a court of law they need to utilize established procedures. Which means issuing warrants.

Edit: never mind, read the article in the OP. This sounds like posturing from Apple, warrants for phone records have been issued for like decades now. I'm not sure what data they are looking for on the phone. Internet searches?

On another note this is yet another reason why police should maybe consider not killing off suspects before they get a chance to interrogate them, although in this case it was likely unavoidable.

Also Apple chose a piss poor case to make a stink about personal privacy laws.

its posturing from the FBI, there will be no court cases from this, the two culprits are dead. the only thing they may get from it is any info from whomever they were contacting higher up from it, which would already be in the phone provider's logs.

[Archonite]

The FBI insisted on a public court case to set precedent to be able to do it in the future.

This i believe is the most important reason. I cant find the exact article anymore, but ive read that the FBI is assumed to eventually have ways to get into the phone without Apple, but they need a strong case just to set a legal precedent. Theres already hundreds of other phones that law enforcement also wants decrypted/accessed, and the current case would set a great precedent.

Another issue i see, which could Apple cost major profits, is when other governments like Russia or China, or any other country demands the same access to a backdoor or be banned from sales in that country. I dont believe Apple would be willing to lose entire countries of customers based on moral principles against their government.

[Noradin]

Another issue i see, which could Apple cost major profits, is when other governments like Russia or China, or any other country demands the same access to a backdoor or be banned from sales in that country. I dont believe Apple would be willing to lose entire countries of customers based on moral principles against their government.

And then there is the EU which would sue Apple if they admitted to such a backdoor in phones sold to their citizens and keeping it around.

[TirielWoW]

No, no, no. Prior to the lawsuit they were given every opportunity to cooperate in not just any old criminal investigation, but a terrorist investigation. Today should be a reminder how critical that is. This whole backdoor, skeleton key spiel was throw up by Tim Cook after the lawsuit, which was the only way for them to pursue the matter further with them.

Apple raised there own stakes by being so pig ignorant and prideful.

You realize the FBI locked the phone in the first place, right?

[Daogu]

I side with Apple in this case due to the precident that would be made in allowing the government force a company to create tools which do not exist. There was a good article I read explaining the technical aspects of the case, which from how hard Apple worked to remove themselves from the device level encryption starting in iOS 8, makes me believe that the tools desired by the FBI do not exist.

[Deleted]

FBI claiming they can get into the phone now, for a tiny sum of 15k.
Wonder how much they wasted trying to force Apple to make the altered OS before this change.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/FBI-p...one-5c_id79613

- - - Updated - - -

The circlejerk continues.

First it was "Lawmakers in California and New York state introduced legislation earlier this year to ban the sale of smartphones and devices that provide encryption, like most iPhones, and some newer Android phones.".

Followed by the FBI screw up & dragging Apple through it too, & now...

"A Californian lawmaker is pushing new legislation that would crack down on prepaid "burner phones," which she says are used by terrorists and other serious criminals.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA, 14th), who represents the San Francisco and the Bay Area district, introduced the legislation this week requiring prepaid phone retailers to collect information on the buyer at the time of purchase, such as their name, address, and date of birth."

http://www.zdnet.com/article/califor...burner-phones/

Surely this may push the (extremely few) that need to hide, into using encrypted mobiles & back into the govt needing to ban or pressure makers into cracking &/or creating a dodgy OS they (& everyone else) can sneak into.

EDIT2:

Seems they`ve got into it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/0...some-questions