Federal judge FORCES Apple to help FBI decrypt San Bernardino killers iPhone 5C

[bobhays]

15 minutes ago, FAQBytes said:

snip 

the issue is that Apple doesn't have the information only the ability to gain that information. 

[stconquest]

22 minutes ago, FAQBytes said:

Well, considering that phones are considered personal property inside the US, the government can issue a search warrant. Just like searching your home with a warrant. Considering Apple made the encryption standard, they are by law required to help the government access the data, else they be named accomplices. 

Am I a fan? Ehh? As a libertarian yeah, I like government to have as little power as possible, but this is criminal procedure. One of the few things I think the Gov't ought be responsible for. 

It's kinda like how Google has been forced to fork over emails that have been sent through its servers if it has been found that it may relate to criminal procedures and they have a warrant stating so. I'm sure the government is compensating Apple in some way. 

That last part is key.  Now it becomes a contract.  Apple can say:  No, do it yourself.

[thexzenon]

This is really fascinating, can't wait to see what happens next. It's like a soap opera. 

 

Apple shouldn't be forced to do anything in this case, it might (and probably would) create a dangerous precedent. Also pretty sure Apple can't do shit about the encryption on that phone.

[TroubleKlef]

I'm not a security engineer or a comp sci major but it seems like there is some confusion. If I'm wrong, just correct me.

 

Apple cannot decode, decrypt, or put it some numbers to unlock the iPhone. It is an encrypted phone and I think we all understand that the purpose of encryption is to keep the phone secure.

 

The thing about encryption is that it's not impossible to crack but with good encryption, brute force methods by hand could take (i'm guessing here) hundreds of thousands of years? Making it virtually, uncrackable. Which is good because its supposed to be encrypted or secure.

 

What the FBI wants is for Apple to rewrite the fundamental security pillars of iOS and allow iPhones to be brute forced by supercomputers without a time out if you guess wrong. This would allow the FBI and more importantly ANYONE to brute force into any iPhone. So rather taking a million years, it could be cracked in lets say, 2 days.

 

The problems Apple has with this is:

1. They find it ironic that the FBI is forcing their security engineers to literally make the iPhone less secure.

2. In the wrong hands, the information and contents of any iPhone, regardless if you're a criminal or not, could be accessed.

3. Such precedent could lead to Apple being forced to hand over location records, health, financial etc.

 

I don't know about you guys but I'd rather not live in a police state. IMO!!! The people should be monitoring the powers of the government.

 

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

From what I've read, the FBI wants Apple to create a custom version of iOS that bypasses security features when installed. That in itself is not a problem, if it is handled correctly. If the firmware is only going to be installed on the phones of suspects, then there is no reason why if this firmware is created, would privacy of the general public be at risk. The primary reason is because this firmware would have to be installed directly on the users' device in order for the security bypasses to take effect on that device. And who is responsible for rolling out updates to devices running iOS? Apple themselves. As long as Apple doesn't roll out this update officially to the public, then the privacy risk of the public does not exist. If the FBI ordered Apple to add these security exploits to the next version of iOS released to the public and perhaps make it a mandatory update to all users, then Apple has as case. As it stands right now, it's simply obstruction of justice as well making the iPhone and iPad the preferred devices for criminals to hide incriminating evidence.

[FAQBytes]

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

That last part is key.  Now it becomes a contract.  Apple can say:  No, do it yourself.

This is the US Gov't we are talking about.

[BobbyG2]

1 hour ago, FAQBytes said:

Considering Apple made the encryption standard, they are by law required to help the government access the data, else they be named accomplices. 

Would Ford be considered an accomplice if one of their cars were used to commit vehicular homicide? No, because that's not the intended use of their product.  Apple intends their encryption to be used to keep their law abiding customers data safe from criminals.  A criminal using the encryption to hide evidence of a crime is not Apples intended use for the product. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

From what I've read, the FBI wants Apple to create a custom version of iOS that bypasses security features when installed. That in itself is not a problem, if it is handled correctly. If the firmware is only going to be installed on the phones of suspects, then there is no reason why if this firmware is created, would privacy of the general public be at risk. The primary reason is because this firmware would have to be installed directly on the users' device in order for the security bypasses to take effect on that device. And who is responsible for rolling out updates to devices running iOS? Apple themselves. As long as Apple doesn't roll out this update officially to the public, then the privacy risk of the public does not exist. If the FBI ordered Apple to add these security exploits to the next version of iOS released to the public and perhaps make it a mandatory update to all users, then Apple has as case. As it stands right now, it's simply obstruction of justice as well making the iPhone and iPad the preferred devices for criminals to hide incriminating evidence.

 

It's not obstruction of justice to refuse to help in an investigation, it's obstruction of justice to willfully get in the way of an investigation.

[GSTARR]

5 hours ago, bobhays said:

because then the fbi could ask for it on any iPhone or use the tool on any old iPhone 

the only downside is that now the FBI knows how the iphone works...

that's barely a downside...at least from my limited perspective

 

[bobhays]

7 hours ago, syoumans54 said:

How am I compromising my own security? I'm not a terrorist, I'm not going to perform a terrorist attack. If they find nothing, they find nothing. But if they find something that's fantastic. If you want to sell in a different country, then you must follow that country's rules. If you don't like the rules, then don't sell there. Apple has more than enough lawyers to keep up with each law. You're assuming a lot by saying everyone now has no privacy. This is a one case scenario, please show me where this is now going to happen to everyone. Please let me know how you would feel about Apple if you were affected by this terrorist attack.

 

I really like how you're trying to make Apple the victim in all of this at the very end.

That's a pretty significant downside. That means the FBI can get into any phone they obtain. Remember it's not just the FBI, once a way is created any group can get this. Imagine if a rogue groups gets a hold of government phones and uses this method to crack them.

 

EDIT: @FAQBytes this applies to your post too.

[BobbyG2]

6 minutes ago, bobhays said:

That's a pretty significant downside. That means the FBI can get into any phone they obtain. Remember it's not just the FBI, once a way is created any group can get this. Imagine if a rogue groups gets a hold of government phones and uses this method to crack them.

Was it even a week ago that the FBI was breached and all of the employees information released? Was it even two weeks that NASA was hacked, tons of classified information stolen and released,  and a done taken over by hackers? 

 

I want no such tools as encryption back doors given to these government agencies that can't even protect their own information. ..

[Lethal Seraph]

Well, I do hope they were able to bypass the security. I mean, come on... it's one special circumstances where terrorism is involved and it costed lives... it's not like your wire tapping someone's ex just cause she cheated on you.

[Bensemus]

6 minutes ago, Lethal Seraph said:

it's not like your wire tapping someone's ex just cause she cheated on you.

The government has done this though. They say they can be responsible but then they have directors getting hacked by kids and drones worth hundreds of millions being taken over. Right now Apple has no software to weaken iPhones so there is nothing to be stolen. Once Apple creates the firmware it's a matter of time until someone gets their hands on it.

[Lethal Seraph]

Just now, Bensemus said:

-snip-

Oh I'm sure but I was referring to how Apple is being anal about it. I mean it's not just a regular crime basis. If you can't make a software for it, why not be able to take it to one of your Apple sponsored forensic lab and take it apart but a court mandate required.

[Bensemus]

Just now, Lethal Seraph said:

Oh I'm sure but I was referring to how Apple is being anal about it. I mean it's not just a regular crime basis. If you can't make a software for it, why not be able to take it to one of your Apple sponsored forensic lab and take it apart but a court mandate required.

Like most people in this tread have been saying. President. Once they win one case they can use this to get access to phones and such from lesser and lesser crimes. When someone says it's to stop terrorist they have an ulterior motive. It's the new "think of the children". Appealing to emotions instead of reason.

[Lethal Seraph]

2 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

Appealing to emotions instead of reason.

Agree. Too bad the US ran by fear-mongering bigots who thinks they can rule over us all, old people on political seats who don't even understand the technology that the rest of the population use.

 

Anyhow,  idk how would Apple play with the authorities... you certainly don't want to be a criminals preferred phone brand either.

[Bensemus]

4 minutes ago, Lethal Seraph said:

 you certainly don't want to be a criminals preferred phone brand either.

idk. They are already a very polarizing company so that might not really change their image that much

[Evyatar]

None the less, Apple are assholes.

Think for a minuet if it was some of your family member, what would you feel, if the cops walked to Apple and they would say "it's against the privacy"...

 

Anyone who's a agreed with Apple, where they shouldn't give the information about the killer is an @$$8023, and I do hope this kind of thing will happen to his family.

 

Ps.

Apple is always collecting information about you and sells it to your local GVRMNT.

[Guest]

This seems to be quite the hot topic right now. I mean we pay for privacy on our devices for a reason, it's a shame that fucked up people have to go around and fuck it up for everyone else. I mean the government in America is not trust worthy as it is, but this situation makes a good point. The answer is finding the right method or structure so that things can work right. 

 

@LinusTech Kind of curious as to what your say would be on something like this, obviously it's not okay to have people getting killed, but what do you think what be the correct system to solve issues like this? 

[Albatross]

5 hours ago, Evyatar said:

None the less, Apple are assholes.

Think for a minuet if it was some of your family member, what would you feel, if the cops walked to Apple and they would say "it's against the privacy"...

 

Anyone who's a agreed with Apple, where they shouldn't give the information about the killer is an @$$8023, and I do hope this kind of thing will happen to his family.

 

Ps.

Apple is always collecting information about you and sells it to your local GVRMNT.

 

Why don't you think beyond this case, hmm? Perhaps then you will see the issue here. And well, well, well! You call someone an ass for thinking Apple shouldn't break their security but then you wish the murderer would repeat himself to someone's family, to more innocents? What does that make you?

 

You must be a hardcore lefty. Only they spew such backwards, crazy hypocritical (and other brands of wtf) nonsense to make themselves look and feel superior to others.

 

[Bensemus]

9 minutes ago, Albatross said:

You must be a hardcore lefty.

Broad generalizations add nothing. Don't go after his person. Go after his arguments. Shouldn't be hard seeing as they are pretty much baseless and driven by emotion. 

[LAwLz]

Lots of companies/people/organizations are giving their opinions on the matter now, and it seems like there is an overwhelming support for Apple.

 

Google:

Quote

Important post by @tim_cook. Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy

We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism

We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders

But that’s wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent

Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue

 

Microsoft:

Quote

Reform Government Surveillance companies believe it is extremely important to deter terrorists and criminals and to help law enforcement by processing legal orders for information in order to keep us all safe. But technology companies should not be required to build in backdoors to the technologies that keep their users' information secure. RGS companies remain committed to providing law enforcement with the help it needs while protecting the security of their customers and their customers' information.

 

WhatsApp founder:

Quote

I have always admired Tim Cook for his stance on privacy and Apple's efforts to protect user data and couldn't agree more with everything said in their Customer Letter today. We must not allow this dangerous precedent to be set. Today our freedom and our liberty is at stake.

 

ACLU:

Quote

This is an unprecedented, unwise, and unlawful move by the government. The Constitution does not permit the government to force companies to hack into their customers' devices. Apple is free to offer a phone that stores information securely, and it must remain so if consumers are to retain any control over their private data.
The government's request also risks setting a dangerous precedent. If the FBI can force Apple to hack into its customers' devices, then so too can every repressive regime in the rest of the world. Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers.

 

Amnesty:

Quote

Apple is right to fight back in this case: the FBI's request, which would in practice require Apple to rewrite its operating system to weaken security protections, would set a very dangerous precedent. Such backdoors undermine everyone's security and threaten our right to privacy. Undermining mobile security not only puts our data at risk of being stolen by criminals, but also threatens privacy and freedom of expression at a time when [it] is a clear lack of checks and balances that prevent authorities from abusing surveillance powers.

 

EFF:

Quote

We learned on Tuesday evening that a U.S. federal magistrate judge ordered Apple to backdoor an iPhone that was used by one of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shootings in December. Apple is fighting the order which would compromise the security of all its users around the world.

 

We are supporting Apple here because the government is doing more than simply asking for Apple’s assistance. For the first time, the government is requesting Apple write brand new code that eliminates key features of iPhone security—security features that protect us all. Essentially, the government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone. And once that master key is created, we're certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.

 

The U.S. government wants us to trust that it won't misuse this power. But we can all imagine the myriad ways this new authority could be abused. Even if you trust the U.S. government, once this master key is created, governments around the world will surely demand that Apple undermine the security of their citizens as well.

EFF applauds Apple for standing up for real security and the rights of its customers. We have been fighting to protect encryption, and stop backdoors, for over 20 years. That's why EFF plans to file an amicus brief in support of Apple's position.

 

Edward Snowden:

 

[Albatross]

I should have expected Snowden to say something about it. Glad he's not shutting himself out of the world.

 

The more people who stand up against this, the better off we all are.

 

7 hours ago, Bensemus said:

Broad generalizations add nothing. Don't go after his person. Go after his arguments. Shouldn't be hard seeing as they are pretty much baseless and driven by emotion. 

Yes, you're right. It isn't even worth it at this point.

[LukeTim]

8 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

From what I've read, the FBI wants Apple to create a custom version of iOS that bypasses security features when installed. That in itself is not a problem, if it is handled correctly. If the firmware is only going to be installed on the phones of suspects, then there is no reason why if this firmware is created, would privacy of the general public be at risk. The primary reason is because this firmware would have to be installed directly on the users' device in order for the security bypasses to take effect on that device. And who is responsible for rolling out updates to devices running iOS? Apple themselves. As long as Apple doesn't roll out this update officially to the public, then the privacy risk of the public does not exist. If the FBI ordered Apple to add these security exploits to the next version of iOS released to the public and perhaps make it a mandatory update to all users, then Apple has as case. As it stands right now, it's simply obstruction of justice as well making the iPhone and iPad the preferred devices for criminals to hide incriminating evidence.

 

There is no guarantee that it will only be used in this way though. There is no guarantee that it won't fall into the hands of cybercriminals... or even that the FBI won't just one day decide that you are a suspect.

To weaken one's own security measures in this way goes completely against the whole point of security system design. It should be so good even you, the designer, can't break it. Also, it doesn't even necessarily help catch criminals or terrorists. Any sufficiently sophisticated operation (as, for example, ISIS is) will have extra security measures in place outside of the phone. They would hardly be so stupid as to rely solely on the security of an American company's products. So, all you may end up with when unlocking a suspect's device is more encrypted information (SMS, email etc) which you have no way of decrypting, completely wasting your time and making the backdoor worthless.

 

And, whilst the FBI would have all these fruitless decryption efforts, cyber criminals would be having the time of their lives with these devices that they can so easily break into and steal personal information from.

[icefire7460]

On 2/17/2016 at 10:22 PM, 13CA350 said:

I agree with Tim cooks choice here.  Creating such a backdoor who give the government the option to unlock any phone with ease.  Slap the word terrorist and that will shut the public up.  It doesn't have to be real terrorism either.  A unsatisfied wife could say her husband is making a bomb and that would give the government enough "evidence"  to use the backdoor.  Also,  this backdoor can be used by hackers or terrorist to steal data off other iPhone.  Such a backdoor is a double edge sword.  Do not create this tool.  

[Real_PhillBert]

23 hours ago, emille26 said:

I am a lawyer, but this is not what I practice... BUT

 

Apple's issue is not that it is being asked to help bruteforce this phone, but that they are being asked to change ALL phones so that they can be brute forced by the government. 

 

Apples issue is that the fix (firmware update) that the FBI wants would affect every customer, not just this one. 

 

This might give a bit more info http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35594245

That's not what the article says;

Quote

Firstly, it wants the company to alter Farook's iPhone so that investigators can make unlimited attempts at the passcode without the risk of erasing the data.

Then again;

Quote

"The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation," wrote Mr Cook.

It would certainly set a precedent, but we are NOT talking about pushing this firmware update to every iPhone, Just the phone currently in possession of the FBI. 

 

For the record I still don't think Apple should comply with this specific demand.