Apple vows to fight federal order to unlock iPhone

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/apple-vows-to-fight-federal-order-to-share-san-124228263.html


?We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good,? Cook wrote in a letter to his customers. ?Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.?

I think Apple is fighting the good fight here. I'm also a bit surprised that the FBI doesn't have a way to get the data off the phone. Is the security on the iPhone that good?
 
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/apple-vows-to-fight-federal-order-to-share-san-124228263.html




I think Apple is fighting the good fight here. I'm also a bit surprised that the FBI doesn't have a way to get the data off the phone. Is the security on the iPhone that good?

It's not out of the question that the FBI simply can't get in (encryption is probably among the easiest security mechanisms to get right these days, though still by no means trivial), but chances are they don't care so much about breaking into the phone as they do about the legal precedent this would set. The way the ruling was phrased could allow courts to force software vendors to add/modify code for law enforcement purposes - backdoors, malware pushed as part of an OS update, etc.

It's a pretty terrible precedent to set, especially since it won't be long before authoritarian regimes start asking for the same privilege - so I applaud Apple for their efforts. They've done quite a lot for security & privacy in iOS over the last few years, credit where credit's due.
 
I was surprised until I realized that Apple doesn't currently have a way to decrypt phones and then it made sense why they're so vehemently opposed to this. Remember, those who prefer safety over liberty, deserve neither.

If you have "a way to decrypt" then you strictly have a backdoor. If you have a backdoor then a criminal can use it aswell, for illegal activities.
 
Last edited:
And "criminals" may quite probably include your own country's government and law enforcement, as we have learned.

It's not often I'm on Apple's side, but on this I am and everyone should be.
 
And "criminals" may quite probably include your own country's government and law enforcement, as we have learned.

Pretty much. This is probably also why most high profile IT security experts are currently fleeing from government jobs into private establishments... ;)
 
Apple can't decrypt it but the FBI wants them to put a custom version of the OS on the phone that disabled the "wipe phone after 10 wrong password guesses" so that they can brute force the password.

I'm with Apple on this one.
 
If you have "a way to decrypt" then you strictly have a backdoor. If you have a backdoor then a criminal can use it aswell, for illegal activities.
And "criminals" may quite probably include your own country's government and law enforcement, as we have learned.

It's not often I'm on Apple's side, but on this I am and everyone should be.
Agreed. This one single instance of "we need to catch the durka-durka terrorists!!!" is the top of the slipper slope that opens the door to even wider government intrusions than we are already subjected to.
 
Apart from the fact that Apple is right here (so I am with them), it's also in their own business interest to not give in to the FBI.

I assume that both sides will try to draw the public opinion on their side but as I see it, Apple already has the whole internet community on their side, while the FBI only has Donald Trump and his redneck followers.
 
Last edited:
the FBI only has Donald Trump and his redneck followers.

Naive.

http://time.com/4184063/democratic-debate-encryption/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pt-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/

BROWNLEE: Hi, my name Marques Brownlee, and I've been making YouTube videos about electronics and gadgets for the past seven years.

I think America's future success is tied to getting all kinds of tech right. Tech companies are responsible for the encryption technology to protect personal data, but the government wants a back door into that information.

So do you think it's possible to find common ground? And where do you stand on privacy versus security?


CLINTON: Well, I wanted to say, and I'll do it quickly, I was very pleased that leaders of President Obama's administration went out to Silicon Valley last week and began exactly this conversation about what we can do, consistent with privacy and security.

We need better intelligence cooperation, we need to be sure that we are getting the best intelligence that we can from friends and allies around the world. And then, we've got to recognize our first line of defense against lone wolf attacks is among Muslim Americans.

And it is not only shameful, it is dangerous for the kinds of comments you're hearing from the Republican side.

We need to be reaching out and unifying our country against terrorist attacks and lone wolves, and working with Muslim Americans.


MITCHELL: But -- but -- Secretary Clinton, you said that the leaders from the intelligence community went to Silicon Valley, they were flatly turned down. They got nowhere.

CLINTON: That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that.


SANDERS: OK. I just wanted to add, in the previous question, I voted against the USA Patriot Act for many of the reasons that Governor O'Malley mentioned. But it is not only the government that we have to worry about, it is private corporations.

You would all be amazed, or maybe not, about the amount of information private companies and the government has in terms of the Web sites that you access, the products that you buy, where you are this very moment.

And it is very clear to me that public policy has not caught up with the explosion of technology. So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley to make sure that we do not allow ISIS to transmit information...

HOLT: But in terms of lone wolves, the threat, how would you do it?

SANDERS: Right. What we have got to do there is, among other things, as I was just saying, have Silicon Valley help us to make sure that information being transmitted through the Internet or in other ways by ISIS is, in fact, discovered.

But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and this should go without saying, don't you think the Obama administration could perhaps be on the the FBI's side?
 
So I take it you are with the FBI then?
 
I like that MKBHD got to ask a question at the dem debate. Just a pity I can't find it anywhere.
 
Building a backdoor into software is commercial suicide, how many countries will straight up ban US electronics to protect themselves? With Linux and BSD being freely available how long till each country has their own ecosystem?
 
Last edited:
Linus Torvalds was asked to put a backdoor into the Linux kernel too but I'm pretty sure he told them to fuck off. :lol:
 
What we all need to realize is that governments -- or rather politicians in general -- mistrust the people. They need the people to elect them, so they try to know as much about them as possible. Not knowing what people think or want or believe means political suicide.

That's why usually all politicians (well, all with the desire for power anyway) are eager when it comes to new methods of spying on people. It's not about fighting dangers from the outside (really, the terrorist threat is largely overblown) but to gain more control of the people. Nobody will admit that of course but that's what's at the core of it all.
 
Last edited:
Linus Torvalds was asked to put a backdoor into the Linux kernel too but I'm pretty sure he told them to fuck off. :lol:

Even if he didn't being open source means that anyone and everyone could easily find and disable it
 
Even if he didn't being open source means that anyone and everyone could easily find and disable it

Not necessary. There are subtle ways to put in backdoors. Encryption is complicated stuff. Look at the OpenBSD FBI scare from years ago.
 
Apple vows to fight federal order to unlock iPhone

Not necessary. There are subtle ways to put in backdoors. Encryption is complicated stuff. Look at the OpenBSD FBI scare from years ago.

I was talking about a true backdoor not encryption "flaws". But BSD is a little different the license allows for closed code derivatives, Linux is a more transparent. Also knowing Torvalds there would be a comment "this section implements backdoor"

Also I think Linux has more development behind it, between all the different flavor and companies like RedHat working on it.
 
Last edited:
I was talking about a true backdoor not encryption "flaws". But BSD is a little different the license allows for closed code derivatives, Linux is a more transparent. Also knowing Torvalds there would be a comment "this section implements backdoor"

Also I think Linux has more development behind it, between all the different flavor and companies like RedHat working on it.

How does the license matter? Regardless, both are fully available on-line for the world to see and contribute to.

Major open source projects have had huge security bugs exist in plain sight for years and no one noticed. The latest Glibc vulnerability for instance existed for 8 years. In large projects even thousands of eyes miss things.
 
So I take it you are with the FBI then?

Nope, in fact I've found myself agreeing most closely with the mother of one of the victims:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/20/carole-adams-mom-who-lost-son-in-san-bernardino-sh/
Carol Adams said:
?This is what separates us from communism, isn?t it? The fact we have the right to privacy,? she told the New York Post. ?I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans.

?This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a Constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote.?

That should put me in opposition to the FBI and every candidate, at least since Paul dropped out.


I like that MKBHD got to ask a question at the dem debate. Just a pity I can't find it anywhere.

You mean the vid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4#t=5448



P.S. Yeah yeah, the bit about Communism is misplaced, but she grew up during the cold war so I'm sure "Communism" == USSR/China to her.
 
Top