2016 elections - because it's never too early

[OttoVonBismarck]

If it is so easy to create a backdoor, why can't the FBI do it?

And then once the next wikileaks happens, everyone's iPhone will be compromised.

The FBI can easily pay some trained developers good at reverse engineering to write the firmware they want, it'll be way easier for Apple engineers who have full access to all the Apple hardware specs and designs and software source, but the FBI could easily enough find a way.

However loading new firmware requires the firmware be digitally signed by Apple. One cannot easily just spoof this digital signature, it relies on complex cryptography and there is no good way to just spoof it. It's basically not easy to just load custom firmware--this was done many iterations of iPhone ago to make jailbreaking impossible. [Jailbreakers still get the job done because they find ways to get "root" level access on the OS itself and basically sideload a new OS in, without the need of replacing the firmware, but that's only good for loading a custom OS for some wonky reason--it doesn't help you bypass a PIN because the PIN security is built into the firmware, not the OS.] So the FBI really only "needs" Apple's master key to make a digital signature for the firmware, the rest of what they've requested is essentially gravy, and will save them real time because outside developers reverse engineering will certainly take a lot longer to get the job done than an internal Apple team.

But for the reasons I've already explained, this doesn't put all iPhones at risk. PIN security isn't firmware based on A7 chip iPhones so this does nothing for those (those are iPhones 6 and newer), and the digital signature being used for the firmware is going to have the UUID of the singular iPhone 5C Farook used baked in. The court order allows for designing the firmware so it only runs on a specific UUID. Because of the way these signatures are cryptographically created it's not like the UUID is going to be obvious in plaintext and easily "removed and replaced with another", you instead will need to generate a whole new signature again with a new UUID using Apple's master key, which no one but Apple has.

[Barrister]

Apple has complied with warrants many times to access phones.

The issue here is the FBI wants to be able to get in any phone any time in the future that they want without Apple's help.

From what I understand the issue is the FBI wants Apple to engineer a whole new backdoor where one did not exist before, thereby degrading their security.

That's not a very accurate way of seeing it.

What the FBI wants is for Apple to create a custom version of iOS and load it onto this one iPhone.  The key change will be that it will not wipe the iPhone after 10 incorrect password guesses.  That will then allow the FBI to brute force crack the PIN (which is only a 4- digit number - 10000 combinations).

Yes, it creates a backdoor that didn't exist before, but it would be one held only by Apple, and used only with prior judicial authorization.

[CountDeMoney]

I would not be as concerned about this issue, were it not for the fact that the FBI is involved.  Expecting the crime fighting geniuses at Famous But Incompetent to safeguard any kind of proprietary information within any context of an investigation is more than brand strategy, it's outright corporate survival.

The US Government has managed to co-opt, browbeat and outright bully every industry--from cellular to fiber, from broadband to trans-oceanic cable--in the War Against Teh Evildoers^TM, but this isn't some cable provider or telecom pushover that can manage to play the plausible deniability card with the public and see no immediate financial repercussions;  this is Apple, a global entity.  They have every right to protect as much of their intellectual property as possible from the Chinese.   

These are the same morons that never returned Richard Jewell's mother's confiscated Tupperware.  3,000 cases over decades of knowingly providing erroneous forensics testimony on hair analysis, sending innocent people to death row.  A 100% "justified" rate on shootings since 1993 cleared by--WAIT FOR IT--the FBI.

Quite frankly, Apple would be better off working with the fine, dedicated public safety professionals of the LaPorte County Sheriffs Office.* 










*LaPorte, Indiana; not LaPorte, Texas.  Fuck those guys.

[Barrister]

I would not be as concerned about this issue, were it not for the fact that the FBI is involved.

[Berkut]

That was my question - how is not unlocking Johnny Terrorist's phone dumbass? Apple has outlined their reasoning - presumably you have some sort of reasoning as to why that reasoning is faulty?

You know, there's nothing preventing you back from laying out why you think Apple's position is not dumbass.

I think it's dumbass because I am not in the least chilled at the thought of the FBI examining a known terrorist's phone, nor do I think it undermine's any freedom's worth protecting, as I don't think a known terrorist's right to privacy is a freedom worth protecting.

...except that there are only about a million examples of where the state and police have leveraged powers they demanded they needed to fight terrorism to then turn around and fight not-terrorism.

Rights don't work like this - we either have them, or we do not. We do not have them only so long as some state official has not branded us as "terrorists".

If the state has the power to peek into a terrorists iPhone, they have the power to peek into your iPhone as well.

[Barrister]

That was my question - how is not unlocking Johnny Terrorist's phone dumbass? Apple has outlined their reasoning - presumably you have some sort of reasoning as to why that reasoning is faulty?

You know, there's nothing preventing you back from laying out why you think Apple's position is not dumbass.

I think it's dumbass because I am not in the least chilled at the thought of the FBI examining a known terrorist's phone, nor do I think it undermine's any freedom's worth protecting, as I don't think a known terrorist's right to privacy is a freedom worth protecting.

...except that there are only about a million examples of where the state and police have leveraged powers they demanded they needed to fight terrorism to then turn around and fight not-terrorism.

Rights don't work like this - we either have them, or we do not. We do not have them only so long as some state official has not branded us as "terrorists".

If the state has the power to peek into a terrorists iPhone, they have the power to peek into your iPhone as well.

The key phrase you are missing is "with judicial authorization".

The State is free to search around your house... with a warrant.  Approved by a judge in advance.

Apple is saying that they shouldn't be able to be forced to do such actions, even with prior judicial authorization.  That is contrary to almost everything the common law has to stand for.

The FBI is not asking for a carte blanche backdoor here.  Instead they are asking that, after a court order, that Apple take steps to allow them to access this particular phone.

[Berkut]

That was my question - how is not unlocking Johnny Terrorist's phone dumbass? Apple has outlined their reasoning - presumably you have some sort of reasoning as to why that reasoning is faulty?

You know, there's nothing preventing you back from laying out why you think Apple's position is not dumbass.

I think it's dumbass because I am not in the least chilled at the thought of the FBI examining a known terrorist's phone, nor do I think it undermine's any freedom's worth protecting, as I don't think a known terrorist's right to privacy is a freedom worth protecting.

...except that there are only about a million examples of where the state and police have leveraged powers they demanded they needed to fight terrorism to then turn around and fight not-terrorism.

Rights don't work like this - we either have them, or we do not. We do not have them only so long as some state official has not branded us as "terrorists".

If the state has the power to peek into a terrorists iPhone, they have the power to peek into your iPhone as well.

The key phrase you are missing is "with judicial authorization".

The State is free to search around your house... with a warrant.  Approved by a judge in advance.

Apple is saying that they shouldn't be able to be forced to do such actions, even with prior judicial authorization.  That is contrary to almost everything the common law has to stand for.

The FBI is not asking for a carte blanche backdoor here.  Instead they are asking that, after a court order, that Apple take steps to allow them to access this particular phone.

...because of terrorism.

And if they get it, then next time they want the same thing, they can point at this case and say "See, clearly people do not have the right to have the government look at their shit, so precedent set, lets look at more stuff because we think Johnny here might have sold Betty an ounce of pot - btw, this is a hassle, so since it is clear we have the power to look at phones, lets just go ahead and have Apple (and everyone else) right that power right into their product kthxbye!"

BUT DONT WORRY, WE WILL SET UP THIS SECRET COURT TO REVIEW REQUESTS WHERE THEY CAN APPROVE THEM 100% OF THE TIME! IT WILL BE OK!

TERRORISM!

[Barrister]

...because of terrorism.

And if they get it, then next time they want the same thing, they can point at this case and say "See, clearly people do not have the right to have the government look at their shit, so precedent set, lets look at more stuff because we think Johnny here might have sold Betty an ounce of pot - btw, this is a hassle, so since it is clear we have the power to look at phones, lets just go ahead and have Apple (and everyone else) right that power right into their product kthxbye!"

BUT DONT WORRY, WE WILL SET UP THIS SECRET COURT TO REVIEW REQUESTS WHERE THEY CAN APPROVE THEM 100% OF THE TIME! IT WILL BE OK!

TERRORISM!

You're missing the really key point here though.

"With a warrant".

The English common law has always authorized violations of your right to privacy - with a warrant.  That is - before the state can do so, it must demonstrate, before an independent judge, that the state has reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will exist, and that it is necessary to violate the right to privacy in order to obtain such evidence.

I'm probably not using the right US language (because I'm Canadian), but the US 4th Amendment wasn't an absolute right to privacy - rather it protected privacy unless the state could show "probable cause" (the Canadian legal term would be reasonable and probable grounds - RPG).

The 4th amendment always allowed the violation of your privacy rights - as long as the state could show "probable cause".  Apple is trying to argue it should be immune from even that standard.

I think I'm well known on this board as an Apple fanboy.  But on this issue they are dead wrong.

[Berkut]

I think you are well known as someone who has a well established "government power to compel people to do as I think fit" fanboy. Weren't you the one who argued that since the government had the right to look at someone physical, paper address book they are carrying on them, they also have the right to examine any data on someone's smartphone (to of course include any data that the smartphone can connect to) - and completely absent a warrant at all?

The government has a warrant to look at this guys iPhone. Good for them - let them look all they like.

The idea that because they have a warrant they have the power to compel Apple to help them execute that warrant by destroying their own products security is preposterous.

[Martinus]

As always, when it comes to law enforcement issues, I disagree with BB. What a surprise.

And yeah, BB, as I said many times before, the only reason you are an Apple fanboy is because of your latent homosexuality and not because of any sympathy for the values Apple purports to uphold.

[Barrister]

I think you are well known as someone who has a well established "government power to compel people to do as I think fit" fanboy. Weren't you the one who argued that since the government had the right to look at someone physical, paper address book they are carrying on them, they also have the right to examine any data on someone's smartphone (to of course include any data that the smartphone can connect to) - and completely absent a warrant at all?

The government has a warrant to look at this guys iPhone. Good for them - let them look all they like.

The idea that because they have a warrant they have the power to compel Apple to help them execute that warrant by destroying their own products security is preposterous.

Ah, a good 'ole ad hom argument - how I've missed thee!

Yes, I always said that if the government could check your physical address book and daytimer if you were arrested, it made no difference if such documents were electronic.

But this goes beyond that point.  Being arrested and police having the ability to go through your physical property is well established.  here, the question is whether police can go through your electronic property with a warrant.  As I said, that ability is well established through the centuries.  It's even mentioned in the very language of the US 4th amendment.

This is not a case of letting the US government have carte blanche to search through people's cellphones.  It's a case on whether the state should be allowed to do so after getting prior judicial authorization.  And to me it seems the answer seems obvious.

Though clearly not to Berkut, who uniquely is able to judge what "liberty" means.

[Barrister]

As always, when it comes to law enforcement issues, I disagree with BB. What a surprise.

And yeah, BB, as I said many times before, the only reason you are an Apple fanboy is because of your latent homosexuality and not because of any sympathy for the values Apple purports to uphold.

The reason I was/am an Apple Fanboy, is because in 1984 my parents bought our family an Apple //c.  I'm not saying that is a good, or bad, reason, but it is what it is.

[Martinus]

As always, when it comes to law enforcement issues, I disagree with BB. What a surprise.

And yeah, BB, as I said many times before, the only reason you are an Apple fanboy is because of your latent homosexuality and not because of any sympathy for the values Apple purports to uphold.

The reason I was/am an Apple Fanboy, is because in 1984 my parents bought our family an Apple //c.  I'm not saying that is a good, or bad, reason, but it is what it is.

So are you saying your parents made you homosexual or did they simply foster your inborn tendencies? 

[Barrister]

As always, when it comes to law enforcement issues, I disagree with BB. What a surprise.

And yeah, BB, as I said many times before, the only reason you are an Apple fanboy is because of your latent homosexuality and not because of any sympathy for the values Apple purports to uphold.

The reason I was/am an Apple Fanboy, is because in 1984 my parents bought our family an Apple //c.  I'm not saying that is a good, or bad, reason, but it is what it is.

So are you saying your parents made you homosexual or did they simply foster your inborn tendencies? 

I'm curious why you'd try to press the "homosexual" point as somehow being a negative.

I have nothing against Teh Gays.  I respect them greatly.  Sadly, however, I am far to obsessed with Teh Bewbz to join that group.

I can remember having conversations in the mid 80s with my school-age nerd friends.  Some were IMB-PC fans.  One was an Commodore-Amiga fan.  I was, at the time, the token Apple fan.  Thinking back, I can't believe how Apple has come to such a resurgence since then.

[Berkut]

I think you are well known as someone who has a well established "government power to compel people to do as I think fit" fanboy. Weren't you the one who argued that since the government had the right to look at someone physical, paper address book they are carrying on them, they also have the right to examine any data on someone's smartphone (to of course include any data that the smartphone can connect to) - and completely absent a warrant at all?

The government has a warrant to look at this guys iPhone. Good for them - let them look all they like.

The idea that because they have a warrant they have the power to compel Apple to help them execute that warrant by destroying their own products security is preposterous.

Ah, a good 'ole ad hom argument - how I've missed thee!

Spare me - YOU brought up your "well understood history", you can't turn around and cry when someone points out that your well understood history consistently is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.


I will note, that I am stunned, STUNNED I SAY, that in a shocking turn of events, you support the state over individual rights.

Yes, I always said that if the government could check your physical address book and daytimer if you were arrested, it made no difference if such documents were electronic.

Of course - and that is precisely the attitude that has destroyed faith in the government's interest in protecting the rights of individuals. These consistent erosions of civil liberties based on supposedly perfectly reasonable extensions of previous erosions.

Sure, if they can look at your address book, they can look at your iPhones address book. And if they can look at that, why can't they look at anything else on your iPhone while they are at it? It is all the same device! And if it connects to your bank account, why, same thing!

But this goes beyond that point.

Your inability to see that some cop pawing through every detail of your life being "the same thing" is why your credibility at being able to recognize that this is any point to go beyond is shot.

  Being arrested and police having the ability to go through your physical property is well established.

Well, no, actually it is not. It is established that they could do so to protect themselves, and then people like you extended that to mean they can go through all kinds of things that have nothing to do with protecting themselves, such that the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure has been almost entirely eroded away.

here, the question is whether police can go through your electronic property with a warrant.  As I said, that ability is well established through the centuries.  It's even mentioned in the very language of the US 4th amendment.

I don't see anything in the 4th that says anything about the power to compel companies to help them defeat security that is perfectly legal to have...

And given the consistent examples (and your very helpful voluntering as the case study in the myopia of the state to concerns about individual liberty) of the state, in almost every single case, leveraging any inch you give them into a mile later, I fully support any and all efforts to stem the tide. The only hope people who actually care about individual freedom and liberty have against this pernicious power of the state is in technology.

Today it is TERRORISM MUST STOP THE TERRORISTS! and tomorrow they will be using that same power to go after drug dealers, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

This is not a case of letting the US government have carte blanche to search through people's cellphones.

Of course not! It is about terrorism! The government would NEVER extend powers given to it to fight terrorism to turn around and seize funds from people, or spy on suspected drug dealers! They would never do such a thing!

It's a case on whether the state should be allowed to do so after getting prior judicial authorization.  And to me it seems the answer seems obvious.

These answers are always "obvious" to you. And always the same answer, curiously enough. And the answer is always "Oh sure, the individual has no such right here!"

Though clearly not to Berkut, who uniquely is able to judge what "liberty" means.

No, my ability to actually think that liberty means the state doesn't always get to do whatever they like is hardly unique.