So, We're siding with Apple, right?

[KD5NRH]

Certainly. You need such a rig for hardware development. It probably involves decapping chips, exposing board traces, codes for the encrypted bus, etc. Something that could only be done with the physical device and be extremely hard/expensive to duplicate. And certainly functionally ruin the phone from being used in normal circumstances. This is necessary part of developing any hardware product with an ounce of security.

And this I'm OK with; it requires possession of the device, and destroys it in the process, so there's no way to, say, pick someone's pocket, plug their phone into your data harvester for a couple of minutes, then return it with no evidence of the compromise, or worse, steal the data remotely without ever laying a finger on the hardware.  Since physical possession and destructive searching would require a warrant, that covers the most likely abuses of a "master key."

[makattak]

Edited to add: just another fking politician who doesn't know what he's talking about. He has no idea that there's no way to breach just the single phone.

This is true.

I'm pretty tech savvy and the fact that a single phone can't be breached without providing a key to breach them all is rather surprising. (And impressive.)

I'm just happy he's got the principle correct- Only specific, warranted searches; not broad-application tools.

[roo_ster]

This is true.

I'm pretty tech savvy and the fact that a single phone can't be breached without providing a key to breach them all is rather surprising. (And impressive.)

I'm just happy he's got the principle correct- Only specific, warranted searches; not broad-application tools.

That's cute.

[Perd Hapley]

The meme that Apple is leftist shows just how much politics are about fashion.  Jobs and his corporation were always right wing free marketeers - yet conservatives have largely hated on them for using cool looking young people in ads.

I didn't know we were supposed to hate "cool looking young people." Though it would help explain the conservative fascination with Donald Trump.

[makattak]

That's cute.

I know. I realize we're as likely to have that as we are to return to the rule of law, not men. But a man can dream.

You know, that would make a great new "I have a dream" speech.

[RoadKingLarry]

I didn't know we were supposed to hate "cool looking young people." Though it would help explain the conservative republican fascination with Donald Trump.

FTFY

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"He's not part of the establishment!"

"He says what he feels! No filter!"

As if these are automatically in the plus column. The same was true for Rand, and his popularity was orders of magnitude less than trump. Mostly , I believe, because Americans are simply stupid.

My favorite from them is "hes,a business man!"


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

My favorite from them is "hes,a business man!"


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Don't forget, "he wants to run this country like a business, which is how it should be run."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

On the apple noise
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BobR]

On the apple noise
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Could it be OS specific? The newer OS is the one with the issue and maybe not earlier ones? I thought I had read that somewhere.

Besides, they won't need Apple, they could always hire John McAfee and his merry band of hackers.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

bob

[makattak]

On the apple noise
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Noted in the article, they unlocked them for OS 7 and before. According to Apple, OS 8 and greater they cannot.

[Angel Eyes]

Not that this would have any effect, but . . .

https://supporters.eff.org/shop/i-do-not-consent-search-device-sticker-3-pack

[just Warren]

Cruz has jumped on the stupid train.

But if they're all being stupid it's a bit of a wash right?

[BobR]

Cruz has jumped on the stupid train.

But if they're all being stupid it's a bit of a wash right?

I just figured they have all been on the stupid train and have been waiting for one of them to jump off, but I may be old and grey (or mummified) before that happens.

bob

[HankB]

Appears the FBI and whomever wants Apple to create software that can decrypt any of their phone they make.

Hmmm . . . this seems to go beyond just "Hand over the key" . . . it's "Do some sophisticated hard programming work for us whether you want to or not."

Working for someone against your will - isn't this involuntary servitude, and thus, prohibited by the Constitution?

[brimic]

Hmmm . . . this seems to go beyond just "Hand over the key" . . . it's "Do some sophisticated hard programming work for us whether you want to or not."

Working for someone against your will - isn't this involuntary servitude, and thus, prohibited by the Constitution?

Its not involuntary servitude if a guy in body armor is holding a rifle to your head after shooting your dog, son,and wife....er wait..

[dogmush]

The compulsion of Apple is I think what bothers me most. To use the often abused and not quite accurate safe metaphor, If I have a safe, and the FBI has a warrant for it, they can go in it.  I don't have to unlock it for them.  I can make them break in (They won't buy me a new safe, that's on me).

So they got a warrant for the phone. Cool.  There's the phone, have at it.  If the guy were still alive I imagine he'd be sitting back laughing at them before he gave up the code.  Good luck.

So the FBI has a warrant for something they want, but can't get.  So they asked Apple for help.  I'm OK so far.  Apple thought it over, and declined to help. That's their business.  Apple is not a party to the criminal prosecution in any way.  I don't see how there's any way to compel them to do anything they don't want to do.  (That's an oversimplification, I know the law the .gov is using, I just think it's stupid, and not as applicable as judges seem to).  Just like in my safe, they could ASK a locksmith to open it for them, but they shouldn't be able to COMPEL the locksmith to open the safe.

Now I know that data encryption is a little more complicated then just a safe with papers in it, and that's why the gov is so cranky about it, I just don't really care.  If they can crack it, or hire someone freely to crack it for them, hey cool, good luck.  But you don't get to just make someone break in for you.

[Ben]

Now I know that data encryption is a little more complicated then just a safe with papers in it, and that's why the gov is so cranky about it, I just don't really care.  If they can crack it, or hire someone freely to crack it for them, hey cool, good luck.  But you don't get to just make someone break in for you.

That's similar to what I heard Andrew Napalitano (why can't he be an SC nominee?) talk about today. If the gov wanted to try and hire away* some Apple engineers for a GS-13 salary and make them fed.gov employees, and they worked on getting into that one phone, that would be within the law, but telling Apple engineers working for Apple to do it is something else entirely. Of course I'm sure Apple software guys make a lot more than a gov salary, and Apple could always say "we'll pay you $5 million not to leave".

*Likely an oversimplification, as I'm sure Apple contracts have some pretty solid language about non-disclosure, etc. More to the point, if the gov has an employee, contractor, or whatever capable of getting into the phone, they can legally do so, but they can't put a gun to the head of someone else.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Does it matter whose property the phone is
 the phone does not belong to the San Bernardino Bernardino suspects it belongs to the county so the county wants their phone open shouldn't they be allowed to

Especially since all I want Apple to do is push a update through that will remove the brick feature and then they can use  bruteforce cracking
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[brimic]

Does it matter whose property the phone is
 the phone does not belong to the San Bernardino Bernardino suspects it belongs to the county so the county wants their phone open shouldn't they be allowed to

Especially since all I want Apple to do is push a update through that will remove the brick feature and then they can use  bruteforce cracking
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

And what if it costs Apple a few Milliod dollars in time, tens of millions in publicity, and a billion in market capitalization for something that might be impossible? Does it matter that they just eant to say "no?"

[Ben]

Does it matter whose property the phone is
 the phone does not belong to the San Bernardino Bernardino suspects it belongs to the county so the county wants their phone open shouldn't they be allowed to

Especially since all I want Apple to do is push a update through that will remove the brick feature and then they can use  bruteforce cracking
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

The phone belongs to the county. I don't believe the OS does (though I don't know what the Apple EULA is).

[charby]

Close, but not quite

the encryption is, for all intents and purposes, not currently breakable.

What they want APPLE to do is push a software update that disables the wipe feature. After 10 attempts at the code, the device will erase itself. They want apple to force an update to disable that without user interaction(normally, you have to enter the pin to disable that feature), so they can then brute-force the pin (basically try every possible combination until they find the right one.

Apple's (very valid IMO) concern is twofold: the potential for misuse of what they would develop to do this, and the dangerous precedent of complying with the gov saying "help us circumvent security"


a separate but related discussion is the US gov's ongoing push to place backdoors in ALL encryption, which is being vehemently opposed by all the giants (MS, for an example, is actually having a pretty sour relationship with the US gov, expanded overseas datacenters, officially called them an "advanced persistent threat" to security, and have successfully opposed "orders" to deliver email that doesn't reside in the US)

Thanks for the clarification, I took two phone calls during the show so I missed a bit of it.

[Fitz]

Does it matter whose property the phone is
 the phone does not belong to the San Bernardino Bernardino suspects it belongs to the county so the county wants their phone open shouldn't they be allowed to

Especially since all I want Apple to do is push a update through that will remove the brick feature and then they can use  bruteforce cracking
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

And damn the side effects, right?

[dogmush]

Does it matter whose property the phone is
 the phone does not belong to the San Bernardino Bernardino suspects it belongs to the county so the county wants their phone open shouldn't they be allowed to

Especially since all I want Apple to do is push a update through that will remove the brick feature and then they can use  bruteforce cracking
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

No that's fine.  It's the county's phone. And they want Apple to make them some custom, one off, complicated software on a rush time schedule.  The county is free to attempt to contract with Apple (or really any software developer they want) to make that software and use it on their phone. 

But that's not what the gov did, is it?

Apple has zero interest in taking that contract.  The gov told Apple they had to do it anyway.  or else.

[birdman]

Does it matter whose property the phone is
 the phone does not belong to the San Bernardino Bernardino suspects it belongs to the county so the county wants their phone open shouldn't they be allowed to

Especially since all I want Apple to do is push a update through that will remove the brick feature and then they can use  bruteforce cracking
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Not just that.  Apple can't currently push an update and/or have it be imposed without user interaction, the valid user has to do something to approve a firmware change.  Having such an ability would mean a huge backdoor exploitable by many many others.  Since such a backdoor would be a big first target for people wanting to exploit if for nefarious means, we can be pretty sure such a current "force firmware change" backdoor doesn't exist.
Asking Apple to create it means it would have to be present in all phones, ready to be exploited.

That said, I don't think Apple iOS encrypts all internal data (of the type the investigators want) (other than password files, etc) by default, (otherwise the whole "brick phone" thing wouldn't really be required) so this is lazy govt, just physically open it up, probe the JTAG port (or the flash chip itself)
Regardless of the OS security, the phones data is on a sandisk NAND flash chip...yank the *expletive deleted*er and put it in a test fixture.