So, We're siding with Apple, right?

[dogmush]

...as they tell the FBI to FOAD.

This popped up on my FB feed today, so I did a little reading.

Situation as I understand it:
It seems as if one of the San Bernardino shooters had an iPhone, that the FBI has, but can't get into because Apple has pretty strong encryption, and apparently a function that will destroy the data if someone tries to brute force it. FBI REALLY wants into the phone.  Apple says "Sorry, no can do, that capability doesn't exist."  FBI, gets a court order that compels Apple to wright the software to backdoor their encryption.(actually to get around the brute force protections and let the FBI crack it.) Apple gets the order and says "Nope, still aren't doing it, but we'll go public."  Hilarity on forums across the net ensues.

Apple's Statement

Court Order

Ft. Meade has (apparently) no input to the situation.

I'm on Apple's side here. Yeah they were bad guys, but the government doesn't get to just compel companies to produce things that don't exist, so as to circumvent a major selling point of the company's product. Had the FBI just publicly said "Hey we'll give a million dollars to the software team that can produce this back door for us. We have a warrant." That'd be one thing. But AppleClearly has no interest in building this particular piece of software.

[Andiron]

That was worth the read,  another instance of "I didn't think they had it in them".

Would've lost money betting on them telling the feds to get bent.

Very well done, Tim Cook.

[Ben]

Glad we have a little Apple love going on. I was beginning to think I was in quite the minority based on everything I've been reading and seeing on the news. Most of the so called small government conservatives are all shouting about "an exception for safety".

Once this door is opened, I don't believe it shuts again. I stand with Apple on this.

[Unisaw]

I also stand with Apple.  How can the government compel a private entity to write software to effectively ruin a compelling product feature that cost mucho $ to develop?  Of course, I also thought the government couldn't compel a citizen to purchase health insurance...

[De Selby]

Next step:  an act to ban communication in any format or medium that is inaccessible to a lawful investigation.

Exception: law enforcement and military.  No need for their activities (like briefing on drone strikes) to be subject to later investigations!

[Tuco]

so we side with apple, right?

That reply brings a tear to my eye.
Abso'effinglutely  right.

[lupinus]

Absofreakinglutely


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[French G.]

That is certainly what non-hacker, non IT me got out of it. The phone bricks at 10 password inputs, the Feds want a workaround to brute force the hell out of it. And every other iproduct they ever get their sticky paws on. nopenopenope.

Anyway to come up with a deadman switch program? If you don't check in with the all clear on a daily basis the phone sends you one reminder and then if no response it wipes itself?

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm not an Apple fan by any means but I'm on their side with this issue.

It is my understanding that the phone actually belongs to the county and wasn't the personal property of the terrorists.
I would expect that apple does have the capability to "unlock" the phone but that isn't what the feds are demanding.
The feds can go pound sand.

[Calumus]

Tim's been in the .gov's crosshairs over Apple's privacy policy since last summer at least.  Its one of the reasons that I made the switch to an iPhone last August. Hopefully he keeps it up.

[Ben]

Tim's been in the .gov's crosshairs over Apple's privacy policy since last summer at least.  Its one of the reasons that I made the switch to an iPhone last August. Hopefully he keeps it up.

I'll be interested to see what the response is from the Android side. I'm generally not a fan of Apple products, but something like this could make me switch sides on phones, purely on philosophy.

[Fitz]

I'm not an Apple fan by any means but I'm on their side with this issue.

It is my understanding that the phone actually belongs to the county and wasn't the personal property of the terrorists.
I would expect that apple does have the capability to "unlock" the phone but that isn't what the feds are demanding.
The feds can go pound sand.

 They actually do not have the ability to unlock the phone, and that's very deliberate


 If they ever had that ability, then they can be extorted into using it .  Or the feature can be misused by others who breach it

[lupinus]

My understanding is that there is currently no work around, Apple simply has no way in as they purposely didn't build a back door.

I am very much with Apple on this. If they were to, say, build a back door and force the upgrade I doubt it'll take much time at all for folks to figure out how to exploit it.


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[roo_ster]

Go apple!

That did not feel natural.

Fedgov is way out of line here.

[De Selby]

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.

[zahc]

It's false flag from both ends. Both AAPL and FEDGOV have everything to gain from your belief that the devices are secure. For both the megacorp and megagov, the amount of care they have for your self- interest is below the detection limit.

[Fitz]

It's false flag from both ends. Both AAPL and FEDGOV have everything to gain from your belief that the devices are secure. For both the megacorp and megagov, the amount of care they have for your self- interest is below the detection limit.

Interesting position. Do you believe that there is already a backdoor in place with respect to the device encryption?

[charby]

They actually do not have the ability to unlock the phone, and that's very deliberate


 If they ever had that ability, then they can be extorted into using it .  Or the feature can be misused by others who breach it

I was listening to this on NPR, they has about a 20 minute discussion with several different people. Appears the FBI and whomever wants Apple to create software that can decrypt any of their phone they make. Apple doesn't want to do this because it puts them in a bad spot with consumers and with other nations they sell products too. Seemed that Apple was ok with FBI sending the phone to them under the warrant and apple will decrypt it at their facilities and give it back to the feds. Apple didn't want to create a software program than can be used outside their facilities, or even make such a software program in the first place. Apple is really taking personal privacy protection in their devices very seriously.

[Fitz]

I was listening to this on NPR, they has about a 20 minute discussion with several different people. Appears the FBI and whomever wants Apple to create software that can decrypt any of their phone they make. Apple doesn't want to do this because it puts them in a bad spot with consumers and with other nations they sell products too. Seemed that Apple was ok with FBI sending the phone to them under the warrant and apple will decrypt it at their facilities and give it back to the feds. Apple didn't want to create a software program than can be used outside their facilities, or even make such a software program in the first place. Apple is really taking personal privacy protection in their devices very seriously.

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)

[Ron]

Re: So, We're siding with Apple, right?

yes

Seems to me that a backdoor on an encrypted device is somewhat of an oxymoron. It is either encrypted and secure or it is not. A backdoor means it is not.

I heard one of the "conservative" talking heads expressing all types of concern about our safety and "the terrorists!" on the radio yesterday.

Of course if there is a terrorist attack in the USA it will be because we didn't allow the government to destroy every last vestige of privacy 

[makattak]

Go apple!

That did not feel natural.

Fedgov is way out of line here.

Completely agree.

That last Apple product I owned was a first generation iBook. (I'll let you discover when that was...)

This is seriously making me consider moving to the iPhone the next time I need to replace my smartphone.

[230RN]

Apple.

Of course, that puts me on "that list."

Again.

[brimic]

I'm on Apple's side here. Yeah they were bad guys, but the government doesn't get to just compel companies to produce things that don't exist, so as to circumvent a major selling point of the company's product.

Also what needs to be taken into account is that ultimately, it was .gov who let the terrorist (farook's wife) into the country in the first place.

.Gov can go pound sand.

[TechMan]

yes

Seems to me that a backdoor on an encrypted device is somewhat of an oxymoron. It is either encrypted and secure or it is not. A backdoor means it is not.

I heard one of the "conservative" talking heads expressing all types of concern about our safety and "the terrorists!" on the radio yesterday.

Of course if there is a terrorist attack in the USA it will be because we didn't allow the government to destroy every last vestige of privacy 

Bogie is doing the same thing on the book of face.

[MechAg94]

Question:
Was Apple willing to help the Feds recover data from the phone separately without helping to defeat their encryption generally?

I was a bit surprised the court order was so specific.