Apple Unlock iPhone?

[Swerd]

Apple doesn't have the encryption keys for this phone to turn over.

They are asking for Apple to create software that will bypass encryption for this device. This software would work for any device.

Neither side is naive. Both Apple and the FBI are taking extreme positions. There is a lot of room in the middle for Apple to comply with the court order, and the FBI to get what it needs without compromising all privacy features.

 

[Steve81]

It seems fashionable now to scoff at that effort, and suggest that we shouldn't trust the government. But to do the opposite was & remains unthinkable.

Well back in those days we had paragons of virtue like Richard Nixon to steer this nation in the right direction....wait

Of course, I'd posit that not trusting the government has been quite thinkable, both now and in the past.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

James Madison


Of course, this quote seems more applicable to the current state of affairs:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa08.htm

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

Alexander Hamilton

 

[jonnythan]

Neither side is naive. Both Apple and the FBI are taking extreme positions. There is a lot of room in the middle for Apple to comply with the court order, and the FBI to get what it needs without compromising all privacy features.

Apple's position really isn't extreme. To the best of my knowledge, what the government is asking Apple to do is genuinely unprecedented.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that there's "a lot of room in the middle." Mobile device management and endpoint security was literally my job for 10 years, so perhaps I have a significantly different perspective on this than you do.

The only way this phone can be unlocked, unless someone manages to find a backdoor in the installed software, is for Apple to produce a new version of iOS that bypasses all of the security features of the device, use their official Apple secret keys to digitally sign the software as authentic iPhone software, then hand it over to the FBI to install on this iPhone.

Let me repeat in slightly different wording: the only way for Apple to comply is to create, sign, and hand to the federal government a version of iOS that disables all device security. To the best of my knowledge, there is no effective way to create this software and prevent it from being able to be used on other iPhones.

The federal government is literally telling Apple to create a universal iPhone backdoor. I'm not sure where the "middle ground" could be here. If you have knowledge or understanding of the situation that I don't, and you have some idea of what "middle ground" could make everyone happy here, please share it with me. I'd genuinely love to know.

 

[jonnythan]

And to make another point, the government is asking Apple to divert its private resources away from its own goals in order to work directly for the government instead, against what it views as its own corporate interests.

I'm not sure that's ever been done before.

 

[Chu Gai]

If Apple states that their new phones are even more secure than the ones in question, doesn't that suggest that Apple already possesses the wherewithal on how to circumvent the phone model in question be it software or even a hardware modification? On a separate note, John Mcafee has said he could hack it in about three weeks.

 

[jonnythan]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice...t-data-from-about-12-other-iphones-1456202213

Just the beginning.

 

[Rickster71]

I don't think anyone is questioning that part of the situation. The questions are this:

1. Can everyone else be reasonably assured of having a right to privacy if the government essentially has a master key to our smartphones?

2. If the existence of a master key is public knowledge, how long will it take for criminals to figure it out?

Pardon me if this was addressed already, I didn't read entire thread yet.

1. Getting info from this "one" smart phone is the modern equivalent to the FBI doing a wiretap on a phone belonging to a Mafia member. It didn't change the rights to everyone's privacy. Just guys that had a provable history of violent crime.

2. Criminals have already figured out how to be criminals. Why should this one cell phone be the linchpin to a hypothetical.
This whole thing is no more than the usual Dog & Pony Show.
Apple is appealing to their base and "Sticking it to the Man."
Our Government is trying look effective against terrorism.

 

[Steve81]

1. Getting info from this "one" smart phone is the modern equivalent to the FBI doing a wiretap on a phone belonging to a Mafia member. It didn't change the rights to everyone's privacy. Just guys that had a provable history of violent crime.

It's a similar but different situation. No, the fundamental right to privacy doesn't change regardless of what the government says or does because well...it's fundamental. What changes is how meaningful such a right is when the government, or individual agents within it, decide to abuse their authority (and make no mistake, there is no "if" here). This is where the difference between a wiretap and unfettered access to a smartphone is important. Being able to record a phone conversation utterly pales in comparison to what can be achieved if someone has full access to a target's smartphone.

2. Criminals have already figured out how to be criminals. Why should this one cell phone be the linchpin to a hypothetical.

It's an important precedent because the government is effectively saying that citizens cannot have what amounts to an uncrackable safe. Your phone must be hackable by the government. The logical extension to that is that you must therefore also be vulnerable to hacking by other parties as well. This is particularly problematic in an age where unfriendly governments sponsor legions of hackers.

 

[Chu Gai]

Hypothetically speaking, had the carnage been carried out at Apple HQ, would their position have been the same?

 

[herbu]

There is a point where national security outweighs privacy concerns.

Agreed. However, Steve used the best parallel. The govt cannot compel me to tell them how to crack my safe, or to only make a safe they have the ability to crack.

The comparison to Bush is appropriate. When the legislature passes a law, it is important to remember that law will hold regardless of who is in power. You may trust the guy/party in power today to use the law judiciously, but how about the guy/party that will be in power tomorrow?

We know the agendas and integrity of our leaders can change to a shocking degree. We should keep that in mind before granting some power to whomever is calling the shots today.

 

[Rickster71]

It's a similar but different situation. No, the fundamental right to privacy doesn't change regardless of what the government says or does because well...it's fundamental. What changes is how meaningful such a right is when the government, or individual agents within it, decide to abuse their authority (and make no mistake, there is no "if" here). This is where the difference between a wiretap and unfettered access to a smartphone is important. Being able to record a phone conversation utterly pales in comparison to what can be achieved if someone has full access to a target's smartphone.



It's an important precedent because the government is effectively saying that citizens cannot have what effectively amounts to an uncrackable safe. Your phone must be hackable by the government. The logical extension to that is that you must therefore also be vulnerable to hacking by other parties as well. This is particularly problematic in an age where unfriendly governments sponsor legions of hackers.

My understanding is that when the story went public, Apple went into "Protect the Brand" mode.
I'm looking into why Apple had a change of heart on this... since they've cooperated with the FBI many, many times in the past.
Seems to be more of a Political Grandstanding issue, than a legal precedent.

 

[Hobbit]

Other big names are backing Apple for the same reason. They don't want the government to be able to force them to do things like this. IMO, the way they should be discussing it is "this is not our responsibility". If they make it so the government has to do it on their own, once they figure out how to do that, privacy is in bigger trouble if they do.

There are already companies out there that specialize in this type engineering. I used to work for one. We would get work from government organizations to companies concerned about patent infringement. We would also do security analysis and validation to make sure products weren't tampered with. I'm actually more surprised that they even asked Apple to do it for them.

 

[jonnythan]

My understanding is that when the story went public, Apple went into "Protect the Brand" mode.
I'm looking into why Apple had a change of heart on this... since they've cooperated with the FBI many, many times in the past.
Seems to be more of a Political Grandstanding issue, than a legal precedent.

The whole process was transparent and public. They said that consumer privacy is important, and took away their own ability to break into your encrypted phone.

 

[Steve81]

Hypothetically speaking, had the carnage been carried out at Apple HQ, would their position have been the same?

Probably not, but are emotional responses to trauma the best way to judge a situation? Should we have given parents of the victims at Newtown carte blanche to rewrite the nation's gun laws in the months following that tragedy?

 

[jonnythan]

Hypothetically speaking, had the carnage been carried out at Apple HQ, would their position have been the same?

There's a reason juries are made up of random people from the community and not the victims themselves.

 

[Steve81]

My understanding is that when the story went public, Apple went into "Protect the Brand" mode. I'm looking into why Apple had a change of heart on this... since they've cooperated with the FBI many, many times in the past. Seems to be more of a Political Grandstanding issue, than a legal precedent.

One line of thought:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

It wasn’t until after the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that Apple began to position itself so forcefully as a guardian of privacy protection in the face of a vast government surveillance apparatus. Perhaps Apple was taken aback by the scale of NSA spying that Snowden revealed. Or perhaps it was embarassed by its own role in it. The company, since 2012, had been providing its customers’ information to the FBI and the NSA via the PRISM program, which operated pursuant to court orders.

 

[Rickster71]

The whole process was transparent and public. They said that consumer privacy is important, and took away their own ability to break into your encrypted phone.

I recently learned from the news, the phone was County owned and one given to employees to use. (Terrorist was county worker)
In this case a county in Calf is the consumer/owner, not a private citizen.

 

[jonnythan]

I recently learned from the news, the phone was County owned and one given to employees to use. (Terrorist was county worker)
In this case a county in Calf is the consumer/owner, not a private citizen.

The county screwed the pooch by not properly managing their mobile devices.

 

[Rickster71]

One line of thought:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

One line of thought:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

Leads me to believe even more, political motives are afoot..... not legal precedent.
Not sure if you noticed my post above. The County owned that phone. It was issued as a work phone.
Has me putting his rights to privacy in a different light.

 

[Rickster71]

Probably not, but are emotional responses to trauma the best way to judge a situation? Should we have given parents of the victims at Newtown carte blanche to rewrite the nation's gun laws in the months following that tragedy?

Ironic that many politicians get elected promising to do exactly that!