Apple Unlock iPhone?

[Steve81]

However, if presented with a court order and facing business penalties and personal jail time, I would consider acquiescence more of a defeat than a defection.

In this respect, I'd say Cook and Apple are well positioned to make a stand. I don't see it at all practical to toss Cook or other Apple executives in jail. From a PR standpoint, that only serves to reinforce their position. From a practical standpoint, lets face it, we're talking about a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars with friends at the highest levels of power.

As far as trying to levy business penalties, even a million dollar a day fine would be a drop in the bucket for a company that just recorded quarterly profits on the order of 18 billion dollars. Of course, if the government tried to really hurt Apple, they'd also have to consider the collateral damage created.

 

[agarwalro]

Here's a good article on the complexity of retrieving the hardware key and the risk it puts on successfully obtaining the data.

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...asers-to-access-data-stored-on-seized-iphone/

 

[herbu]

In this respect, I'd say Cook and Apple are well positioned to make a stand. I don't see it at all practical to toss Cook or other Apple executives in jail. From a PR standpoint, that only serves to reinforce their position. From a practical standpoint, lets face it, we're talking about a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars with friends at the highest levels of power.

As far as trying to levy business penalties, even a million dollar a day fine would be a drop in the bucket for a company that just recorded quarterly profits on the order of 18 billion dollars. Of course, if the government tried to really hurt Apple, they'd also have to consider the collateral damage created.

Agreed. The govt would have a tough row to hoe convincing the American people that putting Cook in jail was reasonable.

As a side note about Tim's wealth: http://www.fastcompany.com/3044386/fast-feed/apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-donate-his-fortune-to-charity
Notice it's "all", not "part". Of course he still draws a serious salary and stock, but still... geez!

 

[Chu Gai]

Agreed. The govt would have a tough row to hoe convincing the American people that putting Cook in jail was reasonable.

As a side note about Tim's wealth: http://www.fastcompany.com/3044386/fast-feed/apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-donate-his-fortune-to-charity
Notice it's "all", not "part". Of course he still draws a serious salary and stock, but still... geez!

Public opinion is fickle and what with many polls this election season illustrating that Americans have a significant concern regarding terrorism and safety, I wouldn't unilaterally feel confident on Apple's present stand. Myself, I'm hoping there's a way around this because the real loser IMO is America the way it stands right now.

 

[Hobbit]

Here's a good article on the complexity of retrieving the hardware key and the risk it puts on successfully obtaining the data.

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...asers-to-access-data-stored-on-seized-iphone/

I worked in a lab that used all the techniques listed and then some.... As with any sort of failure analysis there is the potential of destroying the part. However, it's not as difficult as the article makes it sound. Within a square mile of where I currently work there's at least 4 labs, including the one I'm in now, that have and use all the equipment listed in this article.

I also can't fully agree that it would require little investment on Apple's part. This may be the case. However, it seems to assume that Apple has built in a back door, which it may or may not have. I've worked for PLD companies and dealt with the government, gas (think gas pumps), and gaming industries. We didn't necessarily have a simple way to hack the chips we built. I get the impression that they're saying it would be less expensive for the government to force Apple to do this at Apple's expense than to have to pay a lab that specializes in this type of work.

 

[agarwalro]

I worked in a lab that used all the techniques listed and then some.... As with any sort of failure analysis there is the potential of destroying the part. However, it's not as difficult as the article makes it sound. Within a square mile of where I currently work there's at least 4 labs, including the one I'm in now, that have and use all the equipment listed in this article.

I also can't fully agree that it would require little investment on Apple's part. This may be the case. However, it seems to assume that Apple has built in a back door, which it may or may not have. I've worked for PLD companies and dealt with the government, gas (think gas pumps), and gaming industries. We didn't necessarily have a simple way to hack the chips we built. I get the impression that they're saying it would be less expensive for the government to force Apple to do this at Apple's expense than to have to pay a lab that specializes in this type of work.

Thanks for your insight on the physical/engineering side of things.

Since when have TLA government agencies cared about cost, haha! Heck, this is about countering terrorism. Outside tech savvy circles, the court of popular opinion is probably against Apple.

 

[haraldo]

is the FBI case against Apple unconstitutional?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fbis-case-against-apple-could-violate-free-speech

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks for your insight on the physical/engineering side of things.

Since when have TLA government agencies cared about cost, haha! Heck, this is about countering terrorism. Outside tech savvy circles, the court of popular opinion is probably against Apple.

LOL! For sure. I should have, and meant to say this is relates to what the author of the article said, not what the government said. My impression of the article was the author made it sound like it is super difficult and far out science to do what labs all over the world do on a daily basis and Apple can easily do this.

Honestly, if Apple can take the phone and easily hack it, as the author suggests, that would really bother me. It should bother all of us if Apple, or any company is selling us products that they engineered a way for them to be the only one's who can hack it. That implies nothing, including government secrets, is remotely secure.

I understand that the government would want to use Apple's expertise to hack the phone. In that sense, an easier out for Apple would been to state that they can't (easily, which I would hope they can't) hack into the phone, but they could use their expertise of the product to assist the government to get information out of it.

In fact, it is much easier to hack something like this, using any technique, if you have an intimate knowledge of the design. For instance, the government could have went to the designer and manufacturer of the memory chips to get information that would help deprocess and get the contents out with much less work than blindly going at it.

 

[haraldo]

Apple has stated that the FBI's request is within its capabilities, but that the request is unduly burdensome. Apple has as far as I know not fully scoped out the project, but that it would take on the order of several weeks or even several months. It's been stated that the request means not just writing the software, but validating it to ensure it doesn't break something else on the phone.

The software will not make any information accessible but make it possible to perform a brute-force password-guessing attack that by itself may take several weeks to perform...

It's certainly not an easy task to get into the information of an iPhone!

From another point of view if the FBI's order is granted, will foreign national authorities also be quick to make similar requests? and with the precedence set for international legislation, may the backdoor be wide open for russian authorities too?

 

[Chu Gai]

Your last point is well taken.

 

[haraldo]

Your last point is well taken.

Sorry, typo .... Better now?

 

[agarwalro]

From another point of view if the FBI's order is granted, will foreign national authorities also be quick to make similar requests? and with the precedence set for international legislation, may the backdoor be wide open for russian authorities too?

This! Also, if precedent is set for a government agency to demand a back door be created (and succeed), what assurance can any company provide about securing information.

There is no middle ground. The technology/software is either secure or not.

 

[herbu]

I've heard a couple new arguments about this. I'll use analogy...

Suppose you are a manufacturer. The govt comes to you and says, "We require you to design and build the mother of all bombs. You can keep all designs and information within your own business and be responsible for its security."

1. Can the govt compel a business to build something they don't want to build?

2. Once built, and the company is responsible for its security, who is at fault if the product is somehow leaked and the bad guys get it?

 

[Steve81]

I've heard a couple new arguments about this. I'll use analogy...

Suppose you are a manufacturer. The govt comes to you and says, "We require you to design and build the mother of all bombs. You can keep all designs and information within your own business and be responsible for its security."

1. Can the govt compel a business to build something they don't want to build?

2. Once built, and the company is responsible for its security, who is at fault if the product is somehow leaked and the bad guys get it?

3. If the government has the power to compel you to build this bomb in the name of national security, what's to keep the NSA from later marching in and confiscating all the plans in the name of national security?

 

[haraldo]

3. If the government has the power to compel you to build this bomb in the name of national security, what's to keep the NSA from later marching in and confiscating all the plans in the name of national security?

It does not mean that the authorities can force you to maintain backwards compatibility

You can make an updated version in which the triggering mechanism is changed so that you need new codes and procedures to arm it, in which case the old ones will not work.

Then probably government still can demand to get the updated procedures... in the name of national security, but it will be a new case, a new court case, and so on ...

So back tp the Apple case, FBI can get a special version of IOS 9 that will have an open back-door, but that does not mean this this back-door may be open for a phone with IOS 10, as of course Apple will be free to update security mechanisms and even use enhanced authentication and encryption mechanisms that will then leave the "old" backdoor closed... At least that's what I think may be the case

 

[Steve81]

Then probably government still can demand to get the updated procedures... in the name of national security, but it will be a new case, a new court case, and so on ...

That's the thing though, once the precedent is set, the next legal battle will be much shorter.

Apple will be free to update security mechanisms and even use enhanced authentication and encryption mechanisms that will then leave the "old" backdoor closed...

As I understand it, given this case, Apple is currently working to close the "back door" of being able to load a new version of iOS without the user's password. As is, they reckoned it was reasonably secure as a maintenance tool, requiring a digitally signed update to utilize. Without this feature, they may well not be able to crack it at all. Of course, that's if the government allows them to make it and sell it to peons like us.

One bit of irony...had it been a newer iPhone with TouchID, it could have all been moot anyway, as they have Farook's thumb.

 

[rnatalli]

Remember what Benjamin Franklin said, "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." It's amazing how easily people turn into sheep when the fear mongering starts. At the end of the day, it won't matter which way this goes. Ultimately, Apple will make their phones impossible to crack entirely which will then place the onus of this issue with the legislature.

 

[haraldo]

That's the thing though, once the precedent is set, the next legal battle will be much shorter.

Well if a future version will have a trillion combinations, and government can crack 100 tries a second, it will take up to 31710 years to do a brute force attack. So it may well be that future versions will be practically impossible to break...

Even if you could do 100,000 tries per second, we're still talking almost 32 years...

It is my guess that the security mechanisms are under heavy review to counteract these things...

 

[Chu Gai]

Then the government must turn to this man to unlock the key. One who cannot be bought.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think the real point is for that for encryption to be really effective the writers can not crack the code.

I would be surprised if Apple can actually decipher and crack the code, and that it would take a massive research program to do it. If they did do it no one is safe, and that is the point.

Hopefully it is absolutely impossible to break into that phone.

As I understand it the trend is to encryption that can not be broken by anyone. If you think about it that is really what we need.

My guess is Apple is delaying that admission less law makers become enraged and people up to no good are emboldened.

My strong hunch is that Apple can not actually break the encryption no matter how many judges and FBI agents want them to.