Another take on the FBI/Cook tussle

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thermodynamic, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
  2. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #2
    While I don't agree with what the FBI is asking, I do think that both Apple and the FBI are acting really childish and each could end up with egg on their face if they continue down the current path. Apple trying to argue in support of absolute privacy is as much of an untenable position as the FBI pushing for their own backdoor. Given that reality, Apple should be the grown up in the room and use this as an opportunity to distinguish itself from its competitors by coming up with a practical solution where Apple, its customers and the FBI can walk away satisfied.

    I don't support the idea of giving the FBI their own universal backdoor but Apple could create a backdoor that only they could access after jumping through many different hoops. First, to debunk the whole notion of hackers gaining access, the backdoor would not be accessible remotely and would require physical possession of the phone. Second, the backdoor for every phone would be different and the only purpose it would serve is to unlock the phone. Third, it would require a physical connection and special hardware with a certain chipset to communicate a whole series of access codes unique to each phone. Lastly, this whole process would be administered by Apple and only ever done in response to a court order.
     
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    Why is that untenable? It's a binary choice: you either have absolute privacy or you have a backdoor. There is no such animal as "pretty good privacy." Well, there is but you know what I mean. :p
     
  4. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #4
    Very interesting article. A different perspective on the situation that Apple is involved in. Perceived by some as a very polarizing company, not everyone loves Apple.

    This is looking like one of the most interesting contests of 2016. Of extremely serious nature to some, of little consequence to others. Sure to be long and drawn out, the attention it receives will surely fade as the Presidential election draws nearer.

    I wouldn't be surprised if a vast number of people, caught up in their busy lives, simply tune out and ignore what might be an extremely long protracted fight.
     
  5. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #5
    You clearly misunderstand apple's argument. This case sets a precedent. It doesn't matter if ONLY apple has access to this new firmware (which doesn't exist) with compromised encryption. If they are forced to create it (which itself is not possible) will apple have to comply each and every time with this? They'll be an extension of the government, having to devote resources to this "task."

    Every news agency is using the work "unlock". That is not what is happening. There is no unlocking of anything. The FBI wants Apple to create a new version of iOS which (presumably) looks and feels exactly like previous versions, but with all the encryption features stripped. This is a clear overreach by a monopolistic, bureaucratic, incompetent, inept, and power hungry agency who's only goal is to gain power for itself and no one else.
     
  6. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #6
    Well, I haven't been following all of the chatter about this subject either on this board or watching any of the news outlets. Believe it or not, some people can actually think for themselves. I simply offered a realistic solution to the stalemate but people are more interested in playing politics and painting the other side in the worst possible light with ridiculous arguments and accusations. But that is the world we live in which disproves the theory of evolution.
     
  7. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #7
    Where's that doofus, Obama, on this issue?

    He's on top when it came to Crock Boy, inviting him to the White House, and he lit up the White House in colors for the gay marriage ridiculousness, but when it comes to national security and as it pertains to a Muslim terrorist and his cell phone, there's the sound of crickets from the White House.
     
  8. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    And who is going to pay for the new hacking division in Apple, even if your idea was possible, everyone through their taxes, or Apple customers through higher prices? And even if it does require physical access to the phone, a lot of the security features on there are intended to protect your data in the event it is lost or stolen which this would undo. Also hackers have been able to build hardware to crack other locks, so they would be able to do the same thing here. And no, you can't make a backdoor for just one device.
     
  9. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #9
    Seriously? This would be a very minimal expense for Apple to design and implement and the operational costs would be negligible as well. And don't be silly, there is no need for a new Apple division whose sole purpose is to unlock iPhones. Nothing but hyperbole along with your continued use of the word hackers. Even if someone got physical access to your phone and somehow managed to obtain the device Apple uses to unlock your phone, there would be several layers of additional safeguards that they would have to get through both at the device level and at the phone level. A hacker would literally not be able to get into your phone but I will concede that it would take several current Apple employees going rogue.
     
  10. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #10
    The FBI vs :apple: dispute has nothing to do with the government governing.

    Tim Cook is absolutely righty to fight back. He is a great CEO.

    Reminds me why I like giving apple my money. :)
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    You claim
    If they are all different then that means that Apple would have to design a new one for each of the hundreds of phones that Law Enforcement Agencies will ask for access to which would require a lot of work. If you doubt the fact that there would be hundreds of requests there's this from Apple's filing
    And as for the effort it would take I'll trust Apple over a random person on the internet.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/300524244/Apple-s-Motion-to-Vacate
     
  12. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #12
    No it would not require a lot of work, it's actually very simple to implement. The only hard part is the politics of it where people, as you did, will start throwing around accusations of distrust and slippery slope arguments. My proposed solution can and will work but people aren't interested in looking at the big picture to solve problems until the big picture hits them in the face. Then they will demand a solution. I would say live and learn but that would be a fallacy as evidenced by society.
     
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
    Do you have anything to back up your claim that it is simple? Because Apple, the only one's who have looked at the iOS source code disagree with you.

    If you have a way to streamline the whole process and make it easy I bet Apple will have a good paying job available for you in their engineering department.
     
  14. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #14
    You might want to check the facts. U.S. magistrate judges are not elected, they are appointed. What we have is an unelected government official, forcing a private business to create a product that undermines the security of existing customers, and potentially its entire user base. There is no precedent for this. It is wrong and undemocratic. The issue should be address by accountable, elected representatives in the legislature.
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    Sorry, but in this case, it's pretty black and white. In information security, your system either is secure or isn't. There is no middle ground. There is no way to make access only for the "good guys" that wouldn't be able to be exploited by bad guys. Period.


    Umm, what you just described IS a backdoor.

    Great, so if I lose or misplace my phone, all the info on it is now vulnerable?

    So Apple is going to maintain a warehouse with a billion dongles in it? Who's going to pay for all of that?

    Why the hell do we need to jump through all these hoops and put our security at risk to prevent the hypothetical "terrorist"? For what? Because a few people died? How many Americans have been killed by "terrorists" since 9/11? Less than 100?

    That would be a huge waste of resources to prevent that few amount of deaths. Meanwhile, 100,000 Americans die every year from completely preventable blood clots. Why don't we focus on things where we can actually make an impact and not violate people's privacy and security instead of wasting money to try to strip people's rights under the pipe dream fantasy of preventing extremely infrequent and random terrorist attacks?

    Real terrorists are using their own encryption solutions anyways.
     
  16. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #16
    Funny, it really has nothing to do with the iOS source code. Apple is referring to the level of encryption of the iOS which I'm not suggesting any changes to. Apple is playing politics here as well as the FBI. If we can send a man to the moon, Apple should be able to create a secure process for unlocking an iPhone. And I already have a good paying job in technology.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 26, 2016 ---
    More straw man arguments. Be careful what you wish for because your position that under no circumstances should Apple be able to unlock a phone may come back to bite you. ;)
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    Writing a new version of iOS without the security features like the FBI wants does require editing the source code. But anyway you haven't shown anything to show that the changes would be simple like you claim.
     
  18. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #18
    I do not support what the FBI is asking for, so please don't misrepresent my position. My solution calls for very minimal changes to both hardware and software but it will never happen because of politics not because it is difficult or expensive.
     
  19. felt. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #19
    Neat, the guy who wrote the article runs a company which lists among its services 'Espionage Simulations'

     
  20. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #20
    These aren't straw man arguments. It's reality. I'm a network systems administrator. I deal with information security on a daily basis.

    I don't think most people outside of IT even realize how prevalent data breaches and cyber attacks are. My company's web applications (and we aren't even big) deal with hundreds to sometimes in the thousands of attempted attacks daily. Meanwhile, you can't go a week without hearing about a massive data breach in the news.

    Securing digital infrastructure is hard enough as it is. We don't need to make attackers lives any easier by giving them a gaping wide door to try to come through.

    Microsoft built something for the FBI for Windows XP that's similar to what they want now from Apple about 10 years ago. As expected, it was leaked and was used all over the world by hackers, cyber criminals, and sometimes just script kiddies to exploit innocent people.

    It's not worth it. And the precedent it would set would be even more dangerous.
     
  21. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #21
    You're arguments would be more compelling if they were at all relevant to what I was proposing. As a network administrator, you should understand that you cannot hack something that is offline.
     
  22. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #22
    Yeah, until the device gets misplaced, lost, or stolen and gets into the hands of somebody who wants to do something malicious.

    Your "proposal" of using a hardware dongle unique to each phone would mean Apple would need to maintain a warehouse with individual dongles for every iOS device ever made.

    That's completely unrealistic and it also puts an unreasonable burden on Apple, which means the All Writs Act wouldn't apply and the government couldn't be forced to do that.

    Or they'd be storing a database of crypto keys for each iOS device which is a massive security vulnerability.

    This debate already happened in the 90s with the Clipper chip, PGP keys, etc. A backdoor was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea now. There's a reason why the entire tech and crypto communities are telling everyone this is a bad idea, and they're the only ones that really understand the underlying technology.
     
  23. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #23
    Hardware dongles and warehouses? I don't recall suggesting anything like that. :) Similarly, a database of crypto keys? Who is talking about decrypting anything, that wouldn't make much sense and the ability to do so would be a huge security risk. And the device itself, if stolen would be useless for several reasons because it would be designed with many layers of security built-in to even use it and more importantly the firmware would only work and be able to communicate with a very limited number of phones, and lastly you would need to enter a series of access codes specific to the phone you're trying to unlock.
     
  24. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #24
    The FBI is asking Apple to create software that would allow them to decrypt the contents of a locked iPhone. You keep insisting that this can be done with no security risks.
     
  25. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #25
    I'm not insisting any such thing and I think what the FBI is asking for is ridiculous. I'm only suggesting that Apple should devise an approach where they will be able to unlock a phone when given a court order to so.
     

Share This Page