Apple Actively Working to 'Double Down' on iCloud Encryption

[dk001]

Just because you think it's "EASY" to get a warrant doesn't make the constitution obsolete. If you want to make the 4th amendment more solid than make another amendment. Don't act like the current amendments gives you ABOLUTE freedoms to do anything you like

I think you misunderstand my point. The ability to submit a request for a search warrant is very broad. However it must be approved by a magistrate or judge and executed by law enforcement. This point has nothing to do with obsoleting anything. Just a statement on the general misunderstanding of who can submit a search warrant for approval to the court.

 

[jonnysods]

I hate the word 'doubling down' when Apple use it. Usually it means the opposite!

 

[kds1]

It's pretty clear from your numerous postings on this topic that its YOU who doesn't understand. If I had to take a shot of tequila for every wrong statement you've made about the scope and requirements of government searches in general and the facts of this case in particular, I'd be drunk by post #2.

You need to educate yourself about the law and the 4th Amendment, as well as the particular facts of the FBI's request, because you clearly do not understand their request. You continue to take absolutist stands against ANY government searching EVER, completely ignoring that the government has to meet very strict requirements of probable cause, particularized thing to be searched, and have it OK'ed by a judge. Plus the fact that Apple will be doing the access in a secured facility under lock and key, NOT the government. The government is not putting innocent people at risk, and neither is Apple by way of their assistance. Your phone, my phone, your mistress's phone, your boy-toy's phone, they are all going to be safe and sound. Only the bad guys' phones will be at risk. Please stop spreading FUD.

Only the bad guys phones will be at risk. RIIIIIIIIGHT!
[doublepost=1458253818][/doublepost]If the FBI was really competent, they wouldn't need this.

 

[marine0816]

I never said it did. Nice straw man though.

You clearly do not understand the situation or implications.

Digital security is not like home security. Searching a home with a warrant doesn't put other homes at greater risk of burgulary.

Designing a digital system to allow govt access does as it WILL be exploited.

The government DOES NOT get to put innocent people at risk or trample their rights to try to catch a few bad guys. It's pretty simple.


Educate yourself on how information security works and how it's not like securing a house. Then you might understand.

You clearly Donte

Only the bad guys phones will be at risk. RIIIIIIIIGHT!
[doublepost=1458253818][/doublepost]If the FBI was really competent, they wouldn't need this.

WOW, you don't have an understanding of the constitution. You seriously need to educate yourself. Embarrassing

 

[tgara]

Nice straw man. I'm not against the government searching. Never said that. You're trying to misrepresent my position.

I'm against the government forcing Apple to build something that will put other people at risk.

This whole "being done in Apple's secure facility" is a bunch of nonsense. That doesn't mean anything. Tools like this have been built by other companies in the past (including by Microsoft) and they inevitably leaked. Look how "great" Apple is at keeping their "secrets" under lock and key. (Anyone remember the iPhone prototype in the bar situation?)

I'm a network admin. I deal with trying to secure digital infrastructure on a daily basis. I know exactly what the FBI is requesting. They want Apple to build and sign a modified version of iOS that bypasses 1) the mechanism that wipes the device private key after 10 failed passcode attempts, 2) the delay that happens after 5+ wrong passcode attempts, and 3) to be able to use a computer attached to the lightning port so they can attempt to programmatically brute force the passcode at the one per ~80ms limits of the 5c's hardware. Then they want to use DFU mode to load this custom firmware on to attempt to brute force the passcode.

But this isn't even about this one iPhone. Officials have even admitted there likely isn't anything on there. This is all about precedence. They want to set the precedent that it's okay for the court to order a company to build something they don't want to do, so they can use that precedent in the future to force a real backdoor. They're just using this case because the "terrorism" boogeyman gets Americans all worked up and ready to bend over. That's why they're doing it publicly with this case instead of just going to the NSA to hack that phone. They don't give a damn about the data on it, they want the precedent so later they can ask for a court ordered backdoor.

It's extremely foolish to think this is only about one phone. In information security it's standard procedure to always assume that a system will eventually get hacked or a vulnerability will always get leaked. That's another reason why this is such a bad idea.

Even more so, if the government were to force Apple and other manufacturers to build in back doors, people who actually had anything to hide would just switch to different software that is still secure. Android is open source, and it's not the only open source mobile OS out there. You could download and compile your own custom android build with whatever open source crypto library you wanted. And then all the "bad guys" still have encrypted phones than can't be read while normal people are at higher risk of identity and data theft.

Like you all say, if you outlaw guns, only the bad guys will have them. It's the same thing here.

This case would open Pandora's box and would be a nightmare for anyone in my industry. Not to mention it would kill the competitiveness and innovation of American tech companies around the world.

Pandora's box needs to stay closed.

I thought this article was interesting, and may explain why you and I see differently on this issue.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-v-fbi-shows-lawyers-and-tech-speak-different-language-privacy

 

[You are the One]

I thought this article was interesting, and may explain why you and I see differently on this issue.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-v-fbi-shows-lawyers-and-tech-speak-different-language-privacy

Irrelevant semantics.

Under no circumstance can the ruling establishment be allowed absolute power over those they are supposed to "serve". There is more than enough historical evidence that the concept of giving a carte balance to a ruling elite ends in totalitarian dictatorship.

The governments shouldn't be given more powers, they should be stripped of powers. Starting with the all pervasive surveillance structures that permeate western societies.