rdlink
macrumors 68040
Not even sure it will make it to the SCOTUS. If the 9th Circuit rules in Apple's favor the Supremes may deny cert.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
At Congressional Hearing Apple Says 'The World is Watching' iPhone Unlocking Battle
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not even sure it will make it to the SCOTUS. If the 9th Circuit rules in Apple's favor the Supremes may deny cert.
hindmost
macrumors regular
J.Edgar Hoover is looking up from Hell right now and cheering on his latest successor.
Scary. Very scary.
Scary. Very scary.
dannyyankou
macrumors Pentium
That's the claim. And if Apple were to make that tool, how likely is it that it would be used once and only once? ("well, ok. i promised.") How many other agencies, or governments won't demand that Apple do it for them, too?
Knowing that such a tool could be made, how long before some other state agent recreates it? For that matter, how much money would every single person associated with developing the tool be willing to forego? ("Riches beyond your wildest dreams!" "I don't know, I can dream some really big numbers.")
gavroche
macrumors 65816
If Apple developed the software, its easy for them to build it in to the system software and roll it out in the next update. But if the FBI developed something, they have no mechanism for installing it on your phone.
[doublepost=1456879683][/doublepost]
How would that not be a permanent back door? I mean, if i understand the person you were replying to correctly... he's saying that if the FBI gets their hands on this software... they would never give it up. So they could use it whenever they want. Seems pretty permanent to me..
Who said the FBI would have the OS. The OS would be installed on one device with Apple's assistance. I wouldn't expect Apple to create a backdoor into iOS and release publicly nor would I expect them to hand over the OS so that the FBI could install at will.
Couldn't they own the alternate OS. Now I'm not discounting the fact that it still opens up the precedent that once it's created, it can be used again. But that doesn't mean the OS would be "in the wild".
If you haven't been able to get it to work yet, the full vid (I didn't watch it yet just skipped around in it) is available at The House of Representative's Judiciary Committee site here :
http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=89431275-E911-4D5C-BD70-BFE3EF91AD86
That is true, but it would still be a victory for all Americans, so let's hope they do indeed rule in Apple's favor and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, would save a lot of tax dollars that way.
[doublepost=1456880483][/doublepost]
No, because the FBI would then insist on getting physical access to the device (despite what they say now) and would try to find a way to copy it off. They would "fail", but not before someone leaked a copy of a backup of the OS.
Who and how could they leak a copy of the OS? Why would they insist on physical access to the device if they only need the data at that point?
This blog post explains the issue quite succinctly. The FBI are not asking for access to one phone, they are asking Apple to create a forensic instrument. Forensic instruments must be open to scrutiny, they cannot be locked away in Apples special room and only used by Apple as the FBI and others would have you believe. Once Pandoras box is opened it is opened for everyone.
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
Atlantico
macrumors 6502
Rooting for terrorists, not Apple. And this is an American thing, you are not subject to American law. Your data is, will be and can accessed according to your country's laws. Nothing that happens in the US will change that.
.. well couldn't Apple technically do the code so it will be paired only with the IMEI in hardware on the device?
That way u can only use it once to brute force this one phone.
By everyone - you mean the FBI. Who else is going to have access to this forensic tool?
Did you take the time to read the blog I linked to? It will answer all your questions.
Yes. But that's one person's analysis. Granted, a seemingly knowledgable one. But it's not "fact." - At least not yet. I am not suggesting that Apple comply. Or that the FBI is in the right. However I don't think many here on MR (or myself) should be arguing using FUD or conjecture.
Apple can deny this and still say "we will only allow u to unlock the 5c"
They could technically still they that. This is still valid, but rather than the FBI getting access to everyone's phone, they will have to settle for something less. That's all 'm saying could be done.
and by the way, didn't they say that it must only be done at Apple... the FBI will have no physical access to the code.... it will done at Apple only.
It's their phone so "hand me the phone, I'll do this." or u won't get access. i have a strong feeling that's how it will play... if Apple's means well.
They could technically still they that. This is still valid, but rather than the FBI getting access to everyone's phone, they will have to settle for something less. That's all 'm saying could be done.
and by the way, didn't they say that it must only be done at Apple... the FBI will have no physical access to the code.... it will done at Apple only.
It's their phone so "hand me the phone, I'll do this." or u won't get access. i have a strong feeling that's how it will play... if Apple's means well.
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
Well, because they would need Apple's source code to make a cracked iOS, and Apple's signing keys to be able up upload it to the device.
i think the thing here some of these people speaking keep using examples of dead people and cannot go into a phone, or other using other examples, which totally miss the point. None of those example hold any water.....
However, i think 2:37:10 is telling....
(dam MR... they shortened the video 😛)
However, i think 2:37:10 is telling....
(dam MR... they shortened the video 😛)
Last edited:
that version will have to be built for EVERY new version of iOS. Or Apple will have to stunt the security of future software to allow for what the Gov't is asking for. Think about this: as soon as a new version of software is released hackers are hard at work trying to break it. When they find a hole AND are kind enough to tell Apple, Apple patches it. Leaving iOS open to brute force attacks is a GAPING security hole Apple patched awhile ago. Funny thing is.... IT WAS THE GOV'T THAT TOLD APPLE TO FIX IT!
What no one asked but I want to know..... If Apple is forced to create a way to remove the security against brute force attacks...... Can't other hackers come up with the same method on their own after Apple proves it CAN be done?
[doublepost=1456882775][/doublepost]
elaborate. Please.
Night Spring
macrumors P6
And to use it on another device, you just need to insert another IMEI number into the code.
And how would anyone do that but Apple ? which of course they would refuse to do since the FBI had now got access to what they were after on one device.?
just coming from a different point of view...
Apple controls this, not the FBI. so why should Apple hand anything over... Apple does at their facilities, and hands the phone to the FBI, so they can brute force it... Only Apple can do the IMEI Not the FBI, which would require new firmware only for that only device, but that's allot better the the FBI getting keys for all devices.
Because the two are effectively the same in practice. Being petitioned all the time is permanent.
[doublepost=1456885075][/doublepost]
Does someone need too spell C-H-I-N-A out for you? If the US can demand Apple develop software to break the encryption on their phones, any other country can as well. Apple (and the US Government) would have no argument they could make against it. What part of the world is watching don't you understand? Every nation's law enforcement agencies are watching to see if they can put this to use in their own country.
Apparently you've never heard of travelling either... American laws impact visitors too.
I'd take you seriously if you'd hold the same position if it was China or Russia asking for access (at least you'd be consistent), but I seriously doubt you would.
duffman9000
macrumors 68020
I'd rather believe that blog than the FBI. The FBI has told many half truths during the course of this investigation. Half truths are still lies.
redscull
macrumors 6502a
First of all, you need to realize what it means to set a legal precedent. Secondly, look at the track record. Stingrays might be a good starting point.
There is not much assuming going on in this assumption. It's practically fact.