At Congressional Hearing Apple Says 'The World is Watching' iPhone Unlocking Battle

[JohnGrey]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this case the FBI certainly has a warrant to seize and search the phone, so unless someone can make an argument that cell phones fall outside persons, houses, papers, and effects, into a category that is not subject to search and seizure with a due warrant?

May I take spousal privilege for my iPhone, please?

And if it could be demonstrably shown and reasonably assured that the FBI, indeed any apparatus of the state, would abide by that and could effectively be prevented it from abusing it to any reasonable degree, then I would have less misgivings. The systematic abuse of the Patriot Act, the legislative whitewashing of illegal metadata collection and, most egregious, the revelation of PRISM, makes such an assertion absolutely unreasonable. When the state has show itself contrite, when it has dismantled the organs which have violated their lawful mandate, and when it has indicted, convicted and jailed those that have violated civil liberties under colour of authority, then, AND ONLY THEN, should it be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[dk001]

That's from 9to5mac. Is anyone keeping track of the half truths and outright lies told by the FBI?

Need a new pencil

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

BREAKING: APPLE©®™ FORCED TO OPEN #TERRORIST PHONE- DISCOVERS CLUE TO SHOOTINGS: #NRA #FAIL

https://twitter.com/ArmsForIndustry/status/705078077727109120/photo/1

 

[ActionableMango]

This site needs a down vote button.

It used to, but I distinctly remember that thumbs up or down was only an indication of popularity. It is often not an indicator of anything useful like quality or truthfulness.

 

[Piggie]

I can't help but feel this could go pear shaped.

Given there are experts all over the world in computing etc.
Would it not, perhaps be wise for Apple to, let's say help in private, when needed for VERY important cases, keeping it under Apple's strict control.
If Apple just says no, and it's left for others to try and break it, then there is vastly more chance of it all becoming very insecure that way and out of Apple's control.

Is that a possibility?

 

[JohnGrey]

I can't help but feel this could go pear shaped.

Given there are experts all over the world in computing etc.
Would it not, perhaps be wise for Apple to, let's say help in private, when needed for VERY important cases, keeping it under Apple's strict control.
If Apple just says no, and it's left for others to try and break it, then there is vastly more chance of it all becoming very insecure that way and out of Apple's control.

Is that a possibility?

It's been explained several times, by myself and others, why it will not and cannot be kept under Apple's control. This will not be a tool that they get to keep in a locked vault labelled open only in the event of a warrant. The second that this tool becomes functional, the countdown till it, or a wild version that is reproduced, is misused begins. No information, once known, is ever kept secret. There were bloody Soviet spies in the Manhattan project, and every person has a price, whether it's money or the lives of their family. Better to not have to rely on heroic virtue to keep the rights of everyone intact.

 

[Piggie]

It's been explained several times, by myself and others, why it will not and cannot be kept under Apple's control. This will not be a tool that they get to keep in a locked vault labelled open only in the event of a warrant. The second that this tool becomes functional, the countdown till it, or a wild version that is reproduced, is misused begins. No information, once known, is ever kept secret. There were bloody Soviet spies in the Manhattan project, and every person has a price, whether it's money or the lives of their family. Better to not have to rely on heroic virtue to keep the rights of everyone intact.

You see I do not know what is being requested here:

Could it perhaps be done in the following way:

1: Phone is handed to Apple
2: Totally under Apple's own internal security, this one phone is accessed, and all data removed from the device.
3: The extracted data saved out, the phone then wiped clean.
4: The data and phone handed back to the authorities.

No one other than Apple has any access to anything and is all controlled by them.

Or are we saying Apple would not trust it's own highest level employees to do it in this manner?

 

[dk001]

You see I do not know what is being requested here:

Could it perhaps be done in the following way:

1: Phone is handed to Apple
2: Totally under Apple's own internal security, this one phone is accessed, and all data removed from the device.
3: The extracted data saved out, the phone then wiped clean.
4: The data and phone handed back to the authorities.

No one other than Apple has any access to anything and is all controlled by them.

Or are we saying Apple would not trust it's own highest level employees to do it in this manner?

Then when Apple is done with this phone, it next works on the device in queue of the thousands that law enforcement has waiting. Also realize the FBI wants to do this electronically, not hands on, via cable, BT, WiFi, cell, whatever it decides at that time. This is just for this one "break".
Now ask yourself what happens when another country or law enforcement wants the same access.
How about when Google is asked the same about Android.
Now add in Microsoft and Windows.
Next expand that thinking to what else the FBI or any other agency / law enforcement / nation could ask. (Example: remote access to eavesdrop or watch via camera or listen via microphone)
Now expand this into tablets, notebooks, desktops, cars, home systems, appliances, ... Where does this end?

You just pushed off into a virgin unstable double diamond run.
I haven't even started on security risks yet.... That is another deep hole.

 

[gnasher729]

You see I do not know what is being requested here:

Could it perhaps be done in the following way:

1: Phone is handed to Apple
2: Totally under Apple's own internal security, this one phone is accessed, and all data removed from the device.
3: The extracted data saved out, the phone then wiped clean.
4: The data and phone handed back to the authorities.

No one other than Apple has any access to anything and is all controlled by them.

Or are we saying Apple would not trust it's own highest level employees to do it in this manner?

We are talking about security here. The danger that Apple sees is that a hacked firmware update that destroys security for one iPhone might get out in the wild, which would be absolutely fatal. You are suggesting that Apple should do what they can to reduce the risk. However, there is only one way to control this hacked firmware update that is one hundred percent safe: To never create it in the first place.

 

[JohnGrey]

You see I do not know what is being requested here:

Could it perhaps be done in the following way:

1: Phone is handed to Apple
2: Totally under Apple's own internal security, this one phone is accessed, and all data removed from the device.
3: The extracted data saved out, the phone then wiped clean.
4: The data and phone handed back to the authorities.

No one other than Apple has any access to anything and is all controlled by them.

Or are we saying Apple would not trust it's own highest level employees to do it in this manner?

No, it can't be done that way. Any data produced via a tool or laboratory service which cannot be falsified or peer-reviewed (which can't happen if it stays internal to Apple) is worthless from a legal perspective. The greenest lawyer in the world would argue that there's no way to prove that the data produced had not been tampered with or created entirely and it would be ruled inadmissible. That's why other forensic evidence, like DNA comparison, is admissible: no one entity is responsible for producing a quantification of it. A defence expert can likewise have the data tested and possibly argue against the merits of that evidence. That can't happen in this case.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple says lots of things. Is there an ulterior motive, apart from profit? Given the number of human rights violations it supports (can't they vote with their wallet lest they want more corporate welfare or bailout?) it seems a tiny bit dubious that they really care about rights.

Please tell us what human rights violations Apple supports. Without talking nonsense, and without trolling.
[doublepost=1456955083][/doublepost]

Your enemies are watching. They are always watching and should Apple win will immediately buy iphones. Why wouldn't they ? Why can't you see this ? Why is this thread repleat with blind macho BS ? Why do americans only see no further than the end of their own self-interest ? The fight against terrorism is global and the response should be everyone's concern. It also costs and if your phone is seen as a weak link in OUR security Apple should be the first to help. Cell phones are not the constitution. Apple does not write laws. Apple has a huge opinion of itself and badly needs putting back in its box.

You should listen to people who know what they are talking about. Michael Hayden, ex-chief of NSA and CIA, for example, who for many years has been responsible for national security. Obviously he understands that unbreakable encryption protects criminals. But what he also understands and what you apparently didn't ever look at, is that unbreakable encryption protects ordinary citizens, companies, and the government. Everyone you _want_ to be protected. And in his educated judgement, the benefits of security for all the good guys far outweighs the damage caused by the security of the bad guys. And that's _only_ considering national security. Once you take the financial cost, damage caused to everyone by lack of security, it's no contest.
[doublepost=1456956060][/doublepost]

If I remember correctly the OS is not able to access the imei as it is tangled with the secure enclave.

There's a 256 bit key built into the CPU, different for each CPU. It is impossible to read that key (which is why it is impossible to just extract the encrypted data from the phone and checking all possible passcodes on a supercomputer, because you wouldn't have the key in the CPU. You can only use it to encrypt or encrypt data.

But what Apple could do, if they had _that_ iPhone in their hands, they could first put some firmware on the phone that doesn't do anything with security, but just takes the passcode 0000 and encrypts it with the key in the CPU, and tells Apple's engineers the result. Every iPhone in the world would give a different result. THEN they could create the real firmware: And here is what it could do when you enter a passcode: First, it takes the passcode 0000 and encrypts it with the CPU. Then it checks that the encrypted result is the same one that the FBI's phone would give. If it is a different phone, then it replaces the passcode that you entered with 0000. After that it does the normal passcode check, but with delays and without erasing the phone after too many wrong attempts.

So you could install that firmware on every iPhone. On the FBI's iPhone, it would allow them to unlock the phone by brute force. Any other phone, you would never ever be able to unlock it. You could try forever, but unless some criminal used 0000 as their passcode, the phone will never be unlocked. The legal owner could also not unlock it, because even when he enters the correct passcode, it is replaced with 0000. The nice thing is that the FBI who swore that the software would be used only on one phone wouldn't get any notice that the brute force cracking doesn't work.

 

[Piggie]

No, it can't be done that way. Any data produced via a tool or laboratory service which cannot be falsified or peer-reviewed (which can't happen if it stays internal to Apple) is worthless from a legal perspective. The greenest lawyer in the world would argue that there's no way to prove that the data produced had not been tampered with or created entirely and it would be ruled inadmissible. That's why other forensic evidence, like DNA comparison, is admissible: no one entity is responsible for producing a quantification of it. A defence expert can likewise have the data tested and possibly argue against the merits of that evidence. That can't happen in this case.

Thanks for that.
Seems a shame that something cannot be thought up to both protect normal individuals from 3rd party prying, but when something REALLY bad happens, and everyone agrees, there is not a secure way to access just this one devices data, which may them protect the public thanks to this data.
Shame something can not be worked out.
I'm sure we all want privacy etc, but not at the expense of enhanced danger due to lack of knowledge about criminals deeds.

 

[tbrinkma]

By everyone - you mean the FBI. Who else is going to have access to this forensic tool?

Any prosecutor, defense attorny, paid expert, court official, or outside team of people validating the forensic capabilities of the tool. Add to that, anybody who can file an FOIA request (or equivalent) with *any* government (federal, state, or local) which has dealt with a case which utilized said tool during the investigation, prosecution, or defense of any person or other legal entity.

[doublepost=1456957309][/doublepost]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this case the FBI certainly has a warrant to seize and search the phone, so unless someone can make an argument that cell phones fall outside persons, houses, papers, and effects, into a category that is not subject to search and seizure with a due warrant?

As you've apparently failed to notice, they *have* the phone. The inability to search it has nothing to do with the warrant. It has to do with the *encryption*, and that's been a thorn in the side of law enforcement since before the Roman Empire. Mobsters, bookies, bootleggers, and moonshiners (just as a few examples) used all sorts of encryption with their record keeping to prevent the FBI (and local law enforcement) from learning their secrets from the simple execution of a search warrant. The FBI has the information in their possession at this very moment. They just don't know how to read it, and no warrant guarantees *that* capability.

[doublepost=1456957615][/doublepost]

There's a 256 bit key built into the CPU, different for each CPU. It is impossible to read that key (which is why it is impossible to just extract the encrypted data from the phone and checking all possible passcodes on a supercomputer, because you wouldn't have the key in the CPU. You can only use it to encrypt or encrypt data.

But what Apple could do, if they had _that_ iPhone in their hands, they could first put some firmware on the phone that doesn't do anything with security, but just takes the passcode 0000 and encrypts it with the key in the CPU, and tells Apple's engineers the result. Every iPhone in the world would give a different result. THEN they could create the real firmware: And here is what it could do when you enter a passcode: First, it takes the passcode 0000 and encrypts it with the CPU. Then it checks that the encrypted result is the same one that the FBI's phone would give. If it is a different phone, then it replaces the passcode that you entered with 0000. After that it does the normal passcode check, but with delays and without erasing the phone after too many wrong attempts.

So you could install that firmware on every iPhone. On the FBI's iPhone, it would allow them to unlock the phone by brute force. Any other phone, you would never ever be able to unlock it. You could try forever, but unless some criminal used 0000 as their passcode, the phone will never be unlocked. The legal owner could also not unlock it, because even when he enters the correct passcode, it is replaced with 0000. The nice thing is that the FBI who swore that the software would be used only on one phone wouldn't get any notice that the brute force cracking doesn't work.

Actually, Apple *couldn't* do any of that, because it would irrevocably alter the evidence, destroying it's prosecutorial worth. You *never* write anything to the storage medium which is being used as evidence, because once you write anything, you could have written *ANYTHING* (even the key bit of 'evidence' your tampering uncovers).

What the FBI wants is for Apple to develop a special application which, once deployed, only ever resides in the RAM of the phones it is deployed to, allowing them to bypass the general security precautions of the phone. To do so, Apple will have to defeat their own security to enable the deployment of the application without knowing the password to the phones.

 

[JohnGrey]

Thanks for that.
Seems a shame that something cannot be thought up to both protect normal individuals from 3rd party prying, but when something REALLY bad happens, and everyone agrees, there is not a secure way to access just this one devices data, which may them protect the public thanks to this data.
Shame something can not be worked out.
I'm sure we all want privacy etc, but not at the expense of enhanced danger due to lack of knowledge about criminals deeds.

No, I want privacy, no matter what. It, far more than material security, is the chiefest safeguard of liberty, and without exception the very first victim of any tyrannical body.

Edward Murrow, when squaring off with Sen. Joseph McCarthy, once said that 'we cannot defend liberty abroad while abandoning it at home'. I submit that we cannot have a society of liberty if the one's own private thoughts cannot be concretely held inviolate, free from unlawful and covert apprehension, without notification or recourse to redress.
[doublepost=1456959191][/doublepost]

Actually, Apple *couldn't* do any of that, because it would irrevocably alter the evidence, destroying it's prosecutorial worth. You *never* write anything to the storage medium which is being used as evidence, because once you write anything, you could have written *ANYTHING* (even the key bit of 'evidence' your tampering uncovers).

What the FBI wants is for Apple to develop a special application which, once deployed, only ever resides in the RAM of the phones it is deployed to, allowing them to bypass the general security precautions of the phone. To do so, Apple will have to defeat their own security to enable the deployment of the application without knowing the password to the phones.

Oh, thank you, someone gets it.

 

[Mac2me]

Your enemies are watching. They are always watching and should Apple win will immediately buy iphones. Why wouldn't they ? Why can't you see this ? Why is this thread repleat with blind macho BS ? Why do americans only see no further than the end of their own self-interest ? The fight against terrorism is global and the response should be everyone's concern. It also costs and if your phone is seen as a weak link in OUR security Apple should be the first to help. Cell phones are not the constitution. Apple does not write laws. Apple has a huge opinion of itself and badly needs putting back in its box.

It's been explained several times, by myself and others, why it will not and cannot be kept under Apple's control. This will not be a tool that they get to keep in a locked vault labelled open only in the event of a warrant. The second that this tool becomes functional, the countdown till it, or a wild version that is reproduced, is misused begins. No information, once known, is ever kept secret. There were bloody Soviet spies in the Manhattan project, and every person has a price, whether it's money or the lives of their family. Better to not have to rely on heroic virtue to keep the rights of everyone intact.

To JohnGrey's post: Besides as I understand if used in a court case, the forensic tools' methodology and testing records are made part of the record. Probably why the NSA, which many people (including from Ms. Landau's testimony yesterday) believe can gain access, aren't "talking" to the FBI. If anyone took the time to read Johnathan Zdziarski's blog, as a forensic scientist he laid out what is typically required for court. Not surprising that Apple does not want to be compelled to write the GovtOS.


To diipii's post: Don't understand the negative Apple attitude. If not Apple, then surely another company like Google/Android would be the defendant in the Government's case especially when pressed for giving up their encryption. Android users are more willing to share all kinds of info on themselves, but that's very different from weakening encryption that protects us all. The fact that the tech sector is stepping out to speak out publically and in amicus briefs on Apple's behalf in this matter (which might evoke the same public outlash heaped upon Apple over this), speaks volumes. Thankfully Apple has the resources to object to creating the requested frontdoor/backdoor.

I also don't understand the comment about not caring about the global aspect of weakened encryption. That factors highly in Apple's fight as it has customers all over the world who depend on the best encryption they can provide to its users.

 

[APPLENEWBIE]

When the director of the FBI was asked why they couldn't physically remove the iPhone's 'disk drive', make copies of it, and attack each copy at once with different passwords, he didn't seem to be able to follow along, and he pretty much said (unless I'm much mistaken) that the FBI hadn't even considered it.
[doublepost=1456916503][/doublepost]

I thought that was an interesting idea too. Anyone know if it might work?

[doublepost=1456963981][/doublepost]

You see I do not know what is being requested here:

Could it perhaps be done in the following way:

1: Phone is handed to Apple
2: Totally under Apple's own internal security, this one phone is accessed, and all data removed from the device.
3: The extracted data saved out, the phone then wiped clean.
4: The data and phone handed back to the authorities.

No one other than Apple has any access to anything and is all controlled by them.

Or are we saying Apple would not trust it's own highest level employees to do it in this manner?

If that series of activities was attempted, the information gained would have almost no evidentiary value because it could not be tested (For validity/completeness/ truthfulness/etc.) by any defense attorney that might be defending an individual charged based on that information.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

Besides as I understand if used in a court case, the forensic tools' methodology and testing records are made part of the record. Probably why the NSA, which many people (including from Ms. Landau's testimony yesterday) believe can gain access, aren't "talking" to the FBI. If anyone took the time to read Johnathan Zdziarski's blog, as a forensic scientist he laid out what is typically required for court in testing and documenting these techniques. Not surprising Apple does not want to write the GovtOS.

Basically. if not this it be the first client with a high dollar/high power defence attorney who'd get apple on cross. And would want details. Lots of them.


Well we plug it in and "it just works"...won't fly. Defense side adapts and tries to overcome. They will want to know how and why...it just works. DNA analysis as it became the go to was looked at hard as an example.

Defence learned about PCR, sequencing, etc. Or found go to technical people to call into court. In theory these lab devices set up right are automatic. You can run them not having a science background. Put stuff in, pretty graphs and text data spits out. Weak as hell in organic chemistry for example...I could do the steps of a lab session though. I faked the funk a few times this way I won't lie.

Defence in this area attacks the how the machine was set up. And attacks the science in that PCR like any other amplification technique (sound, etc) has limits for example. Crank up an amp to a stereo...its going to put out legit crap noise at some point. PCR has this issue too. Same with sequencing.

and attack the findings as these can be a matter of interpretation. There are liars, damned liars, and then there is statistics the saying goes.

Or they key on the actual tech. Said earlier I think...can be the most uber DNA tech in the world but all that defence attorney needs to do is break you on cross. Have the apple rep go go umm, errr, ahhh, I think so...reasonable doubt one angle defence always go for.

 

[tentales]

Thanks for that.
Seems a shame that something cannot be thought up to both protect normal individuals from 3rd party prying, but when something REALLY bad happens, and everyone agrees, there is not a secure way to access just this one devices data, which may them protect the public thanks to this data.
Shame something can not be worked out.
I'm sure we all want privacy etc, but not at the expense of enhanced danger due to lack of knowledge about criminals deeds.

Existing forensic techniques exist.
Electron microscope analysis, memory chip imaging/duplication to name only 2.
The FBI wants a shortcut and repeatable way to break thousand of phones.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

Existing forensic techniques exist.
Electron microscope analysis, memory chip imaging/duplication to name only 2.
The FBI wants a shortcut and repeatable way to break thousand of phones.

this. Not sure if FBI director misinformed or flat out lying but when asked about making copies and just cracking off them and said oh...didn't think of that. this is step 1 in most cyber forensics. Source media sealed and imaged. they work off copies. In a closed environment.

Booby trap code...you want to hit this on a copy, not the source. Hit the trap code, starts an erase feature and there goes the evidence otherwise.

And plain old hashing. Cyber crimes evidence hashes have to match up. What is hash of the evidence at time of collection? What is it now? They don't match...better be a damn good reason why. hash is like recording a criminal as carrying the gun used at a crime as a 9mm at arrest.

they bring the very same 9 mm from arrest to testing to trial day all is well. They bring a .45 trial day there will be defence going so where is the 9mm at? Umm there was an accident. Goes down here fast from here with no way to reproduce a thing in retesting. When a hash changes this is what that means.

 

[daleski75]

The only two who I felt went way beyond acting in an impartial and ethical manner where Gowdy and Sensenbrenner. Unrealistic "what if... " scenarios, questions framed around examples that had no relevance, to outright threatening that Apple "won't like what we come up with... ". Aside from that, it was a great watch.
[doublepost=1456941740][/doublepost]

China could however the impact to the way China is viewed, especially the Government would preclude that from happening unless the Chinese could couch this under the guise of "well they do it... ". With the current world economy and China's emerging position in it, they do not want to step back. Things are going too well for this type of behavior to become a public world wide spectacle.
Just my opinion...
[doublepost=1456943764][/doublepost]

You miss the point it appears.
There is nothing that says the NSA / China / others have not already broken iPhone access.

Aside from that. Let's say the FBI wins and now Apple has to give them access.

1. We know the DOJ has another 12 in queue.
2. We know NYC has 175+ in queue.
3. We know LAPD/LA Sheriff's Department has 400+ in queue.
4. There are likely thousands more beyond that.
5. We now have a new Apple department and our personal privacy is shot.
6. Next law enforcement asks the same of Android. The same of Windows. The same of....
7. Then this is expanded to all similar devices; tablets, notebooks, home systems, cars, etc...
8. However we aren't done yet!
9. Now the FBI wants a "small" expansion to allow remote install.
10. Then the FBI wants remote stealth install.
11. Now we add in all the international nation states. And their law enforcement.
12. By now the criminals have it.
13. Terrorists have long ago moved on to any of the 400 or so international (read - not American) encryption offers.

However let's get back to your concern. Apple now has a backlog of 6 months plus due to the number of requests.
We now live in a police state as our every thought, post, call, message, surf, search is available for review or monitoring...

Where does it end.
Your "snowball" is a maybe at best. The scenario I laid above is a given if the FBI get's their way.
We need a different solution. This FBI "request" isn't it.
[doublepost=1456943918][/doublepost]

Go back and rewatch the hearing. There were a few that were willing to learn and a couple of others that understood.
It is always a challenge when we are governed predominately by "generalists" who make decisions based on summaries or titles. Some by headline.
[doublepost=1456944024][/doublepost]

Why would Google or MS be wanting this tool? They would be next in the request list from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to provide exactly the same thing.

I said 'watching' not 'wanting' as they are both watching what happens and the outcome which comes of this.

 

[Piggie]

Sorry, I still think this will ultimately fall apart for Apple.
It's almost like they are digging their own grave. I don't blame them for standing up for what they believe in (or what they think helps sales, which is probably closer to the truth)
But this stance MUST be doomed in the long run.

 

[jonnysods]

This whole thing seems like it's out of a novel, you know, one of those novels where the government completely controls all the information and communication their citizens have with each other.

 

[JohnGrey]

Sorry, I still think this will ultimately fall apart for Apple.
It's almost like they are digging their own grave. I don't blame them for standing up for what they believe in (or what they think helps sales, which is probably closer to the truth)
But this stance MUST be doomed in the long run.

Perhaps, but nothing ever gets fixed, no immortal law overturned or tyrannical state overthrown, unless people decide that fighting for a cause, even and especially when it seems hopeless, is worth the possibilities afterward. The great thing about this is that Apple is a beloved company, in the US and abroad, it has the war chest to hire a fleet of the best lawyers breathing today, and it has amicus briefs and testimony from dozens of people in industry, even former members of the intelligence apparatus, supporting them when they say that, even aside from being an illegal order, t'is a monumentally stupid one in terms of the damage it will cause in the long run.

 

[Tech198]

I do follow this, but half the time i couldn't really care, just get to the end part of actually deciding..

 

[FieldingMellish]

I think we'll see an explosive growth of iPhone sales (or thefts, as the case may be) in the criminal sectors of society.