Craig Federighi: FBI Wants to 'Turn Back Clock to Less-Secure Time'

[Robert.Walter]

"Hair Force One to Tim: Now completing OpEd bombing run."

"Tim to HFO: Good job. Return to loop. There's a new Rush 8-Track waiting on your desk."
[doublepost=1457362499][/doublepost]

Sure I'm just saying as a media story I'm getting tired of it. We know what each side believes, there really isn't any new information coming out. What more is there to say on the subject?

I thought the part about potentially compromising the power grid thru unsafe smartphones was novel; didn't see that anywhere before.

 

[aaronvan]

Give 'em hell, Craig. Nice chin, BTW. Are you related to SGT Rock?

 

[doelcm82]

Even more amazing, the new flagship iPhone in 2016 still comes in 16GB, the same size that was offered in 2009.

Time travel indeed.

The iPhone 3GS came in 8, 16, and 32GB in 2009. It also came in black and white.

We don't yet know the storage capacities of the "iPhone 7" (whatever Apple might name it), which is the new flagship iPhone of 2016. Chances are that at a least one of the colors available will be black or white, even those are "2009 colors".

Many suggest that the base configuration should be 32GB (but that was also a capacity that was offered in 2009).

 

[kemal]

Since I started carrying a smart phone in 2004 I know longer say "I don't know." I look it up. So the phone is keeping a log of what I look up and know. By extension it is keeping a partial log of what has been fed to my brain. Do I want anyone to have access? You better freaking Bill of Rights I don't.

 

[Keirasplace]

Sure I'm just saying as a media story I'm getting tired of it. We know what each side believes, there really isn't any new information coming out. What more is there to say on the subject?

Not having anything new hasn't stop the current primaries from being reported... More vulgarity is not news... 90% of news is not new, just constant rejigging of the same message grasping for our hearts and mind.

That's especially true when one side is offensively doing a PR push

If you retreat, you leave the whole stage to pass whatever message they want. That's why in PR you can't just decide to quit; quitting means the other side gets to say whatever and for some reason think that if you don't counter it, it must be true.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Technically we all are lol

Yes, and we ALIENATE a lot of people around us to the point of killing each other.

I think that is the way nature is trying to curb population growth if a virus isn't successful.
[doublepost=1457365183][/doublepost]

The FBI is perfectly entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety and security and I demand the FBI has access to anybody's phone who might compromise those states. This is just plain old common sense it today's world.
Apple must stop this myopic, hysterical posturing and act in a normal adult fashion.
Federighi's comments are just those of a bought man doing what bought men do.

You forgot the sarcasm EMOJI.

 

[tgara]

Just so there is no confusion for anyone, the FBI is not independent, it's part of the the DOJ, a cabinet department of the executive branch, AKA The White House. FBI may be the new conduit for gov't attempt to easier access to private data, but Clinton first tried to bully electronics makers to build in a backdoor.

A few months ago, prior to this particular controversy, Obama invited Silicon Valley leaders to the WH for the sole purpose of asking them for a backdoor. That meeting utterly failed. It's not surprise that it was only then that gov'ts strong arming and public shaming started. Make no mistake, the FBI is not acting on its own here. It's getting its play calls from 1600.

Good points, I think it was 1998 when Congress had hearings about this topic of back doors. I was opposed to back-doors then. I am opposed to back-doors now.

That said, Craig's editorial is very misleading because the government is not asking for a back-door. They are simply asking that the security protocols be changed so they can brute-force codes and access the phone of a terrorist. This was all done in compliance with normal criminal procedures (i.e., government must show probable cause, and produce a particularized warrant describing in detail the thing to be searched, and have it approved by a neutral judge).

The only reason the FBI has to go to Apple is because apparently the cannot do this themselves. If they could, they would not have to go through all this. Which begs the question, which is worse:

A. Having the government use its own resources to develop software to break into the phone, at which point they will never have to ask for permission from Apple or anyone else again because they will have the resources at hand; or

B. Having Apple assist the government, whereupon Apple would keep and secure the specialized software, and each time the government comes to Apple for assistance it would have to be accompanied by a judicially approved warrant.

For me, I pick B. I would never trust the government with this software -- far too easy to abuse. If it's going to be done, I would say let Apple handle it, privately, and much more securely. Apple is legendary at keeping trade secrets; they should be able to keep this specialized software secret too.

The alternative is that Congress will enact laws similar to CALEA whereby device manufacturers will have to make their products such that they will be able to comply with legal court orders.

 

[997440]

....Federighi notes that in just the past 18 months, hackers have stolen millions of people's credit card information, social security numbers and fingerprint records from retail chains, banks and even the federal government. However, Federighi calls these digital defense breaches "the tip of the iceberg".

Your phone is more than a personal device. In today's mobile, networked world, it's part of the security perimeter that protects your family and co-workers. Our nation's vital infrastructure -- such as power grids and transportation hubs -- becomes more vulnerable when individual devices get hacked. Criminals and terrorists who want to infiltrate systems and disrupt sensitive networks may start their attacks through access to just one person's smartphone.

Federighi adds that the encryption technology built into Apple's iPhones doesn't just help keep customers' information secure, but also provides "a critical line of defense against criminals who seek to implant malware or spyware and to use the device of an unsuspecting person to gain access to a business, public utility or government agency." Therefore any attempt to hamper Apple's attempts to plug points of weakness in the company's software would be "a serious mistake"....

Perhaps by a cyber pathogen?

Members of all sides of the issue make use of exaggeration (and of, what can be, unfamiliar jargon) as a tool of argument, both in the media and in their amicus briefs.

Whether Apple is eventually adjudicated/legislated to compel or not, should any user ever entrust any computing device, especially web-facing ones, to protect their most precious data? As a tool, isn't a handheld computer the most vulnerable of all? Is it better to minimize your risk of damage, from data theft or corruption, through judicious use of computing devices, or, is it better to depend upon any particular company (or government)?

I haven't seen each post in the multiple threads on this topic, so I don't know if this perspective has been expressed. Whatever happens with this case(s), if you take ownership of your data (life) seriously, the sky is less likely to fall.

 

[Rafagon]

So THIS is why we're getting those e-mails from 1970!

The FBI is trying to turn back time!

 

[dk001]

Sure I'm just saying as a media story I'm getting tired of it. We know what each side believes, there really isn't any new information coming out. What more is there to say on the subject?

That's part of the problem and I feel both yes and no on that. Biggest issue from a consumer of said media; the media from a news / journalistic perspective is predominately treating this issue as entertainment.
MR is one of the few places I can see it all; entertainment, facts, and thoughts (both sides). It's not all encompassing but far better than relying on CNN or FOX.

 

[gnasher729]

The FBI is perfectly entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety and security and I demand the FBI has access to anybody's phone who might compromise those states. This is just plain old common sense it today's world.
Apple must stop this myopic, hysterical posturing and act in a normal adult fashion.
Federighi's comments are just those of a bought man doing what bought men do.

"Today's world" - is that the world where hackers again and again manage to steal customer records from companies, records from government agencies, even information about children who were crime victims? I want Apple to make sure I'm safe in today's world, and one way to guarantee this is unbreakable security for the iPhone.

iOS 7 security was good enough back then, but criminals have figured out ways to get around it. And that's what the FBI demands, going back to an insecure state, but worse than that: Going back to an insecure state after years of criminals figuring out ways to exploit any insecurity. It's plain old common sense that this cannot be allowed.

You call Federighi a "bought man". I call the FBI chief a man who wants to solve crimes, but loses a much more important subject completely out of his eyesight: More important than solving crimes is preventing crimes. What he demands from Apple is an enabler for crime.

 

[dk001]

Good points, I think it was 1998 when Congress had hearings about this topic of back doors. I was opposed to back-doors then. I am opposed to back-doors now.

That said, Craig's editorial is very misleading because the government is not asking for a back-door. They are simply asking that the security protocols be changed so they can brute-force codes and access the phone of a terrorist. This was all done in compliance with normal criminal procedures (i.e., government must show probable cause, and produce a particularized warrant describing in detail the thing to be searched, and have it approved by a neutral judge).

The only reason the FBI has to go to Apple is because apparently the cannot do this themselves. If they could, they would not have to go through all this. Which begs the question, which is worse:

A. Having the government use its own resources to develop software to break into the phone, at which point they will never have to ask for permission from Apple or anyone else again because they will have the resources at hand; or

B. Having Apple assist the government, whereupon Apple would keep and secure the specialized software, and each time the government comes to Apple for assistance it would have to be accompanied by a judicially approved warrant.

For me, I pick B. I would never trust the government with this software -- far too easy to abuse. If it's going to be done, I would say let Apple handle it, privately, and much more securely. Apple is legendary at keeping trade secrets; they should be able to keep this specialized software secret too.

The alternative is that Congress will enact laws similar to CALEA whereby device manufacturers will have to make their products such that they will be able to comply with legal court orders.

There are a lot of definitions of backdoor when talking about topics like this. Your definition, Apple's definition, most of Silicon's valley definition, mine, his, hers, etc... seem to differ in some small or large way.

back door
noun
noun: backdoor

1. the door or entrance at the back of a building.
   • a feature or defect of a computer system that allows surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

IMO Apple's definition fits this situation very well.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I think we need to strike a balance between privacy and security.

Have you had all your information stolen and used and you had to go to court and jump through various other hoops to resolve the situation?

 

[NT1440]

I listened to the entire hearing (~4.5 hours). It's SHOCKING how little both the committee members, and the FBI representatives understand about the technology.

They kept going back to "well Apple just doesn't want to comply" and insisting that a technique be developed that wouldn't be open to exploitation by others. By definition, it can't be done, yet after hearing multiple experts explain the logical fallacy of what they were asking for they go back to to insisting that something must be done.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The FBI is perfectly entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety and security and I demand the FBI has access to anybody's phone who might compromise those states. This is just plain old common sense it today's world.
Apple must stop this myopic, hysterical posturing and act in a normal adult fashion.
Federighi's comments are just those of a bought man doing what bought men do.

The fact that you used "entitled" is quite scary.

 

[BillyMatt87]

Apple should turn back time and demote Federighi and reinstate Scott Forstall

 

[zioxide]

The fact that you used "entitled" is quite scary.

Law abiding citizens are entitled to privacy and the security of their information.

If a side effect of that is that we can't search the device of a few bad guys, so be it. That's a price we pay of living in a free society.

The FBI needs to grow the **** up and stop acting like whiney little children crying to mom when they don't get their way.
[doublepost=1457371023][/doublepost]

Apple should turn back time and demote Federighi and reinstate Scott Forstall

Does that mean the FBI's backdoor app would be designed with wood grain UI elements?

 

[BillyMatt87]

Does that mean the FBI's backdoor app would be designed with wood grain UI elements?

Still better than blinding whiteness

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Good points, I think it was 1998 when Congress had hearings about this topic of back doors. I was opposed to back-doors then. I am opposed to back-doors now.

That said, Craig's editorial is very misleading because the government is not asking for a back-door. They are simply asking that the security protocols be changed so they can brute-force codes and access the phone of a terrorist.

No, the gov't is using the terrorist event, one the Administration didn't even want to call as such when it happened, as pretext. The "negotiations" w/ silicon valley didn't work out so this is the Admin's end-run. If this was a bank robber it wouldn't have the same cache. But scream "terrorist" and voila! But if this were such an existential even then why did this whole fight come to the fore months after. Also it' wasn't THE terrorists phone. It was his work phone, not his burner terrorist phone. Its not all that plausible that a member of a hidden cell is going to use a work phone to communicate with handlers.

But once Apple cracks the phone for a terrorist event a president is set that gov't can require a private business, not to hand over keys in its possession, but to make ones it doesn't have. I believe Ted Olsen has it 100% correct here and has a winning argument for Apple.

 

[tgara]

There are a lot of definitions of backdoor when talking about topics like this. Your definition, Apple's definition, most of Silicon's valley definition, mine, his, hers, etc... seem to differ in some small or large way.

back door
noun
noun: backdoor

1. the door or entrance at the back of a building.
   • a feature or defect of a computer system that allows surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

IMO Apple's definition fits this situation very well.

Is the definition you provided the one Apple is using? Because if it is, this is not what the government is asking for.

 

[NT1440]

Is the definition you provided the one Apple is using? Because if it is, this is not what the government is asking for.

Per the hearing, the FBI is asking Apple to create a custom firmware that does not currently exist that:

*Removes the delay between password attempts
*Allows the ability to plug in a device that would send software password guesses rather than utilizing the hardware of the touchscreen
*Removes the 10 wrong guesses and it destroys the encryption key function

All three of which would qualify as a defect (number two especially, they want to be able to use the lightning port to hook up a device that sends passcode attempts, thousands per second. Imagine if that vulnerability got exploited, you'd have companies and criminals everywhere just making these devices as they did pre iOS 8).

 

[Tiger8]

The FBI is perfectly entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety and security and I demand the FBI has access to anybody's phone who might compromise those states. This is just plain old common sense it today's world.
Apple must stop this myopic, hysterical posturing and act in a normal adult fashion.
Federighi's comments are just those of a bought man doing what bought men do.

Define reasonable steps? Define 'anyone who might compromise'. The FBI already has a ton of information, a ton of tools to help them. If they can't extract info from the phone themselves them that's on them.

The real danger here is that software getting leaked to those who want to cause harm; the safest way is to make sure this backdoor doesn't exist.

 

[englishman]

Surely as the NSA harvest all the data on the net/phones anyway they just have to search through their own data and don't need to look at the physical device?

 

[maxsix]

It will be interesting. A so called liberal and progressive thinking company such as Apple will be going against all democrats and republicans. Who will the hipsters support?

The hipsters simply don't care. Not a bad position in a time of conflict, denial, hypocrisy and general chaos.

 

[NT1440]

Surely as the NSA harvest all the data on the net/phones anyway they just have to search through their own data and don't need to look at the physical device?

That's the point they're trying to avoid.

They have all the communications in and out under the various NSA programs. What they are looking for is to get into the actual device...even though they already know everyone that has been contacted by the user.

Now, they could say that the user was using encrypted communications apps.....but getting into the iPhone doesn't do anything to tap into that information.

This is a power grab, pure and simple. Leaked emails from months ago showed that the FBI was looking for a good case (preferably) to make the PR push to force a backdoor mechanism.

That's all this is.