Justice Department Calls Apple's Privacy Case Stance a 'Marketing Strategy'

[Flow39]

I'm totally with Apple on this one. There is no reason why Apple should be forced to create a backdoor which could, if leaked out, cause a major catastrophe worldwide. Apple is standing up for customer's rights. Sure, it makes them look great in the consumer's eyes, but this is far from a marketing strategy. It's a bold statement that is intended to protect our rights and privacy and is the correct thing to do.

 

[wiz329]

this would require the FBI trusting Apple with the quote-unquote "sensitive information" on the phone (probably not an option in a strictly legal sense). Conversely, Apple is obviously unwilling to hand over the modified OS so that the FBI can do their brute force shenanigans for however many months/years/decades it may take them to crack it.

so i will summarize: this requires trust. good luck with that when one entity is the American Government.

Not really. The FBI suggested Apple giving them remote access to the phone, essentially so they could brute force it. I'm not a computer engineer, so I'm not sure, but I'd imagine they could do this without giving them access to the modified firmware, which could also probably be signed to work only with the specified device.

On the other end of things, the FBI has "trusted" Apple just as much a number of times in the past when they asked them to unlock other devices.

Hopefully not. The problem is that people can be bough, including Apple Engineers. Just like some Apple prototypes escaped into the wild, this "tool" or procedure could still fall into the wrong hands.

The real test would be if they did delete it, that's a mighty nice tool, and it'd be easy to make a copy and distribute it. That's the issue with software and why protecting intellectual property is such a big deal in today's world.

Certainly possible, but not really likely in my opinion. And this is really no greater threat than already exists.

For starters I'd be surprised if this special firmware couldn't be signed to *only* work with that specific iPhone.

Secondly, there are plenty of top secret code projects that haven't leaked into the wild -- I've never heard of OS X source code being leaked. And I'm sure there are a lot more people that access that than would have to access this specialized firmware.

Thirdly, that threat already exists, in fact. What's to stop an Apple engineer from "removing" these software security obstacles in a custom firmware image and selling them to the highest bidder, with or without the FBI requesting such a tool?

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Apple should comply. Merely pointing out that the problem isn't a necessarily a technical risk, but is most definitely a judicial and political one.

 

[tgara]

I disagree because this is bringing the issue to the public's attention and as a result, WE can win the war and potentially even put back control of the government into the hands of the people, where according to the constitution it SHOULD be.

That all sounds high minded and great, but this is a law enforcement action against terrorists who want to kill us. There are plenty of people in the public who are not happy with Apple's position on this. With headlines like "Apple becoming the company of choice for terrorists", it doesn't bode well.

 

[Tech198]

well Apple did start this... if they never encrypted iOS from 8 onwards, then they wouldn't be in this mess. However, at one point, we all got tax increases too

Something that starts being implemented the government is quickly to judge that, what's done, can be un-done, without actually knowing what it provides for end users.

 

[Jason83]

You're darn right it is, and I'm perfectly fine with that! The government has no right to impose undue hardship on a company by forcing it to comply, and sacrificing a hard-earned reputation most certainly qualifies.

 

[LizKat]

You're darn right it is, and I'm perfectly fine with that! The government has no right to impose undue hardship on a company by forcing it to comply, and sacrificing a hard-earned reputation most certainly qualifies.

Right, I don't see how the government has the right to force a company to make a product, which is essentially what they're asking of Apple when they request a one-off iOS to try to get into one phone.

If they want to criminalize encryption (which one Senator thought about and has now apparently decided, um, wait a minute...) then let them try to pass some legislation. Even so laws are not generally made retroactive unless it's to correct a potentially or actually harmful error that was not noticed when some previous legislation was passed, like when they rush through some budget omnibus in the middle of the night and no one's read the final draft...

 

[h4ck]

a marketing strategy......which is giving people what they want..........so.... hey, maybe the government should ****ing realize that people don't want this?

 

[tgara]

If they want to criminalize encryption (which one Senator thought about and has now apparently decided, um, wait a minute...) then let them try to pass some legislation.

Nobody was saying criminalize encryption. What was discussed, and ultimately postponed, was the creation of criminal penalties for companies that decline to comply with court orders to decipher encrypted communications.
[doublepost=1455937758][/doublepost]

well Apple did start this... if they never encrypted iOS from 8 onwards, then they wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually, you're on the right track here. The whole issue of encrypted communications has been simmering for the last 2-3 years between the tech companies and the government. It's only come to a head in the last couple days. The sad part is that it could have been resolved much earlier, instead of both sides going to DefCon 1 like they are now.

 

[h4ck]

That all sounds high minded and great, but this is a law enforcement action against terrorists who want to kill us. There are plenty of people in the public who are not happy with Apple's position on this. With headlines like "Apple becoming the company of choice for terrorists", it doesn't bode well.

wow, you're really drinking it up.

newsflash: "terrorists that want to kill us" have killed 10000000000% less people than 1.) cigarettes, 2.) drunk drivers 3.) domestic gun violence 4.) TODDLERS (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

pools.

cribs.

cops. (Killed By Police lists 1145 deaths in 2015, 1108 deaths in 2014, and 769 in 2013.)

get out of here with the "OMG THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL US!!" **** that the TV feeds you dude. I've never been a government conspiracy wacko, but this **** is about one thing and one thing only: control. this is yet another Reichstag fire used to strip more away from law abiding citizens in the name of "national security" which is a ****ing ruse. just like 9/11 event caused the "patriot" act (why would they name it that if for no other reason than to make it seem like if you didn't agree with it, you're not a "patriot"?)

i don't even ****ing like guns for that matter, but every single time there is some mentally unstable person that shoots someone up, the immediate response is reactionary ******** "OMG BAN GUNS!!!!!" which is not going to solve the problem at all, period. much like saying "omg give the fbi access to your private information!" as a means to "fight terrorists" is ********. you know how many terrorists have been stopped by the patriot act? yeah, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...iot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/?page=all -- exactly.

 

[Pman17]

Go Apple! I was for this back door at one point but the fact that others can get in is not a good thing.

 

[Wondercow]

Tim Cook should be thrown in jail for instructing his company to ignore a lawfully issue order from a judge.

There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it regardless of your stance on encryption.

American is a country of laws, laws which make it the greatest nation the planet has ever seen. Tim Cook decides it is his right to break the social contract we all agree to as part of being in a civilized society.

Hey, maybe I will just stop paying taxes because it is my human right not to pay taxes. Lets see how far that goes.

So, you don't consider the right to appeal to be a part of your "country of laws"

laws which make it the greatest nation the planet has ever seen

Ha! Now that's rich!

 

[brentsg]

That's right up there with "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about".

 

[maxsix]

They may call it all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is protecting all their users' privacy.

I'd say Apple is posturing as they temporarily favor users privacy. But just wait. Apple’s a left leaning corporation based in the most liberal State in the Union. The entire tech sector is very liberal and deeply in love with Hussein. He is hiding and not commenting.. Yet.. But when he does, watch out.

We'll have some indication of Apple’s true position after the Government's hearing on March 22. That's when the gloves come off and the real fight will take place. This promises to be quite the battle.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

The new focus on privacy protections by Apple and other tech companies has a lot to do with the Snowden revelations, which damaged the public image of many US companies that were implicated in projects like PRISM. Being seen as too close to the US intelligence apparatus became poisonous for their businesses, particularly outside the US. To some extent, the DoJ's claim about this being a marketing strategy is not wrong. However, regardless of their motives, it also happens to be the right thing to do IMO, and in Apple's case it seems that Cook is genuinely concerned about this issue.

I believe that the secret services and "homeland insecurity" and FBI and whatever other US-non-democratic organizations put already tons of pressure and blackmailing on Tim Cook´s shoulders since years because he refused to join in their march towards Orwell´s Totalitarism.
When Tim Cook outed himself a year ago, I thought immediately that he wanted to prevent these organization from blackmailing him with this. At that time it was already obvious that apple stood under pressure.

I am also convinced that gay people of his age still know very well from personal experiences many years ago how detrimental it can be if privacy is lost and every single very personal information can be abused against citizens for whatever reason……

For those who claim "I have nothing to hide and I had never problems":

Pater Niemöller, a catholic priest had been put to death by the Nazi in a concentration camp.
Some months before his death and already prisoner in the concentration camp, he wrote some very touching, self-criticizing and wise lines:

"When the Nazis came to arrest the Jews, I did nothing, because I was no Jew…
When the Nazis came to arrest the Communists , I did nothing, because I was no Communist…
When the Nazis came to arrest the Socialists, I did nothing, because I was no Socialist…
When the Nazis came to arrest me, there wasn´t any person left to help me…. "

So: Stand up at the beginning and defend human right and your constitution - if you don´t there might be sooner or later not too much people left being able to defend these rights… G.W. Bush destroyed already too much…

Many Germans hesitated also too long to resist - they were no Nazis, but they hesitated - and one day there wash´t left any chance for voting or acting…

 

[LizKat]

Nobody was saying criminalize encryption. What was discussed, and ultimately postponed, was the creation of criminal penalties for companies that decline to comply with court orders to decipher encrypted communications.

Effectively criminalizes encryption if you can make them decrypt or go to jail.

 

[dampfnudel]

First, I want to say I agree with Apple and their stance on the privacy of their customers. With that being said, any reasonable person or Apple stock holder will appreciate how important 'optics' are for a company like Apple. Someone in Germany may get a Galaxy S7 instead of an iPhone 7 if he or she fears that the US government may be able to access any iPhone with Apple's cooperation. That may be a minor example to give since the majority of Germans will probably pick the cheaper alternative anyway, but you see where I'm going with this.

 

[thekev]

Nobody was saying criminalize encryption. What was discussed, and ultimately postponed, was the creation of criminal penalties for companies that decline to comply with court orders to decipher encrypted communications.
[doublepost=1455937758][/doublepost]

Actually, you're on the right track here. The whole issue of encrypted communications has been simmering for the last 2-3 years between the tech companies and the government. It's only come to a head in the last couple days. The sad part is that it could have been resolved much earlier, instead of both sides going to DefCon 1 like they are now.

That seems like a tough one, as it conflicts with one goal of encryption, being uninvertible with respect to any function of its key.

 

[wiz329]

Effectively criminalizes encryption if you can make them decrypt or go to jail.

Not really. No one is forcing Apple to decrypt anything. They're merely requesting that Apple remove certain software protections that will allow the FBI to decrypt the data in a much more reasonable time-frame. Subtle, but important difference.

It's not as though Apple is in possession on encrypted messages (to which they do not have the key) and the FBI is demanding Apple present them with the unencrypted messages. That would be closer to criminalizing encryption.

 

[LizKat]

Not really. No one is forcing Apple to decrypt anything. They're merely requesting that Apple remove certain software protections that will allow the FBI to decrypt the data in a much more reasonable time-frame. Subtle, but important difference.

It's not as though Apple is in possession on encrypted messages (to which they do not have the key) and the FBI is demanding Apple present them with the unencrypted messages. That would be closer to criminalizing encryption.

My post replied to a post about legislation on punishing a company that declines to unecrypt, not this FBI v Apple case.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18...way-of-measuring-its-success-fighting-terror/

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Not really. The FBI suggested Apple giving them remote access to the phone, essentially so they could brute force it. I'm not a computer engineer, so I'm not sure, but I'd imagine they could do this without giving them access to the modified firmware, which could also probably be signed to work only with the specified device.

On the other end of things, the FBI has "trusted" Apple just as much a number of times in the past when they asked them to unlock other devices.





Certainly possible, but not really likely in my opinion. And this is really no greater threat than already exists.

For starters I'd be surprised if this special firmware couldn't be signed to *only* work with that specific iPhone.

Secondly, there are plenty of top secret code projects that haven't leaked into the wild -- I've never heard of OS X source code being leaked. And I'm sure there are a lot more people that access that than would have to access this specialized firmware.

Thirdly, that threat already exists, in fact. What's to stop an Apple engineer from "removing" these software security obstacles in a custom firmware image and selling them to the highest bidder, with or without the FBI requesting such a tool?

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Apple should comply. Merely pointing out that the problem isn't a necessarily a technical risk, but is most definitely a judicial and political one.

Once it's known that an algorithm or technique was developed to do this, hackers will be encouraged to research it and develop it.
[doublepost=1455947061][/doublepost]

But in fact, they could.
The encryption key isn't linked to the password : if it was, everything should have to be reencrypted everytime you change your password.
What they have to do is remove the password verification part (|| 1), while signing the OS with their own keys, adding a verification in the source to check the device ID. Result : no password / authentification, so full access to the phone.
Besides, they can even keep the phone for themselves while it's beign searched, so the FBI couldn't get the modified iOS version. It's not a security issue as long as you don't release it to the public : it's a fork of iOS.

Now, why nobody ever thought about it? Simple : they can't sign the modified iOS version to work on the device.

Why can't they just open the phone, attach a device to the data chip and suck all it's content into a drive image file (like the .sparsebundle file) and then access all the data?
There has to be more to it; otherwise it would have been done already.

 

[LizKat]

Why can't they just open the phone, attach a device to the data chip and suck all it's content into a drive image file (like the .sparsebundle file) and then access all the data?
There has to be more to it; otherwise it would have been done already.

If they don't have the passcode and cannot apply it in place, they cannot access the master key which enables decryption. Then the best they could do would be to make the effort to decrypt one file at a time, unaware of what each one is. It could take years.

 

[jamesnajera]

I feel like the government is being a passive aggressive bully.

 

[ani4ani]

This.

Maybe it is partly a marketing plot, but there is no denying that Apple's intentions are very much in line with my own, and I have every incentive to see Apple not cave in with this regard.

How can you say that. Apple until IOS 8 did not willingly or otherwise have the same intentions; they had the means to access the data and regularly did when asked to. There are a lot of phones operating before IOS 8 so would they now refuse to access that data if asked?

Today it might be actually the case with latest IOS that it is physically impossible to access so it is more palatable to say "won't" rather than "can't"

 

[skellener]

Justice Department Calls Apple's Privacy Case Stance a 'Marketing Strategy'

Of course it is. But it is one I can support! Good for Cook! Good for Apple!