Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I can voluntarily share what I want. Voluntarily.

I do what I want, according to law.
The government does what it wants, according to law. The law, as it stands right now, does not allow the government to force a company to create a product, especially if this product undermines personal security.

You voluntarily allow Facebook and Google to track you everywhere on the web? Really? Interesting.

That fact you automatically assumed I was talking about "sharing" means you don't understand the extent to which your privacy has/is already being invaded, circa 2016.
 
Last edited:
I do have to say this a new twist. A welcome twist. and from Congress no less.
1-55ef80d364.jpg
[doublepost=1456257865][/doublepost]
Our Government was caught off guard when 911 happened, anyone think it's any different today? Does anyone really think forcing Apple to make this hacking iPhone software, will make us any safer then back when 911 was allowed to happen?
It's the same Government same bunch of Government people, just flopping around trying to find answers and have no real idea how to get them.

Agree - caught off guard. Why? Because even though we as a country had all the relevant information, no department talked nor shared with any other department. So we created Homeland Security. Our level of control / prevention today is no better than it was back then.
 
You voluntarily allow Facebook and Google to track you everywhere on the web? Really? Interesting.

That fact you automatically assumed I was talking about "sharing" means you don't understand the extent to which your privacy has/is already being invaded, circa 2016.

1) yes, when I log on to Facebook for the first time I accept their cookies, their tracking stuff etc. No one forces me to sign up to FB/Google or even buy a computer.A government can't be refused.
2) I understand privacy much more than you if you don't see the difference between a private entity with whom I digitally signed an agreement and a government who functions by social contract. The fact that my privacy has been invaded in 2016 only means that I have taken actions, by my free will, to cause such invasion by private entities. I could've used Linux instead of Apple for example. Or I could simply lived without a phone or computer etc. However, there is no agreement between me and the government for collection of non-governmental data (such as your driver license ID, which is voluntary, or your social security number, which is voluntary). Since we live in a pretty decent part of the world, we, the citizens, understand that there are extreme cases in which a government should be allowed some liberties and for this very specific reason we invented legal procedures to help the government in some of its ugly functions. However, this power is (should be) very limited. The government can't force a company to build a new product. The government can't force a company to go against its own interest. The only exception is if such company is on trial, then again we, the people, invented some more procedures to help the government to legally gather some information. However, the Fifth amendment protects the company (and the person) from self-incriminating, therefore even in this case the government has its hands tied down.
Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft do not have to comply by the same code.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wondercow and dk001
Hello DoJ, any progress on charging Hillary with treason for transmitting classified data over unsecure channels? No time you say? strange how this one is getting fast tracked..

As of a couple of hours ago... from the Washington Post
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

[doublepost=1456258722][/doublepost]
I do, but I also have this information elsewhere as well. Plenty of them, in even less secure places as most people do. My iPhone isn't the only vector through which hackers or unscrupulous individuals could potentially gain this information. I do have ID theft safeguards in place, but I'm not particularly concerned. I'm with you on the government, they're the least of my worries in terms of access.
...
I actually find it sad that I feel this way about privacy and security these days (I used to be ardently against privacy invasion, etc), but you can thank Google and Facebook for changing that. The government is the least of my worries. It is what it is, though. It is a result of the technological world we live in now.
...
I don't need you commenting on my record, thank you. I actually don't have anything to hide from the government, and I'm sorry if you do.

So let's see...
In 2014 - 2015 I had personal information "hacked". This "hack" did not conclusively dictate my data was included in all cases rather the likelihood was "high" if not confirmed.
  • 3x from businesses being hacked that had my information
  • 2x from the Government being hacked that had my information
  • 1x from my Health Insurance company being hacked that had my information
  • 2x from my banking institutions being hacked that had my information
  • 0x from my personal devices
My personal devices have far far more personal information on them than all the rest combined.
So tell me again, why should I not be concerned about the Government having the authority to force data extraction from my personal device(s)?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay
What if I told you that terrorism was just a myth? What if I told you that it's true purpose is to convince you to give up your rights?
Terrorism is not a myth. The purpose of terrorism is to change through fear the way that people and countries behave. Which is why giving up your rights out of fear of terrorism is both letting them win and encouraging them.
 
As Bush has dragged it the first 49 miles, it's very easy to bend it the last 1 mile, so that the definition of "terrorism" can apply to both you and your family, or me, or my family, at NSA's whim at any time.

Actually with the many definitions in the USA alone, just about anything can be in some shape or form classified as a "terrorist activity".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wondercow
If Apple wants to sell products in any foreign country, it has to obey their laws and abide by their court decisions. Remember how many European countries force Apple to offer longer Applecare protection than we get in the US?
They don't, actually. What really happens is twofold: 1. The _seller_, not the manufacturer, of a consumer product, has the responsibility that the product works for a certain time. Details vary. 2. When selling AppleCare, Apple has to state clearly what the customer gets. And what they get is 2 or 3 years certain warranties, _minus_ anything that the customer gets without buying AppleCare. So Apple has to tell you your rights outside of AppleCare when selling AppleCare. (Strangely that rule doesn't seem to apply to Dell, for example).
[doublepost=1456259914][/doublepost]
Again, you have no idea what the NSA is capable of. Snowden does. And he implied that the NSA could gain access to this phone in particular.
I'm quite aware what the NSA can do and what they can't do. Snowden is out of this game for several years. Just because the NSA could do something years ago doesn't mean it works today. As an excellent example: What the FBI demands here would help them not one bit from iPhone 5s upwards.

They are not magicians. They have excellent mathematicians, and if they really want, they can throw $100 million worth of computer hardware at a problem. That helps with some things, not with others. It may be enough to attack 1024 bit Diffie-Hellman if half the world uses the same server key. It's nowhere near enough for SHA-256. It's ridiculously nowhere near enough for SHA-256 with a different key per file.
 
I'm quite aware what the NSA can do and what they can't do. Snowden is out of this game for several years. Just because the NSA could do something years ago doesn't mean it works today. As an excellent example: What the FBI demands here would help them not one bit from iPhone 5s upwards.

They are not magicians. They have excellent mathematicians, and if they really want, they can throw $100 million worth of computer hardware at a problem. That helps with some things, not with others. It may be enough to attack 1024 bit Diffie-Hellman if half the world uses the same server key. It's nowhere near enough for SHA-256. It's ridiculously nowhere near enough for SHA-256 with a different key per file.
:D People that know the NSA's current capabilities don't talk about the NSA's current capabilities in a public forum.
 
It's amazing how far we've come since the Patriot Act.

Librarians were once opposed to agents looking into what people were checking out of the library. These were our civil rights librarians were fighting for. It was not within legal parameters before the Patriot Act.

Now the there are places in the government where they want access to our private conversations, notes, health data...anything on your phone. It's beyond the pale and it's shocking to me how many people are so completely willing to give up their rights.

Would folks be okay with giving access to their private conversations, thoughts, etc with their co-workers? With their employers? With their friends? If not, why would you be so willing to give it to bureaucratic in the name of safety?

I find the entire notion absurd and frankly downright scary. Human history is littered with abuses of power by a small number of people. Genocide, war, anti-revolutions, etc don't just happen in a vacuum.

You need only to look at some powerful countries in the last 3-4 decades that have committed gross human atrocities on mass scales where civil did not exist. Don't think it can happen in the US? Really?

You have front-runners for the presidency arguing how many millions more people they would deport than the other. Our daily conversations center around banning places of worship because they differ than yours. And people are okay with giving up their information because they have nothing to hide? When you have nothing to hide from your employer, your friend, your children, or your spouse, then you'll have nothing to hide from the government. Until then, protect your freedoms as closely as you can.
 
The Constitution was ratified with the express understanding that they were going to create the Bill of Rights. That was a day and age that people stood by their word and did what they promised to do.

I'd just spin it a bit differently. The Constitution was ratified with the understanding that there was plenty of unfinished business. The presence of a mechanism for amending the Constitution was key to the ability to compromise on the initial contents and get the thing out the door. Many issues were happily (and unhappily) deferred. Get the broad strokes settled, and have our newly-elected representatives come back to hammer out the rest.

What I'd say about that era is that there was a belief that compromise was possible - issues could be tabled for future debate and that debate would occur. Even so, they failed to peaceably settle the issue of slavery.

There's plenty of romanticism about the founders. Was there a stronger belief in the importance of honesty and promises? It seems likely, but it could also simply be that there was more optimism and less cynicism about the ability to get things done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gavroche
All of this could have been avoided if Apple had designed the iPhone without a security flaw in the first place. Security on the iPhone is already weak by failed design. That is a particular shortcoming of those phones. It's easy to avoid and other phones from more competent makers don't have this problem.

FBI just wants to take advantage of Apple's muck up and contary to what Apple claims, the court order has no bearing on the security of future iPhones—that is if Apple fixes the problem with the iPhone 7. Getting metadata relies on the security flaw in that particular iPhone 5c. And so what? The government can force a bank to open your safe deposit box or a landlord to open your apartment. They can access your locked desk, your journal, your medical records. Based on what legal theory shouldn't they be able to demand access to the metadata of someone's phone/computer? Corporations court ordered to provide access to where private information is stored is not new legalism. FBI always has a right to demand access to evidence. The question is whether a company can actually provide that evidence. Right now, Apple can provide access to that evidence because of flaw in the iPhone design. If the iPhone had security like Samsung phones, they could respond to the FBI by saying: Sorry, lads, there's no way of doing that.

And that would be that. The FBI is not demanding that future phones are designed to facilitate access for them. That's a legislative battle that rages on separately from the FBI demands in this particular case.

The issue here is that Apple's magical prodcut is supposed to provide a level of technical protection and it doesn't. It just doesn't.

Complying with the court order sets no precedent because it doesn't limit Apple's ability to create a more secure phone, like Samsung does because of their superior Korean craftsmenship and engineering. No manufacturer can help the government recover encryption keys from a correctly implemented system. Nothing nefarious about FBI askng Apple to help exploit an already flawed and weak cryptosystem. Giving them that help doesn't change anything about the ability to build stronger cryptographic systems that cannot break.

Tim Cook's stance isn't a moral one. Apple messed up by selling a phone with a security flaw and now he wants to save face. There's no point in debating the FBI on this one. Mr. Cook, with all due respect, the only way to secure information on a phone is to make sure that the information is technically secure. Complying with the court order will not set any precedent, nor does it create tools that will compromise privacy or security in the future. Just comply and make sure the iPhone 7 doesn't have this design flaw and be done with it. You guys screwed up. First, with the design flaw in your stupid, overrated phone, and then in handling this situation like a child who doesn't want to do his homework.

Also, enough with 16 GB devices. That's the real crime here, folks.
 
All of this could have been avoided if Apple had designed the iPhone without a security flaw in the first place. Security on the iPhone is already weak by failed design. That is a particular shortcoming of those phones. It's easy to avoid and other phones from more competent makers don't have this problem.

FBI just wants to take advantage of Apple's muck up and contary to what Apple claims, the court order has no bearing on the security of future iPhones—that is if Apple fixes the problem with the iPhone 7. Getting metadata relies on the security flaw in that particular iPhone. And so what? The government can force a bank to open your safe deposity box or a landlord to open your apartment. They can access your locked desk, your journal, your medical records. Based on what legal theory shouldn't they be able to demand access to the contents of someone's phone/computer? Corporations court ordered to provide access to where private information is stored is not new legalism. FBI always has a right to demand access to evidence. The question is whether a company can actually provide that evidence. Right now, Apple can provide access to that evidence because of flaw in the iPhone design. If the iPhone had security like Samsung phones, they could respond to the FBI by saying: Sorry, lads, there's no way of doing that.

And that would be that. The FBI is not demanding that future phones are designed to facilitate access for them. That's a legislative battle that rages on separately from the FBI demands in this particular case.

The issue here is that Apple's magical prodcut is supposes to provide a level of technical protection and it doesn't. It just doesn't. Can't say that about Samsung, though.

Complying with the court order sets no precedent because it doesn't limit Apple's ability to create an infallibly secured phone, like Samsung does because of their superior Korean craftsmenship and engineering. No manufacturer can help the government recover encryption keys from a correctly implemented system. Nothing nefarious about FBI askng Apple to help exploit an already flawed and weak cryptosystem. Giving them that help doesn't change anything about the ability to build stronger cryptographic systems that cannot break.

Tim Cook's stance isn't a moral one. Apple messed up by selling a phone with a security flaw and now he wants to save face. There's no point in debating the FBI on this one. Mr. Cook, with all due respect, the only way to secure information on a phone is to make sure that the information is technically secure. Complying with the court order will not set any precedent, nor does it create tools that will compromise privacy or security in the future. Just comply and make sure the iPhone 7 doesn't have this design flaw and be done with it. You guys screwed up. First, with the design flaw in your stupid, overrated phone, and then in handling this situation like a child who doesn't want to do his homework.

Also, enough with 16 GB devices. That's the real crime here, folks.
What on earth are you talking about? And then to end all that nonsense with the completely unrelated 16 GB comment.
 
Yes understood that the real problem here is that no one trusts the government agencies activities any more. That is a real issue that must be addressed. They are working outside of the law when instead they should be the one protecting it and working inside. But in the case against Apple I think there is a legal court order.

You need to read up on the pro se nature of AWAs and realize Apple has not even presented their case to the judge yet.

Your ignorance on this process is making you take an inaccurate position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wondercow and dk001
Note: the backdoor the fbi wants is without the mandatory 80ms delay.

Assuming a 8 character password it would be 218 trillion combinations. With a super computer it wouldn't take that long to try all combinations.

It that supercomputer running on ARM? probably not, so this is academic unless that computer has direct access to the encrypted data (which it does not). They'd have to run on something that runs IOS and if there is a hardware key in there, probably the same phone too. That restricts the speed a lot. So, a 8 number combination would be one hell of a slog, alphanumeric, well forget about it.
 
Reading a LOT of comments on here and I think the vast majority of you have no clue what you are talking about. If you are that worried about the FBI getting access to your phone in the event that they do create their "special version" of iOS for the San Bernadino case, just use a strong password on the phone. It's easy to brute force a numeric 4 or 6-digit pin unlock. But iOS supports alphanumeric passwords now...use a strong one and there is zero chance anybody ever gets into your phone (at least for the forseeable future). Nobody is creating a backdoor into your phone.

Why do we have to go out of our way to create privacy? It's the other way around, mi amigo. I have an EXPECTATION to privacy in my personal papers and belongings. The government is supposed to be bound by that, legally. Why do I need to go out of my way to set up a super-strong device? I haven't done anything wrong! I don't need to buy a compound with barbed wire; the government isn't allowed in my house without a warrant. The same needs to apply here; we are not supposed to be in conflict with our governance unless we break the law. That's by definition a FREE SOCIETY. Are we giving that up? Should we give it up? It is sad that today we must side with corporations as our defenders and surrender our politicians to the monied.

Ben Franklin was right; we haven't been able to keep the Republic. We are too worried about firearms and terrorism, and since Bush started ignoring the 4th Amendment, and Obama has been trying to embed as deep as possible, We the People have been technically incapable of fighting back. I think the original Framework cannot survive the technology, and that We, the People are going to have to figure out how to return the Checks and Balances portion between us and our Governance. And this will only be able to be done if we stop believing half the population wants what's worst for us.

I'm worried that this is becoming a death-spiral. We nearly started one with Prohibition, but we escaped with WWII. This time, I hear the bowl flushing, and I doubt we're going to fight a land-based offensive with North Korea...
 
What on earth are you talking about? And then to end all that nonsense with the completely unrelated 16 GB comment.

FBI's demands are possible only because of a security flaw in iPhone/iOS. Data is encrypted, but the software controlling that is not. It allows Apple to make a hacked version of iOS and install it. FBI wants Apple to rewrite iOS to make it possible to guess passwords without system reprecussions.
 
FBI's demands are possible only because of a security flaw in iPhone/iOS. Data is encrypted, but the software controlling that is not. It allows Apple to make a hacked version of iOS and install it. FBI wants Apple to rewrite iOS to make it possible to guess passwords without system reprecussions.
Their demands are not possible because they already screwed up by trying to access the data. What flaw are you talking about? The phone responded as it should with a failed attempt to access the phone. Apple has helped retrieve data for the FBI before. That isn't the issue here. They've been asked to do far more than just give the FBI the data for that phone, in case you haven't been following.
 
Their demands are not possible because they already screwed up by trying to access the data. What flaw are you talking about? The phone responded as it should with a failed attempt to access the phone. Apple has helped retrieve data for the FBI before. That isn't the issue here. They've been asked to do far more than just give the FBI the data for that phone, in case you haven't been following.

The flaw that allows a hacker to install a modified version of the OS as to allow the FBI an unlimited amount of passcode attempts. iPhone had no such flaw, it would be the end of the story there.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.