Justice Department Wants Apple to Extract Data From 12 Other iPhones

[MikhailT]

Well, the first court order said that Apple should help unlocking the phone, charge all the cost, and then destroy everything they did to not let it fall into the wrong hands.

If Apple gives in, then the poor guy given the job will have to do it thirteen times. Write the code, test it very, very carefully to not mess up the phones, unlock one phone, destroy the code, and start all over again.

Seriously, it shows that Tim Cook was absolutely 100% right.

That's actually the reason Apple should show that it places an unreasonable burden on their part, they should show the courts the other 12 cases. That's specifically why companies and private citizens are not forced to do the work of the government and have the rights to reject such orders.

I'm 100% certain that at this point, Apple will remove the ability to upload a firmware update to a phone without deencrypting the system with the phone's password.

Apple will remove any and every potential vector in to the phone and the FBI/NSA/Justice Department can beg, scream and issue writ after writ. Apple will ensure that there is no way, ever, in to an iPhone without the encryption key.

Except that's not related to the case and other 12 cases as well. The FBI is not asking for Apple's encryption key or the passcode. The FBI is asking Apple for a firmware update signed by Apple that removes the delay per incorrect passcode and allows for the automated PIN/passcode submission, to let them brute force the phone at a rapid pace.

The iPhone 5C does not have a Secure Enclave to verify the firmware update that does ask for the passcode first like in iPhone 5S and above.

And yes, you can bet that Apple is working their ass off to encrypt more of their data and eventually, disable DFU as well.

I see this morning on CBS that now Bill Gates remember him the Microsoft guy?, he says he agrees with the FBI and Apple should comply with their demands. Yeah Yeah daddy gates today you'r a government lack'y. Oh SHUTUP GATES. Go save some people in Africa maybe teach then command line DOS.

No, he didn't. The media twisted his words and reasoning into making it seem that he sides with the FBI. All of the more reasons why we can't trust both the government and the media, it's all misdirections.

 

[lchlch]

Isn't the 80ms delay the amount of time it takes the phone to try to decrypt the key using the passcode? I don't believe it can go any faster. The FBI wants the increasing delay to be removed (and the ability to try passcodes over bluetooth/usb so they can automate it and run it as fast as possible).

Yes. But it's also an artificial delay.

I remember for one of the iOS versions there was no 80ms delay. It was patched in much later. Forgive me but I can't name the OS version from the top of my head.

 

[APPLENEWBIE]

If I was a defense attorney representing a person accused of wrongdoing, and this type of "back door" iPhone data was being used by the prosecutor, I would ask in discovery for a detailed, exacting description of how The information was obtained by Apple. I would probably want to do a discovery deposition of each of the technicians that were involved in crafting the software that unlocked the phone. I would probably also want them to produce the code to have my own forensic experts examine it. The cat is out of the bag then

 

[gnasher729]

Precedent. The most over used word this month and most people seem to not know what it means.

If the police get a search warrant to search a criminal's house, how does that lead to everyone's house being open for the police to look through? Cause Timmy said it would lead to a precedent?

You haven't been paying attention. There is obviously the fact, just demonstrated, that if you give an FBI agent your hand, you better count your fingers afterwards. The problem is that if Apple breaks iPhone security then it is broken. It's like a locksmith selling a particularly strong door to millions of people who are afraid of burglars, and the FBI forces him to develop the tools to open the door because they have a search warrant, and suddenly burglars can open all these supposedly safe doors.

And would you mind changing your username, because it is clearly not appropriate.

 

[Carlanga]

Who watches the watchers? This increasingly fascist world makes me sick.

The big corporations and billionaires of course.

 

[lchlch]

Then Apple should do just that. Engage its lawyers and fight the court order. But they decided to drag that out into the public. Now we are discussing their opinion.



I already replied to that notion:

They are doing just that. The hearing related to the order is set for 26.02.2016.

 

[Serban]

"Just one phone."

"Just 12 phones."

"Just the world."

You were saying, James Comey?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Batman v Superman DAWN OF JUSTICE

 

[dk001]

VTBB - I thought the issue here was that the increasing delay of pass-code entry made brute-force not an option (in any real scenario). Was the special version not to allow the removal of the delay ?

 

[thefredelement]

I remember back in the good ole days when they solved crimes by going out and doing things.

 

[lchlch]

View attachment 617961

So the easy for Apple is to make the 80ms delay hardware based on the next iPhone. Than there's nothing anyone can really do about it.

 

[dk001]

Th solution to the San Bernadino case is this:

1. Get an IPhone 5c
2. Install the same exact iOS version that it's running
3. Restore the most current iCloud backup. The backup preserves all the settings.
4. Attempt brute force 10 times to see if it will auto erase
5. If it doesn't auto erase, then the government can take their time trying the brute force method. The auto erase is not set by default
6. If it does auto erase then back to square one FBI
7. The good thing is if the device is disabled, they can always make an emergency call to get help from the San Bernadino PD

8. Last resort, ask Siri. Lol

Unless of course he changed the settings after the last backup.

 

[JGRE]

These people are really short sited and stupid. What if the justice department of another country, let’s say Russia, would request Apple to unlock iPhone, from say a captured US spy.....
Point is that Apple is a multinational organisation who will one's it starts unlocking iPhones might get court orders like this from everywhere. From US perspective, it might look like a good idea, but what from other perspectives? The US is not the world.

 

[dk001]

Are you? Supporting terrorism?

Was this terrorism?
How about using any one of the other "topics" the FBI and other agencies have tried as an excuse?

 

[DaveMcM76]

I thought if there was anything on the iCloud APPLE had to give it up because apple maintains the iCloud storage server? I'm willing to be wrong about this....

They've already complied with the original court order to hand over any iCloud backups for the phone in question but the latest one they had was about a month before the attack, hence the FBI now want access to the phone to see what information has changed since the last backup.

However given that this is a work issued phone, and the reported thoroughness with which their personal phones and laptop hard drives were destroyed before the attack, the likelihood of this phone containing any pertinent information is probably somewhere around zero squared.

 

[gnasher729]

So the easy for Apple is to make the 80ms delay hardware based on the next iPhone. Than there's nothing anyone can really do about it.

A delay like that is standard security practice. Some key gets encrypted, but not once, but often enough so it takes 80ms. On an iPhone 6s with a faster processor it will be encrypted more often. And trying to decrypt it takes exactly the same 80ms.

 

[dk001]

Would be nice to know what other cases ... No details; just what kind of cases ... Fraud ? Speeding ? ...

Not sure of all of them but one was for access to the iPhone of a drug dealer who accepted a plea bargain. Access to the device was not part of the deal.
[doublepost=1456241171][/doublepost]

Why can't Apple just say something like, "After several attempts, none of our software engineers are able to produce this back-door thingy like we thought we could."

Then what? Apple tells the government, too bad so sad. If you want the back-door access, create it and help yourself.

That is why they are asking for a customized OS version without the security features

 

[Popeye206]

FBI gets backdoor.
Terrorist exploit backdoor.
FBI wants backdoor closed.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then Apple should do just that. Engage its lawyers and fight the court order. But they decided to drag that out into the public. Now we are discussing their opinion.

The FBI decided to "drag that out into the public." Apple asked for this request to be conducted under seal.

 

[MVallee]

Why shouldn't it happen? As long as the guy is a suspected criminal and there is a court order from a judge.

"Suspected" being the key word here. The government shouldn't have the power to search through all of your data to see if you have committed any crimes.

 

[sbailey4]

I say just ban any non-touchID phones then chop off the criminals fingers to unlock the device if they don't comply with a request to enter their passcode when asked. Apple doesn't need to create anything then

 

[mytdave]

And there's the other shoe. Does this not prove Tim's point? I'd say so, 100%.

 

[doelcm82]

Precedent. The most over used word this month and most people seem to not know what it means.

If the police get a search warrant to search a criminal's house, how does that lead to everyone's house being open for the police to look through? Cause Timmy said it would lead to a precedent?

The iPhone in question is already open for the FBI to search through it. The only thing in the way is the passcode. They are free to guess at the passcode, but the after a few wrong guesses, the phone will not accept any new passcode for a period of time. More wrong guesses and the delay keeps getting longer. The FBI is just wanting Apple to make it easy.

If you have a safe for your valuables and sensitive documents and the police have a warrant, they need to be able to get past your lock. The precedent being set here is that the safe manufacturer has to design in a way that the police get into it. No matter how "secure" they tell you the safe is (or the door to your house), it has to have a way for authorities to get through it relatively easily.

That's the precedent being set.

 

[dk001]

I guess I don't understand why just over half of the people polled by CNN say they think apple should help the FBI get into phones, but almost NO ONE liked the NSA information on listening to citizens domestically, what's up?

FEAR. The terrorists are coming for your kids and they are all muslim.
Keep it in this narrow scope and you can get people to vote for anything you want - reality is irrelevant.

Suspect poll.

• Do you listen to CNN news? If yes continue....
• Is CNN News your primary news source? If yes continue....
• Would you be willing to take our quick little poll? If yes continue....
• Fill out your demographic info please ....

Now use this to complete, filter and publish your poll results....

Not saying this is how this poll was done. Polls are easily manipulated and can have predetermined / influenced outcomes.
[doublepost=1456241574][/doublepost]

Mission creep with a touch of overreach. Combined with decision makers who have a complete lack of awareness of implications of what they're trying to achieve. Add a dollop of myopia. That's how you make a **** sandwich.

I think they know what they are trying to achieve; all access shopping on any smart device, encrypted or not.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

The FBI decided to "drag that out into the public." Apple asked for this request to be conducted under seal.

Alright. Misconception on my side. I thought it startet with Apples posting on their site.

 

[lchlch]

A delay like that is standard security practice. Some key gets encrypted, but not once, but often enough so it takes 80ms. On an iPhone 6s with a faster processor it will be encrypted more often. And trying to decrypt it takes exactly the same 80ms.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the key only get encrypted a few times. Because it's waste of cpu cycles and it's not scalable. As CPUs get faster they would do even more encryption which waste power.

The smarter way to go about it is just to put in an artificial delay.