Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Jimrod a play on words for Nimrod?

That is amazing, your wit and originality are off the charts sir! I hope you jumped up from your chair, did a two-finger gun gesture at your screen and shouted "Booyah!" after that gem. Moments before strutting off toward the kitchen for another Bud Light - forgetting your headphones were still connected from an extended Eurodance listening marathon, promptly yanking yourself backwards into the air and rendering yourself unconscious from the impact of head upon your wipe-clean linoleum flooring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Donahue
This is a tough debate. Say what you want about Obama, he raises valid points. Do we want to give pedophile's a secure way to engage in kiddie porn? Or terrorists a happy way of secretly communicating their vile intentions?

No, obviously no one wants to help pedophiles or terrorists.

The thing is, nothing being talked about stops them.

Pedophiles have plenty of truly secure encrypted messaging systems to chose from. So do terrorists.

Encryption is a real thing. That ship has sailed, that bell has rung, whatever your preferred metaphor. Apple installing compromised encryption on its phones will not in any way stop terrorists or pedophiles from using non-compromised encryption.

This was a battle fought way back in the 90s, and we are still paying for fallout from the shortsighted ideas that were rammed down our throats then (export restrictions for encryption based on the key length, etc, which figured into at least two major Internet-wide security panics last year). In the end, we came to peace with the fact that encryption exists and can not be stopped. All we can do is make the secrets of law-abiding people less secure.
 
No matter which way this goes Apple is bound to come out of it poorly and the Yanks on this forum with them. I have never before seen such selfishness and immaturity.
 
So now the reasons that are sufficient to warrant breaking into people's phones already include tax enforcement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Naaaaak
Thank you! People claimed the FBI went public first and that doesn't make sense. It would be like a police officer getting a search warrant from a judge and then publicize it on the local news. Stupid! That would render the element of surprise moot.

It was Apple that blinked first and published that letter on their website after being asked to keep things private. And Tim should have kept his mouth shut and let his lawyers do the talking, dealing with the FBI while he focuses on his job.

And here's the most messed up part I noticed. People get into a tizzy about their phone privacy and yet, I don't see Apple crying a river about their own desktops/laptops owned by customers being confiscated or de-encrypted by warrants.

What's wrong with the picture here?

The FBI discussed the motion they were filing with reporters before they made it, and announced the order that they got from the judge immediately after it was granted, about the same time that they told Apple about it (yes, Apple was not involved in the motion to the judge and the motion was granted without consulting with Apple).

Sheesh, this is all public information. How can people be so misinformed about this?

Here, this is an article from Feb 17th describing the order the judge had given the previous day (Feb 16th), along with the note that Apple has not yet replied to requests for comment: http://venturebeat.com/2016/02/16/a...ock-data-from-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone/ ... More importantly, though, the FBI made their struggles with this phone very public when Director Comey testified on Feb 9th: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-san-bernardino-phone-locked-20160209-story.html

Note that Apple's public response came out the day after the order was issued, Feb 17th, and they asked for additional time to prepare their full legal response (so instead of a Feb 21 deadline they were granted through Feb 26).

Hell, there's a pretty good summary of the Feb 16 ex parte application to compel shennanigans in Apple's (sworn testimony submitted to the court in writing) Motion to Vacate on page 11, as a part of the footnote:

The government obtained the Order without notice to Apple and without allowing Apple an opportunity to be heard. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (recognizing that one of the “‘fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard’”) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914)). But this was not a case where the government needed to proceed in secret to safeguard its investigation; indeed, Apple understands that the government alerted reporters before filing its ex parte application, and then, immediately after it was signed and confirmed to be on the docket, distributed the application and Order to the public at about the same time it notified Apple. Moreover, this is the only case in counsel’s memory in which an FBI Director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects.

So, yes, usually the FBI or any law enforcement agency on the up and up would not go public with this sort of thing because usually they are actually looking to find evidence on additional involved suspects. The fact that they did go public is very suspicious, and really gives lie to the assertion that they honestly believe this phone needs to be decrypted to determine if there were other involved parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Ok... 17,000 people die a year by gunshots in the U.S. That is like 45 a day. Deaths by Muslims are 16 this time.

I mean... in the U.S. you will die by a gunshot from a jewish, catholic, christian, baptist or any other religion before being murdered by a muslim. I am not scared of muslims but some how is where the spotlight is on, if you move the light you will see greater dangers... and iPhones has nothing to do with them.

This is also to protect non-muslims in muslim countries, gay's in Africa etc. The gun-killings is a tiresome comparison just as car accidents is, it will alway's be more.

This problem overshadows the US in a big way, that's the problem most Americans seem to not understand.
 
These are interesting questions. The question is if those locks can be opened somehow if there is a lawful court order specifying what they're after (US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment IV). The pinnacle of lock technology in 1776 was a padlock with a key. Anything could be torn or pried open, and that's exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted if there were legal authority to do so, even if the owner of the thing didn't want it to be done.

As much as we now may want it, it doesn't seem that our national framework provides for complete, absolute, unbreakable privacy in every possible circumstance. In this way, President Obama (you know, the Constitutional schola ... I mean "idiot") seems correct.

U.S. citizens who want to eliminate guns from society are stuck with the Second Amendment, and people who want to create utterly inaccessible informational repositories may be stuck with the Fourth. We'll have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says on the matter.

Um, no.

In 1776 people had already figured out how to burn papers containing secrets they didn't want known.

Specifically regarding retrievable encryptions, there were a number of secret-key cipher mechanisms available even then, amongst those who knew (and we know that Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson were all well versed in the mechanisms and uses of a number of cipher mechanisms). Freemasonry had been practicing various forms of cryptography for many many years by the time the Constitution was written, and it is believed that a large number of the authors of that document (and its Bill of Rights amendments collection) were if not Freemason members at least familiar with its routines and some of its secrets. Breaking secret-key cipher mechanisms then was seen as impossible just like breaking AES-256 is today; if you needed to decrypt one of these messages you needed to find the cipher key, just like with AES-256 today.

I don't think that it is correct to state that the fourth amendment was written in a time or by people who could not conceive of secrets being irretrievably hidden. One should also note that those same folks also wrote the fifth amendment which among other things guarantees that someone will not be compelled to testify against themselves, which the SCOTUS has interpreted as extending to non-physical passcodes (there is a small gray area where SCOTUS has not yet ruled and different districts have ruled differently specifically for computer passwords as opposed to physical lock combinations, but that inconsistency has not made it up to the SCOTUS yet).

Other relevant SCOTUS caselaw would be Griswold v. Connecticut (1964), where the SCOTUS laid out an implied right to privacy emanating from the combination of the Fifth (self incrimination and due process clauses), Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments itself (seven judges concurred that this right to privacy existed; they separately based the right on language in each of those amendments, only two of which based on the non-BoR 14th amendment, so at least five judges agreed it was implied by the original Constitution+Bill of Rights language). You may know this as the ruling which made it legal to purchase contraceptives in the United States and a significant precursor to Roe v Wade. You'll still hear conservatives decrying the "right to privacy" as made-up, but that is just old anti-abortion propaganda.

Specific to the Apple case as opposed to theoretical backdoor legislation, the first amendment is in Apple's favor (writing code, even a single line of code, is considered speech and can not be compelled) as is the due process clause of the fifth amendment. The All Writs Act is not a part of the Constitution and so can not be used to supercede Constitutional rights, but if those Constitutional rights do not apply then Apple also has several strong arguments against the AWA being applicable in this case (on pretty much every test - Apple is removed from the crime, the request from the FBI is not reasonable as it is significantly larger in scope than any asked of any company previously, and the matter has not been wholly ignored by Congress as they preliminarily considered CALEA II which would have given the FBI what it is requesting here but instead did not push that through ... the last is shaky as prior case law says that Congress needs to specifically pass a law and that failure of a law to pass (much less be fully considered) is not an indication that what the law says should not be allowed).
[doublepost=1457867928][/doublepost]
That's because you start off as seeing everyone who uses your software as good. If you were the POTUS you'd have to start off by seeing everyone as bad and a threat, because it only takes one bad person to cause unimaginable damage and you do not know who they are. So if you have reason to think that someone is that one bad person you NEED some way to check and see if they are.

We do not have doors on our houses or our cars that have no locks. Locks allow controlled entry. If people will just chill and put down the hatred for a moment, they would see that in our country, this constitution everyone seems so quick to talk about REQUIRES that the locks be opened for the right reasons even if the owner does not want them to be. That is all the President is saying and all he is asking you to do is to think.

This is just the 21st century version of that. So those here arguing for their constitutional right to total complete privacy, You have never had that right and you are not going to be getting it in the future. The Repubs and the Dems don't agree on much anymore but everyone in the Washington government agrees about that.

First off, not every crime "needs" to be solved. That was explicitly stated by several of the founding fathers, that the system of justice was intended to allow some crimes to go unpunished in favor of not impinging on personal rights.

Second, physical keys must be provided, but the fifth amendment forbids requiring combinations for combination locks to be handed over. There is some discussion about if a computer password follows the combination model since it is something without intrinsic testimonial value which the user knows rather than possesses, but there are cases making their way to SCOTUS soon to resolve that discrepancy.

Finally, yes, warrants are to be given. The issue with a back door (not the Apple case specifically; there are many more pertinent legal arguments against that; speaking here to the expected Clipper Chip II legislation) is that from a practical perspective it is impossible for the US Government to hold that key tightly enough, and that releasing the key even accidentally would lead to the loss of the right of privacy (Griswold, 1964) for countless Americans (as well as being very very bad for everyone else around the world too). This would be a bit of a stretch as a SCOTUS argument, but as an argument in the Congressional hearings it may be made very compelling.
 
War on Terror Turns Inward – NSA Surveillance Will Be Used Against American Citizens

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

– James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President of these United States

20160312_NSA1.jpg
 



Obama cautioned against taking an "absolutist" view...

"It's not fun going through security," he said, "but we recognize it as important."

Obama said that while he wants to make sure the government cannot "willy-nilly" get into everyone's iPhones without oversight and probable cause, there are "constraints we impose" to make sure we live in a safe and civilized society.

He cautioned against the tech community disengaging or taking a position that "is not sustainable for the general public as a whole over time," as it could lead to a stalemate that will ultimately lead to "sloppy" legislation should the political climate change after something "really bad happens."

[preemptive strike!]

The Department of Justice has dismissed Apple's concerns, calling its fears overblown and insisting the request will not result in a universal "master key." Just yesterday, a government filing accused Apple of "deliberately" raising technological barriers preventing law enforcement from accessing data on Apple devices, something Apple lawyer Bruce Sewell went on to call an "unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple."

Suggestions! Inductive use of NLP / Ericksonian ("talk") hypnotherapy

"When you think about how easy it is to agree with me, you'll find this easy to accept"

Obama's use of NLP in his speeches:

http://goo.gl/6Boq0 (pdf)


...
 
Last edited:
You know there is evidence in this world that isn't on a smartphone, right?
Yes, have you read my post or the original article?
The question was: what do we do when the only evidence (for child pornography, terrorist plot, money laundering/tax evasion, etc) is on encrypted systems? While this doesn't apply to the San Bernardino case (the FBI already has all the evidence they should need), there is and there will be increasingly more people using these systems to hide incriminating evidence. And the question is, what do we do when it's the only evidence against them?
 
You know there is evidence in this world that isn't on a smartphone, right?
[doublepost=1457834165][/doublepost]

This argument sounds great in theory. However, it doesn't stand up to the reality of what happens if there is a master key or backdoor. Here's a paper from MIT - I believe they know what they're talking about:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=8

Did you read this report? In section 2.2, The authors propose as a workable alternative exactly what the government is proposing now: that Apple develop and keep a key to unlock specific iPhones that are the subject of lawful warrants.
 
One could argue that your phone is an extension of oneself. It contains our most intimate thoughts, files, communications, everything. Since you can't be made to testify against yourself, I'd argue that the phone's data is of one-self, and thereby can't be made to testify against you. So it should remain private.
I'm going to keep harping on this because its why I think Apple will lose.

You do not own the SW on your phone Apple does therefore it would be Apple testifying against you not you against yourself.
 
You do not own the SW on your phone Apple does therefore it would be Apple testifying against you not you against yourself.

But the data is. That’s what is being used against you. Ownership of the data arguably is. If it wasn’t it would likely be subject to heresy rules (Apple couldn’t vouch for the integrity of the data since they weren’t involved). Furthermore, Apple’s ownership of iOS (which is the only thing they own) only affects it’s copyright and support obligations (via the SLA). It’s stilly to suggest that iOS is testifying in some way anyhow. It’s not. The data (evidence) on the device is being used against you. Apple’s testimony would extend to the process that they used to design the FBIOS and the chain of custody. The FBI would be the one presenting the data against you.

Ownership of the software is totally irrelevant to the chances of this case winning or losing. It’s the data and how you get to it is what’s important. If I write in my diary and encode those writings with a cypher that only I know, the fact that it might be breakable by law enforcement only becomes a problem if the integrity of the translation is in question. Diaries are considered very intimate things but are still subject to testimony. They have to be authenticated of course, but they are fair game. The minute you take it out of your mind, it’s fair game if someone gets access to it.

If anything, Apple should stay out since they don’t have complete legal authority to information on the iPhone (like Medical records) and could be liable if they get those records.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jettredmont
You are entirely mistaken. Apple replied by the date specified in the original order (I believe they did request a few extra days, but the judge amended the order to allow that extra time) with an official Motion to Vacate.

No, I was referring to the original order, paragraph 7. Instead of responding to the court and offering an alternative as requested in that order, Apple publishes its Customer Letter on its website obviously seeking public support, and only then filed its Motion to Vacate (which did include a description of the resources that would be required, 6-10 engineers and 2-4 weeks).

So yeah, petulant childish behavior.
 
Did you read this report? In section 2.2, The authors propose as a workable alternative exactly what the government is proposing now: that Apple develop and keep a key to unlock specific iPhones that are the subject of lawful warrants.

Did you read the report? Or are just trying to spread FUD?

"Thus all known methods of achieving third-party escrow are incompatible with forward secrecy."

Another explanation of why key escrow weakens security. Thanks for helping the protectors of privacy make our case. Thanks for exposing yourself too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Yes, have you read my post or the original article?
The question was: what do we do when the only evidence (for child pornography, terrorist plot, money laundering/tax evasion, etc) is on encrypted systems? While this doesn't apply to the San Bernardino case (the FBI already has all the evidence they should need), there is and there will be increasingly more people using these systems to hide incriminating evidence. And the question is, what do we do when it's the only evidence against them?


You crack it.....

Not all encryption applications have a home office. Or a dev team. You could open up several math/stat/crypto journals see an algorithm, even download source for it or pay a programmer to write this up and take that ball and run with it.
Or the algorithm designed never even published.

Apple is the start of many ugly things here. Uncrackable methods is one goal of cryptography. Especially these days where data where data can be worth more than gold. Fun fact....people associate Fort Knox with a gold reserve. Depending on who you ask...this is the 2nd most valuable thing on that installation. Number 1? Its one of the major interconnects for the world wide web. The "internet" only has a few root servers...one of them is here. Roots have issues or attacked...crap rolls down hill fast. On a very large scale.


Apple made this easy to be a target. They are an entity to litigate. What happens when its not an entity. Its Tom Doe, PhD. who wrote a really good paper. Will we start to hunt down the academics? Will we limit academia here? You can't publish this, its a dangerous paper.

This is where this could lead. the suppression of thought. Or the altering of it. Make your algorithms you PhD's candidates. But....make a hole for us while doing it. These statements don't mix well. Many algorithms out there are designed with no backdoor in mind....and still are insecure all the same. If only insecure to brute force by supercomputers. Which is what the FBI is trying to avoid. Its when google/outlook/etc applies the oh you forgot your password crap crap rolls down hill even faster.

So lets have the DOJ win...what are they going to do when they don't know who encrypted the data or how? No one to litigate. Bad guy crew recruited the next crop of prodigies straight from their college studies and took them underground.


If I ran a drug ring making millions a day....on top of my list of people to hire is programmers/mathematicians/ crypto eggheads. Their job....encrypt my data under the radar and not use common and known methods. I will make sure no one know who the hell they are (already in place...rarely do you see the chemical engineers go down in ring busts....they tend to stay in place and work for whoever number 2 was when number 1 goes to jail and they took over).

DEA/FBI/LE Narcotics keeps on losing cases because collected/leaked data useless...they keep getting paid well. Losing cases...well there'd be a special severance package in place for that too to motivate so that doesn't happen. It wouldn't be a good severance package either.
 
But the data is. That’s what is being used against you. Ownership of the data arguably is. If it wasn’t it would likely be subject to heresy rules (Apple couldn’t vouch for the integrity of the data since they weren’t involved). Furthermore, Apple’s ownership of iOS (which is the only thing they own) only affects it’s copyright and support obligations (via the SLA). It’s stilly to suggest that iOS is testifying in some way anyhow. It’s not. The data (evidence) on the device is being used against you. Apple’s testimony would extend to the process that they used to design the FBIOS and the chain of custody. The FBI would be the one presenting the data against you.

Ownership of the software is totally irrelevant to the chances of this case winning or losing. It’s the data and how you get to it is what’s important. If I write in my diary and encode those writings with a cypher that only I know, the fact that it might be breakable by law enforcement only becomes a problem if the integrity of the translation is in question. Diaries are considered very intimate things but are still subject to testimony. They have to be authenticated of course, but they are fair game. The minute you take it out of your mind, it’s fair game if someone gets access to it.

If anything, Apple should stay out since they don’t have complete legal authority to information on the iPhone (like Medical records) and could be liable if they get those records.

Thanks for making a clear argument. I understand that much better now. So how do we keep our data on our phones private? Use our own technology to encrypt it. Even if Apple does build a back door, it will only be temporary because another more secure method will be just around the corner.
 
Thanks for making a clear argument. I understand that much better now. So how do we keep our data on our phones private? Use our own technology to encrypt it. Even if Apple does build a back door, it will only be temporary because another more secure method will be just around the corner.

Well we (most of us) have to rely on commercial products - not everybody can develop or implement good encryption. Thats why its important that the ones that are commercially available (like Apple’s built in one) have the proper level of integrity and that there aren’t any backdoors. Of course this isn’t going to stop criminals. They are just going to use other methods that other people have implemented that the FBI hasn’t gotten it’s mitts on (there are open source encryption tools that nobody “owns” and can be forked to be without a back door.
 
No, obviously no one wants to help pedophiles or terrorists.

The thing is, nothing being talked about stops them.

Pedophiles have plenty of truly secure encrypted messaging systems to chose from. So do terrorists.

Common sense: What the FBI is asking for is only relevant when you have a phone, and nothing but the phone. In this case, a phone used by a dead terrorist. Or a phone used by a dead pedophile. How many dead pedophiles has the FBI found so far? I suppose they are more interested in living ones. How many phones of pedophiles has the FBI found so far? I mean how would that work, that they find the phone of a pedophile without the person himself or herself?
[doublepost=1457881632][/doublepost]
If I ran a drug ring making millions a day....on top of my list of people to hire is programmers/mathematicians/ crypto eggheads. Their job....encrypt my data under the radar and not use common and known methods. I will make sure no one know who the hell they are (already in place...rarely do you see the chemical engineers go down in ring busts....they tend to stay in place and work for whoever number 2 was when number 1 goes to jail and they took over).
Actually, common and used methods have the advantage that they are secure. If you don't worry much about speed, anyone with half a grasp of mathematics can implement RSA and Diffie-Hellmann without any problem. It won't be fast, but fast enough to be usable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
I'm no lawyer, but just as devil's advocate what is the difference between this and lets say a physical search of a house with a warrant. I suppose we would compare encryption with the physical door locks of the house, once these are defeated then the search warrant allows inspection of what is behind them. I'm curious, if LE encountered a lock they couldn't break would the lockmaker be able to be forced to open the lock? If they encountered say a physical vault would the vault maker be required to open the vault? These are harder to answer because physical methods can work, but what does the law say about forcing the manufacturer to open a lock?

I don't see this as an issue with the information in the phone itself, as that is similar to having a piece of paper in your house. I understand the issues with security and how this might affect the use of the phone and services, but that has no bearing in determining if it follows law and precedent. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have encryption and find the argument of trading privacy for safety poor and alarming. But at the same time I'm not so sure Apple is right.
 
Well, in the past, this has never been a issue to discuss, because unlike this encryption being used, you could always (with the notion of possibly causing damage) get around a lock. I also don’t think we have ever had a mechanical lock that could not be defeated with brute force.

With encryption, you can have a passcode that could easily take centuries to brute force and using physical brute force has a big risk of destruction of the device. We don’t have a great analog for the real world. Even with the analogy of cyphers (physical codes) we run into a problem with comparison in that most cyphers (maybe some devices that guard against physical brute force) can be guessed an unlimited amount of times without issue. Not so with the iPhone.
 
They can take my phone with a warrant. That's true.

They can take my manually encrypted payment records as well - assuming I had them.

What they cannot do is force me to decrypt them, as that would violate my rights to not incriminate myself.

If they can decrypt them, go for it.

Can they force a third party to openly crack the encryption that I used to manually encrypt my files, exposing any further use of this encryption to immediate decryption by law enforcement?

I think not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesPDX
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.