Making a backdoor that any gov't controls is disastrous. They need to make 2 different software keys; one held by Apple the other by the gov't under control of a VALID court order. The keys cannot be used except in a geo-located place, needs both keys, requires a proper registered iOS device SN. These keys are time sensitive, has to be re-enabled by each entity separately, registered with each entity. Then when these keys are used on the device, it only defeats the 10-try mechanism so the gov't entity must then do its brute force attack.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem here is that this is an ongoing investigation. The FBI continues to seek information linking San Bernardino to other plots of a similar nature. They wouldn't allow the phone to be destroyed and would probably claim that any hardware or software technology created for the court order was the property of the US Government.
- Court order compels Apple to defeat security protocols
- Apple complies
- Court order compels Apple to forfeit means to defeat security protocols
- Apple complies
- Congress passes an act banning encryption, pass codes and self erase features on US sold or imported phones
- All bets are off. Welcome to 1984.
It's imperative that the means of defeating this device isn't created by Apple. Perhaps they could look up Scott Forestall?
Dale
That is still no guarantee that the method used would not leak out. Think (my apologies to him) Snowden.
Next, by doing so this is granting acceptance of an expansion of the writ powers. Once this occurs, where does it stop? Satisfy the FBI and next the NYPD ask. Then MI6. Then the FSB. Then the PLA Unit 61398. Then ... Where does it stop.
Don't think for a minute that this is a USA issue. This is being played out on the world stage and everyone is watching with their own agendas.
Last edited:
Has anyone read the motion to decrypt filed by the FBI found here https://cryptome.org/2016/02/apple-018.pdf ?
It states that the feds would be happy with apple taking possession of the phone so long as they can give them remote access. That does not sound like "give me a master key please apple" like people in this thread are crying about. Do banks refuse law enforcement access to safe deposit boxes belonging to criminals during investigations?
It states that the feds would be happy with apple taking possession of the phone so long as they can give them remote access. That does not sound like "give me a master key please apple" like people in this thread are crying about. Do banks refuse law enforcement access to safe deposit boxes belonging to criminals during investigations?
And don't update any your current devices. The secure fob would eventually be figured out. And hackers would only have to plug in a lightning usb cable and the run software on there computer that emulates the fob.
[doublepost=1455901908][/doublepost]
You might be right, but any "good" terrorist organization operates in cells, and this cell has finished its assignment, and would probably not have any information on other attacks. But I could obviously be wrong.
I did not know he was dead, which kind of changes a lot about how I was looking at this, do dead people still have a right to privacy? honest question
Check one of my prior posts ... I did a link to Ars Technica that has a great informative article on the issue as this pertains to the Writ.
When you look at that and see what is really driving this issue ... chilling. The US Attorney fronting this warrant / writ for the FBI is an Obama appointee who's prior job was Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security.
This whole "request" has hidden agenda written all over it.
I thought I would share several links to a few articles I came across that I consider well written and informative. Gave me some better insight into the matters at hand and I'd recommend a read. The TechCrunch presents a clear, concise accounting of the two cases Apple has balked at assisting in and the use of the All Writs Act. Not sure how long the New York Times article will be available, they tend to pull, but it gives a lot of the background on this subject with Apple's involvement. The Atlantic article present two cases of locked phones in law enforcement hands now (SB being one) and puts some perspective on what their value could mean or not mean to the cases and beyond.
TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/t...ecame-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=1
The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lf-about-the-dangers-of-locked-phones/470055/
I did find it interesting to see in the news individuals like Mark Cuban and Glenn Beck coming down on Apple's side over not compromising privacy of our devices.
[doublepost=1455908268][/doublepost]
I posted a link to the Judge's Order a few pages back; hadn't seen the filed Ex-Parte pleadings (thanks) and hope that people will read the court papers to see exactly what is being asked of Apple. From what I've been told that what they've asked for may seem all innocent on paper (asking for access to just this one phone like they have) but what they have asked to be provided with could ultimately be used to reverse engineer so to speak a way into anyone else's phone, which I believe is the ultimate goal. And with that info the NSA probably has a number of individuals that could do that. Is that tantamount to PRISM all over again? I haven't really followed all this stuff but I get the feeling it is along those lines.
So with that being true, without understanding all the technical implications behind the request which was very carefully worded, I can understand why Apple needed to take this stance. To the general public who casually reads this it doesn't make Apple look good on the surface objecting to it, but those in the tech industry understand the implications and ramifications of such an action. I hope people will continue to read up on this. I'm just a phone user but I get what we are being told from the tech community and get why it's important.
BTW Apple has given them all the info from the phone they had available to give like from the phone's icloud and such. Just not the stuff that is encrypted. I kind of feel that the FBI probably believes that not much will be found on this Company-owned phone he used for work purposes. Any info of value was probably why they destroyed their other phones and removed and disposed of their computer hard drive. Highly suspect that this looked like a Winner Case to the FBI/NSA in the public's view due to the terrorism aspect to it.
Adding one more article to the above: Lots of great points made.
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...iphone_unlikely_to_yield_critical.single.html
TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/t...ecame-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=1
The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lf-about-the-dangers-of-locked-phones/470055/
I did find it interesting to see in the news individuals like Mark Cuban and Glenn Beck coming down on Apple's side over not compromising privacy of our devices.
[doublepost=1455908268][/doublepost]
I posted a link to the Judge's Order a few pages back; hadn't seen the filed Ex-Parte pleadings (thanks) and hope that people will read the court papers to see exactly what is being asked of Apple. From what I've been told that what they've asked for may seem all innocent on paper (asking for access to just this one phone like they have) but what they have asked to be provided with could ultimately be used to reverse engineer so to speak a way into anyone else's phone, which I believe is the ultimate goal. And with that info the NSA probably has a number of individuals that could do that. Is that tantamount to PRISM all over again? I haven't really followed all this stuff but I get the feeling it is along those lines.
So with that being true, without understanding all the technical implications behind the request which was very carefully worded, I can understand why Apple needed to take this stance. To the general public who casually reads this it doesn't make Apple look good on the surface objecting to it, but those in the tech industry understand the implications and ramifications of such an action. I hope people will continue to read up on this. I'm just a phone user but I get what we are being told from the tech community and get why it's important.
BTW Apple has given them all the info from the phone they had available to give like from the phone's icloud and such. Just not the stuff that is encrypted. I kind of feel that the FBI probably believes that not much will be found on this Company-owned phone he used for work purposes. Any info of value was probably why they destroyed their other phones and removed and disposed of their computer hard drive. Highly suspect that this looked like a Winner Case to the FBI/NSA in the public's view due to the terrorism aspect to it.
Adding one more article to the above: Lots of great points made.
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...iphone_unlikely_to_yield_critical.single.html
Last edited:
Interesting here.. In my usual morning romp through some sites, including the very few people I follow on Twitter, I came across this from @p0sixninja:
I'll embed the video here as well:
We know p0sixninja's credentials here on this forum, so there may be some credibility to this, however I don't know if this has been verified. But if this 'bug' (lack of a better word) exists in 9.2.1, then the FBI could brute force to their hearts' desires, and Apple wouldn't owe a bloody thing to them.
However, this does assume that the phone could be upgraded to 9.2.1. But there could be additional avenues the FBI could use.
BL.
I'll embed the video here as well:
We know p0sixninja's credentials here on this forum, so there may be some credibility to this, however I don't know if this has been verified. But if this 'bug' (lack of a better word) exists in 9.2.1, then the FBI could brute force to their hearts' desires, and Apple wouldn't owe a bloody thing to them.
However, this does assume that the phone could be upgraded to 9.2.1. But there could be additional avenues the FBI could use.
BL.
I haven't read through all of these threads, so I don't know if this has been discussed before, but...
Suppose this goes all the way to the SCOTUS, and the ruling goes against Apple. So Apple says "OK, we'll comply with the request." Then each Apple engineer that is tasked to the problem refuses to do so. What does the government do then?
Suppose this goes all the way to the SCOTUS, and the ruling goes against Apple. So Apple says "OK, we'll comply with the request." Then each Apple engineer that is tasked to the problem refuses to do so. What does the government do then?
And now the DOJ just fired back at Apple saying they a repudiating rather than follow the order. How about giving Apple time to respond. The govt is trying like heck to sway public opinion. But it's not so successful in this politically charged environment.
I don't think they will give Apple more time because they're about to use it up already.
Plus the DOJ firing back? That's a heavy hitter. You don't F with the DOJ.
Hadn't heard about that news story but yeah here it is: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ion-to-force-apple-to-crack-terrorists-iphone
So I guess people and companies don't get to use the legal process?
What if the Apple programs, just themselves refused to work on the hacking software.
Just said it went against their principles and ethics.
Is the DOJ going to come and arrest them, maybe WATER BOARD THEM until they comply ?
Great question. Presumably, the employees that might be able to create this backdoor could even resign from Apple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/b...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
NY times article saying that the FBI thinks they are doing sole for marketing than anything else. I am usually pro government , Cop, etc but I totally disagree with this stance the FBI is trying with. Do I feel sorry for the people who was affected by the San Bernardino shooting? Yes I am. Do I think the FBI should have access to the phone? Yes I think they should. Should Apple, Google, Blackberry, Microsoft or whoever else makes an OS for a phone make a backdoor for government agencies? No! Creating that back door will just open another bag of worms for hackers and etc to possibly find a way to crack their way through. The US government will be opening another bag of worms that won't be affecting this case but others if they win this case to force apple to include backdoors to their devices.
NY times article saying that the FBI thinks they are doing sole for marketing than anything else. I am usually pro government , Cop, etc but I totally disagree with this stance the FBI is trying with. Do I feel sorry for the people who was affected by the San Bernardino shooting? Yes I am. Do I think the FBI should have access to the phone? Yes I think they should. Should Apple, Google, Blackberry, Microsoft or whoever else makes an OS for a phone make a backdoor for government agencies? No! Creating that back door will just open another bag of worms for hackers and etc to possibly find a way to crack their way through. The US government will be opening another bag of worms that won't be affecting this case but others if they win this case to force apple to include backdoors to their devices.
No, more likely a huge fine and possibly target Tim to be arrested. They're not gonna water board them. Besides Apple isn't innocent here as I've heard they did some shady deal with the Chinese on providing data. I can't prove it but if this is proven true, Cook is screwed.
They might even have a warrant to storm Apple HQ to find out if Apple has a back door or not.
Apple might try to sue the DOJ but there's not enough time to do it.
Yeah but order or no order nobody can actually force them to make a backdoor even with legal ramifications. Unless the FBI wants to learn how to make the OS and change it themselves.
This whole FBI wanting Apple to give them the tools to hack all iPhones and everything else, has nothing to do with the San Bernardino shooting. ZERO not even anything that would really be of any use today.
It's a good excuse to force Apple to give them the tools they don't have and don't wish to pay to have developed.
I've a feeling there will be a regime change at Apple soon. If Tim goes and Williams takes over, it might not look very pretty for the company.
I don't think anyone who has or is wanting Apple products, will give a hoot to Apple not wishing to comply with the FBI or the DOJ. Not going to cause any drop in sales or anything else.
[doublepost=1455911716][/doublepost]
Well maybe they would find out where he bought his pizzas.
If you've followed the trends from when Apple was initially served with the court order to Tim's response and rebuttal, you'll notice that Apple's stock went up significantly (IIRC, +$7USD between initial serving and response).
BL.
I don't think you understand. If Williams becomes CEO, he might steer the company into unnecessary directions. Like Tim, he has no vision.
That is, if Tim has to step down due to the political distraction, that might happen.
And if the company is found to be complicit with the Chinese on the news, if proven, it will affect sales. And their glossy reputation.
Edit: don't be surprised if Tim posts another " Woe is me " bs speech.
Has nothing to do with anything but the world economy, lots of companies stocks are dropping or going up.
[doublepost=1455912074][/doublepost]
Maybe we should consult a fortune teller.