U.S. Government Calls Apple's Opposition to iPhone Unlocking Order a 'Diversion,' Says Fears Are 'Overblown'

[CaTOAGU]

It doesn't matter that The FBI only claim to need the software to work once and that Apple doesn't need to show them the software, or that the could destroy it once used. What matters is that this creates a precedent, which means the FBI can and will ask again, and again and again and again. Which means Apple either has to rewrite the software from scratch every time or store it somewhere. Either way they have effectively created a master key. The FBI knows this, they're attitude is appallingly disingenuous to the point of material misrepresentation. Sickening!

 

[Zwhaler]

This is the most enraging thing I've read in a long time.



They are accusing Apple of the very thing they're aiming to do Jesus Christ.

lmfao and the idea that the government is the best organization to protect our liberty and privacy.... maybe they haven't checked their own track record especially in the last 15 years.

 

[jettredmont]

I am not picking sides here but...

Apple does have the power, considering all updates must be signed by their servers, to tailor build a software for said specific hardware and then destroy all traces of that software once it has been used to extract the data from the phone(s) in question.

Yes, if not for the world outside this specific case. This case sets a precedent. It in fact relies on precedents set in previous cases and incidents of cooperation. Once this precedent is set, Apple has no argument to challenge any similar court orders.

It was shockingly, shamefully, and horrifyingly easy for the FBI to get the original order. They went to the judge with an assertion that they had no other way into this phone and the owners did not object to it, but they needed this "one small thing" from Apple to get into it. The judge signed the order without even asking Apple if the assertions of the FBI were correct. Apple can always ask for a vacation of the order as they did here, but doing so when a clear precedent has already been set is just throwing lawyer money into a fire because there is no way that they can possibly win. Precedent trumps rational argument in such cases, every single time.

So, we know from public statements that there a number of DAs who have said publicly they have each 150, 90, 75, etc, phones that will be asked to be opened the minute this precedent is set. By Apple's estimate, there are tens of thousands of iPhones in federal custody which have not been able to be opened for ongoing investigations, so it is reasonable to expect that a large portion of those will apply for the same AWA conscripted relief.

Okay, last bit. By Apple's estimation, just developing the software will cost about 30 engineer-weeks (ie, one engineer could do it in about 30 weeks; the minimal wall-clock time is 10 engineers working for 3 weeks).

Now. Talking about 10,000 requests, if Apple follows the FBI's request to the letter, they have been conscripted by this one event and future events to which they can not object to not just 30 engineer-weeks, but 300,000 engineer-weeks. That is, one engineer could do all of those in about 6,000 years (allowing only two weeks of vacation per year, which is well below average for Apple engineers, especially with 6,000 years' tenure in the company!). That one 10-man engineering team already has 600 years of work lined up for it. To get it done in the next six years, Apple would need to devote 100 10-man engineering teams just to fulfilling FBI requests. I'm not positive about this, but I believe that this would amount to about ten percent of Apples entire software engineering team dedicated to recreating the same software thousands of times per year.

Moreover, those 1,000 employees would be themselves targets of extortion and espionage, as what they are creating over and over and over again is highly valuable and highly mobile. And I can't imagine any of them would be happy with their work, leading to much higher likelihood of them being bought off.

So, yeah, Apple can comply with the order. But in order for Apple to comply with this order, the cost of complying must necessarily be seen as much, much larger than the government is saying. And the security risk associated with this is nowhere near zero and increases exponentially with the number of applications of it.

The doomsday scenario Apple gives - they write the software once and repeatedly apply it to new phones by plugging in the phone ID and recompiling - is actually more secure than the FBI approach in aggregate, along with being much cheaper. However, the security risk there is also far too high, as this special code and the process to plug in a new phone id and recompile and re-sign it would be highly sought-after and any breach would not be easily detected. This is something that keeps security professionals up at night. It is not something which should be created just on a whim or a "maybe there is something useful" without clear and convincing evidence of a benefit.

 

[gnasher729]

If absolute security and privacy is their raison d’etre, why haven’t they done it before?

Because things develop over time. iOS 7 security was quite Ok back in the day. Today it wouldn't be. Exploits have been developed, just not quickly enough so they could be applied when it was in big use. Same here. There is no exploit yet, Apple and FBI are fighting about it, but it applies to the iPhone 5c and older phones only, it won't work on an iPhone 5s or newer anymore.

 

[aloshka]

I think the precident the has already been set. I personally don't understand why Apple can't unlock the phone and create a new encryption sequence (or whatever the proper term is) in a new iOS release. The Terrorists phone will be unlocked and the other phones out there will be updated and untouchable to the Feds.

Because then they are obstructing justice and there is a prison term associated with that.

 

[H2SO4]

Because things develop over time. iOS 7 security was quite Ok back in the day. Today it wouldn't be. Exploits have been developed, just not quickly enough so they could be applied when it was in big use. Same here. There is no exploit yet, Apple and FBI are fighting about it, but it applies to the iPhone 5c and older phones only, it won't work on an iPhone 5s or newer anymore.

If it was so easy as purported by the OP, they should do it today and could have done it yesterday. Tim has been harping on about the security of iOS and OSX for years.

 

[Thunderbird]

This is the same FBI that wants high school students to spy on each other and turn other students in who criticize the government?

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-school-students-across-country

 

[chfilm]

It's beginning to remind me a bit of "making a murderer" SCARY!!!

 

[aloshka]

Or maybe they'll just post online the personal information of say, everybody being treated at one particular drug rehab clinic, or maybe a health clinic that specializes in treating for mental health or HIV?

Yup! The FBI can't even hold it's employee records secure . http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hacker-publishes-personal-info-of-20000-fbi-agents
We should absolutely trust these *******s with our personal data.

This is less about privacy than loss of civic rights.
Want to guess who's next? Android. Windows. Facebook. etc....

It's funny. They are threatening that they will no longer use iPhones, and use windows or android instead. Yet both Google and Microsoft are Apple's side and filed so officially.

There is a search warrant, and the owner of the phone is not the killer but the San Bernardion county, where he was an employee, so hacking into this phone is legal.

Wrong! A search warrant gives the police the ability to search. They have a search warrant for the phone. That means they can search or hack the phone in any way they want. They do NOT have the legal right to force a company to rewrite software, virtually breaking and hacking their own system and creating a special GovtOS. That's like if they got a search warrant for your car but they don't have a key, and instead of searching your car or breaking the windows to get in, they asked ALL car manufacturers to install monitoring devices and controls so that if they think or feel that you may have committed a crime they can watch you and "accidentally" do it sometimes without a warrant. You won't notice, the judges won't notice, what's the harm?

There are plenty of ways for Americans to change their government, yet they keep voting for the same politicians in office.

Yeah but this election we are really screwed? How can the people speak to the complete utter crap that's running for office this time around? If we can all collectively get off our asses and get new candidates in, then that would be great. But the bigger problem is to survive being a candidate takes a certain person. Good people that should be president's can't run, because no one in their right mind would go through what these candidates go through... Get it.. no one in their right mind

 

[lordofthereef]

Yes, if not for the world outside this specific case. This case sets a precedent. It in fact relies on precedents set in previous cases and incidents of cooperation. Once this precedent is set, Apple has no argument to challenge any similar court orders.

It was shockingly, shamefully, and horrifyingly easy for the FBI to get the original order. They went to the judge with an assertion that they had no other way into this phone and the owners did not object to it, but they needed this "one small thing" from Apple to get into it. The judge signed the order without even asking Apple if the assertions of the FBI were correct. Apple can always ask for a vacation of the order as they did here, but doing so when a clear precedent has already been set is just throwing lawyer money into a fire because there is no way that they can possibly win. Precedent trumps rational argument in such cases, every single time.

So, we know from public statements that there a number of DAs who have said publicly they have each 150, 90, 75, etc, phones that will be asked to be opened the minute this precedent is set. By Apple's estimate, there are tens of thousands of iPhones in federal custody which have not been able to be opened for ongoing investigations, so it is reasonable to expect that a large portion of those will apply for the same AWA conscripted relief.

Okay, last bit. By Apple's estimation, just developing the software will cost about 30 engineer-weeks (ie, one engineer could do it in about 30 weeks; the minimal wall-clock time is 10 engineers working for 3 weeks).

Now. Talking about 10,000 requests, if Apple follows the FBI's request to the letter, they have been conscripted by this one event and future events to which they can not object to not just 30 engineer-weeks, but 300,000 engineer-weeks. That is, one engineer could do all of those in about 6,000 years (allowing only two weeks of vacation per year, which is well below average for Apple engineers, especially with 6,000 years' tenure in the company!). That one 10-man engineering team already has 600 years of work lined up for it. To get it done in the next six years, Apple would need to devote 100 10-man engineering teams just to fulfilling FBI requests. I'm not positive about this, but I believe that this would amount to about ten percent of Apples entire software engineering team dedicated to recreating the same software thousands of times per year.

Moreover, those 1,000 employees would be themselves targets of extortion and espionage, as what they are creating over and over and over again is highly valuable and highly mobile. And I can't imagine any of them would be happy with their work, leading to much higher likelihood of them being bought off.

So, yeah, Apple can comply with the order. But in order for Apple to comply with this order, the cost of complying must necessarily be seen as much, much larger than the government is saying. And the security risk associated with this is nowhere near zero and increases exponentially with the number of applications of it.

The doomsday scenario Apple gives - they write the software once and repeatedly apply it to new phones by plugging in the phone ID and recompiling - is actually more secure than the FBI approach in aggregate, along with being much cheaper. However, the security risk there is also far too high, as this special code and the process to plug in a new phone id and recompile and re-sign it would be highly sought-after and any breach would not be easily detected. This is something that keeps security professionals up at night. It is not something which should be created just on a whim or a "maybe there is something useful" without clear and convincing evidence of a benefit.

I didn't mention precedent because I feel like the community largely has that one right. What people don't seem to understand is the technicalities behind what is being asked of apple. This isn't some backdoor where software is to be loaded onto all of our devices moving forward (as a lot of people are very incorrectly stating and thinking) just ready and waiting for some hacker to "find it" and "break through". Unless this hacker is able to get inside apple HQ (more correctly servers) and tailor build software for a specific device, it'd a non issue from that aspect. And if they're able to get that far already they don't need Apple.to set a precedent, legal or otherwise, at all. As a legal precedent, surely this is worrisome, but that's been covered (accurately) since day one of this discussion, and is why I was very clear to say I'm not picking sides.

 

[Ed217]

Suppose Apple loses and had to produce the updated software. They will likely have tested it on multiple internal devices first to see if it actually works.

Now consider the chain of custody for the actual phone in question. I suspect the FBI has it currently. That phone would have to go into Apple hands to have the software in question added/updated. I suspect one or more FBI folks would have to be present to avoid legal chain of custody issues with any actual info that might come off the phone.

Once applied, the phone goes back to the FBI who then uses docs supplied by Apple to brute force the pass code (without danger of an auto erase) and eventually get whatever info is on the phone.

One key question is what the FBI folks “see” in the update process. Do they get to ask questions? Do they get to see any of the update that is applied? Do they get to know the names of the actual engineers who created the software update? If they come out with knowledge of how the process worked, how is that protected?

 

[lordofthereef]

Wrong! A search warrant gives the police the ability to search. They have a search warrant for the phone. That means they can search or hack the phone in any way they want. They do NOT have the legal right to force a company to rewrite software, virtually breaking and hacking their own system and creating a special GovtOS. That's like if they got a search warrant for your car but they don't have a key, and instead of searching your car or breaking the windows to get in, they asked ALL car manufacturers to install monitoring devices and controls so that if they think or feel that you may have committed a crime they can watch you and "accidentally" do it sometimes without a warrant. You won't notice, the judges won't notice, what's the harm?

I always find car analogies difficult, but I will say that I wonder if the manufacturer can be Compelled to provide said key or remote control unlocking device by the courts. We aren't really talking about the installation of a monitoring device in this smartphone case (nor would we need to be for a vehicle).

I believe I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't about installing anything on any iphones but the one. The legal precedent that would be set would be installation of similar software on seized hardware. We aren't talking about your phone or my phone being altered in any way unless seized by law enforcement. The real question, that few are asking, is whether apple can be compelled to create a product that currently doesn't exist.

I'm absolutely not happy about it. But we should be clear that this isn't something that will be loaded onto our phones lying dormant until someone decides they need to look into our information. If that's not what you are implying, let me be the first to apologize, but it does read this way.

 

[Max(IT)]

I wanted to keep precedent out of the discussion becasue I felt that has been discussed rather accurately in the multitude of discussions on the subject. In fact, I think precedent is about the only thing the community (here on MR) has gotten right. People largely still seem to be calling this some sort of back door to be built into all iPhones, and that really isn't the case.

I don;t disagree about your statements on precedent at all. But if this does go through, that doesn't mean all of our phones are going to have some new and innate vulnerability that wasn't there before. A lot of people seem to think that's how it has to work. I can look back on the last half dozen respones to this thread and note this erroneous thought process. I will add that Apple has a lot to do with that too.

The precedent IS THE POINT.
The precedent not related to this single iPhone. Once DoJ force Apple to do that, EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT will do the same. Sooner or later one of those "hacks" will end in the wrong hands (and I strongly consider Chinese government as WRONG HANDS).

So read the post again. Properly. Now read it again. Properly. Where did I say he was evading taxes?

you did, here:

sorry he’s spent years evading taxes

So write it again. properly. Now write it again.

Oh and BY THE WAY, ignorance of the law is no defence. If Apple have cooked up an illegal agreement they are guilty. The agreememt pretty sure is illegal and this is what the EU are saying.
If the Irish government are playing a dirty game surely you can see that they have to have players on the other team? That other team is Apple. They are entering into an agreement that sees billions of dollars being ‘cleaned', Apple should/could have said to the EU - This is what we are proposing to do, is it Ok?
If all was above board then Apple and the irish would be fine.

There is no ignorance. When you deal with a State, State's laws are ruling. Apple made a deal with the Irish government. A legal deal.
What is wrong is the deal itself, because Ireland is playing dirty (not only with Apple but also with many big corporations like Google) with unfair competition with others european countries.

 

[lordofthereef]

Suppose Apple loses and had to produce the updated software. They will likely have tested it on multiple internal devices first to see if it actually works.

Now consider the chain of custody for the actual phone in question. I suspect the FBI has it currently. That phone would have to go into Apple hands to have the software in question added/updated. I suspect one or more FBI folks would have to be present to avoid legal chain of custody issues with any actual info that might come off the phone.

Once applied, the phone goes back to the FBI who then uses docs supplied by Apple to brute force the pass code (without danger of an auto erase) and eventually get whatever info is on the phone.

One key question is what the FBI folks “see” in the update process. Do they get to ask questions? Do they get to see any of the update that is applied? Do they get to know the names of the actual engineers who created the software update? If they come out with knowledge of how the process worked, how is that protected?

I don't know that we have the I formation to really answer this. We don't even really know if, after apple applies this tailor built update /hack, if the phone as it now sits would be handed back to the FBI or if only the information would be extracted from it. It's presumably possible for Apple to load this tailor built OS to strip any locks currently on the device and immediately overwrite that with a stock os(the same you or I have access to) which no effectively no longer has his "back door" but is also not password protected.
[doublepost=1457686808][/doublepost]

The precedent IS THE POINT.
The precedent not related to this single iPhone. Once DoJ force Apple to do that, EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT will do the same. Sooner or later one of those "hacks" will end in the wrong hands (and I strongly consider Chinese government as WRONG HANDS).



.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I agree the precedent is the point. That's simply been covered to what I consider an acceptable level since day one of this discussion. People are discussing things about backdoor that are incorrect. I have no contention with how the discussion has gone about precedent. I have contention with how the discussion has gone about this supposed back door. People on this very thread think this means apple is going to be somehow altering future versions of iOS that we install on our devices to give governments the ability to simply "flip a switch" and access locked phones. Worse, hackers can "find the switch" and do the same. That's simply not the case.

 

[Tech198]

Following this, I'm really starting to get fed up with Apple trying so hard particularly when they clearly don't know what's on the table here:

"Nothing in the Order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works."

That is true.... The court has not actually said to provide anything to anyone.... Apple is the one saying that...

The FBI is saying to hand over the keys, not the court. so Apple can say "no" easily here..

Plus as stated, the FBI doesn't need Apple's help,, They can crack AES on their own if they want... The fact they choose to get an order is because it's the right thing to do, and easy way out..

If the FBI would just do that everyone would be happy..... FBI gets what it wants, iPhone's remain just as secure as they are, and the case is closed it is was "a master key" to give up, then that would be wrong, but there is zero evidence that the court is asking that at all....

This is just an tech challenge FBI wants Apple to disable these security features because it "cannot" break it themselves....

Yes they can..... They have been cracking encryption for ages....

 

[Ed217]

I don't know that we have the I formation to really answer this. We don't even really know if, after apple applies this tailor built update /hack, if the phone as it now sits would be handed back to the FBI or if only the information would be extracted from it. It's presumably possible for Apple to load this tailor built OS to strip any locks currently on the device and immediately overwrite that with a stock os(the same you or I have access to) which no effectively no longer has his "back door" but is also not password protected.

The court order I read asked for 3 basic things:

1. Remove/disable auto erase feature
2. Remove/disable increasing time delay for failed pass code attempts
3. Provide docs on how to try passcodes remotely and quickly.

Then the FBI uses 3 to break the phone.

 

[Max(IT)]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I agree the precedent is the point. That's simply been covered to what I consider an acceptable level since day one of this discussion. People are discussing things about backdoor that are incorrect. I have no contention with how the discussion has gone about precedent. I have contention with how the discussion has gone about this supposed back door. People on this very thread think this means apple is going to be somehow altering future versions of iOS that we install on our devices to give governments the ability to simply "flip a switch" and access locked phones. Worse, hackers can "find the switch" and do the same. That's simply not the case.

ah ok.
No, I'm not worried about the specific version of iOS the FBI is going to have Apple install on that iPhone 5C. I'm worried about one of the future similar "special iOS versions" Apple will be forced to produce for hundreds of other smartphones worldwide.

 

[aloshka]

I didn't mention precedent because I feel like the community largely has that one right. What people don't seem to understand is the technicalities behind what is being asked of apple. This isn't some backdoor where software is to be loaded onto all of our devices (as a lot of people are very incorrectly stating and thinking) just ready and waiting for some hacker to break through. Unless this hacker is able to get inside apple factors and tailor build software for a specific device, it'd a non issue from that aspect. As a legal prevent, sure, but that's been covered(accurately) since day one of this discussion.

Maybe... but here is where Apple gets into trouble. There is something called chain of evidence. That means if I get convicted of a crime, the police have to prove that the evidence they have against me was never tainted.

In this case, if I am on trial and my phone is in possession of the FBI and they can't unlock it and they go to Apple... That means that Apple and the FBI created software for the pure purpose of convicting me. I have the right to request (and the courts will allow) that Apple provide the chain of evidence that was used. That means they have to disclose the code and prove to the court (and technically jury) that the code they wrote solely for convicting me has no mistakes that would convict me of a crime I potentially might not have made. IF they need my phone, clearly there is not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that I'm guilty. Say their software accidentally overrode another backup of a different phone. Guess what? That software is now out. Because my lawyer can ask every part of the software, what it does, how it work, and LEGALLY can get a fully working copy to be examined by my defenders.

Something similar came up with the NSA and they refused to give away a certain piece of software that they wrote that helps them tracking users on the internet, even through VPNs. Their reason.. if the FBI gets it, it's guaranteed to end up in the courts and that means it ends up in the public.

So EVEN if apple secretly behind doors unlocks a phone in a trial, what they used to unlock the phone becomes public knowledge. Keep in mind the FBI director backtracked from it being one phone and admittedly said there was a large number of phones already lined up to be unlocked using apple's new government OS software. He now has a bit of a habit of lying. I'm surprised no one in congress asked, "didn't you just get hacked and lost 20,000 records of all your agents? And you want a specially written OS that can rewrite firmware and give you access to any phone?"

By the way, watch the entire congress hearing. It's about 3 hours long, but totally worth it. I was surprised that a lot of congressmen and women did some research and some of their questions weren't "stupid". Except for one arrogant angry moron who was trying to get a lawyer to write a law for him on the spot within 5 minutes. But the biggest picture that the FBI director painted was that the FBI would not take any responsibility if the software got out. When asked questions like if this would be leaked what would happen, or how they would secure it, or if it was presented to the courts how his agency would handle it; his answer to absolutely every single question was "that's for the judges to decide", "that's for the courts to decide" and "I'll let the judges worry about that".

Even the NSA is against potentially making things less secure. I think the FBI wanted this for a very long time, and the best thing happened to them. A terrorist shooting that they can use to leverage and extend their power. American's hear "terrorist" and immediately vote for any law and throw their rights at it out of fear. 9/11 was horrific, it really was, but man was the fear or people exploited and taken advantage of by the government.

Either way, I'm impressed and glad that congress wasn't biting FBI's bait... Hopefully we learned from the past. But we'll see.. This struggle of power is a really big deal and will be a cornerstone of things getting better, or us becoming China.
[doublepost=1457687287][/doublepost]

The court order I read asked for 3 basic things:

1. Remove/disable auto erase feature
2. Remove/disable increasing time delay for failed pass code attempts
3. Provide docs on how to try passcodes remotely and quickly.

Then the FBI uses 3 to break the phone.

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Wrong. Three was actually to rewrite the entire touchscreen software and firmware to allow attachments to the coding so that instead of punching the numbers and combinations, they can just run a Apple's program (or whatever open API they provide) to guess all the combinations of the password.

 

[CaTOAGU]

I didn't mention precedent because I feel like the community largely has that one right. What people don't seem to understand is the technicalities behind what is being asked of apple. This isn't some backdoor where software is to be loaded onto all of our devices moving forward (as a lot of people are very incorrectly stating and thinking) just ready and waiting for some hacker to "find it" and "break through". Unless this hacker is able to get inside apple HQ (more correctly servers) and tailor build software for a specific device, it'd a non issue from that aspect. And if they're able to get that far already they don't need Apple.to set a precedent, legal or otherwise, at all. As a legal precedent, surely this is worrisome, but that's been covered (accurately) since day one of this discussion, and is why I was very clear to say I'm not picking sides.

I'm not sure the issues are separable in the way you'd like them to be. The fact it creates a precedent makes what ever software they write a "de facto" back door, as Apple will either have to keep the software, or be faced with writing it again whenever the government asks them too, if this order is allowed to stand.

It is not in dispute that Apple can write the software, what is in dispute is whether they should be compelled to write it, to effectively co-opt Apple into government service, to enlist the employees of Apple, perhaps against their will, to work for the government. This can not be allowed to stand, it sets a terrible precedent that when combined with Apples ability to write the software gives the US government, virtually unlimited power to spy on us. If Apple can be compelled to write software to bypass the lock screen, they can most likely be compelled to write software to remotely turn on the camera or the microphone, after all, if they don't, won't they be helping the terrorists. This for us or against us dialogue the government is using is insidious in the extreme. No issue is so simple that it can be thought of or reduced to such simple terms.

As for others gaining entry, once the system is weakened it gives others a way in, even if it can't be applied directly, it can be decompiled and give hints about how to approach the problem. Getting hold of it will not be as difficult as you imagine either. No server is completely secure and even if it is kept on an air gapped machine, it will still not be invulnerable. In any case how long would it really be before the FBI turned round and said that in order for a more expeditious service they'd really rather it be kept on their systems.

Just because something can be done, it does not necessarily mean that it should be done.

 

[lordofthereef]

The court order I read asked for 3 basic things:

1. Remove/disable auto erase feature
2. Remove/disable increasing time delay for failed pass code attempts
3. Provide docs on how to try passcodes remotely and quickly.

Then the FBI uses 3 to break the phone.

Right. And of you look down further in the order, if Apple determines they're able to just unlock the device while not altering the data on it, that is acceptable too. All apple is belong compelled to to is make sure the device has effectively unlimited.oasscode attempts without the fear of a wipe or pass code entry delay. If they wish to provide help beyond that that's on them. If it's deemed that they absolutely will have to go through with this, and security is their top priority, I don't see why the password wouldn't just be removed for the FBI and no custom software transfers hands.

The real question I still have is whether Apple can be compelled to make what is essentially a custom product.

 

[Tech198]

ah ok.
No, I'm not worried about the specific version of iOS the FBI is going to have Apple install on that iPhone 5C. I'm worried about one of the future similar "special iOS versions" Apple will be forced to produce for hundreds of other smartphones worldwide.

and the FBI is using that as a cloud cover..... so they can more easily just access something they could always have done..... Its just not the usual brute force quick way.

If you search Wikipedia there are several side channel attacks against AES. (not the usual brute force method Apple is being asked)

After all didn't the government actually come up with these encryption standards themselves ?? How the hell can u say "I can't break something i developed" ? by nature u need to by law.

 

[lordofthereef]

Maybe... but here is where Apple gets into trouble. There is something called chain of evidence. That means if I get convicted of a crime, the police have to prove that the evidence they have against me was never tainted.

In this case, if I am on trial and my phone is in possession of the FBI and they can't unlock it and they go to Apple... That means that Apple and the FBI created software for the pure purpose of convicting me. I have the right to request (and the courts will allow) that Apple provide the chain of evidence that was used. That means they have to disclose the code and prove to the court (and technically jury) that the code they wrote solely for convicting me has no mistakes that would convict me of a crime I potentially might not have made. IF they need my phone, clearly there is not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that I'm guilty. Say their software accidentally overrode another backup of a different phone. Guess what? That software is now out. Because my lawyer can ask every part of the software, what it does, how it work, and LEGALLY can get a fully working copy to be examined by my defenders.

Something similar came up with the NSA and they refused to give away a certain piece of software that they wrote that helps them tracking users on the internet, even through VPNs. Their reason.. if the FBI gets it, it's guaranteed to end up in the courts and that means it ends up in the public.

So EVEN if apple secretly behind doors unlocks a phone in a trial, what they used to unlock the phone becomes public knowledge. Keep in mind the FBI director backtracked from it being one phone and admittedly said there was a large number of phones already lined up to be unlocked using apple's new government OS software. He now has a bit of a habit of lying. I'm surprised no one in congress asked, "didn't you just get hacked and lost 20,000 records of all your agents? And you want a specially written OS that can rewrite firmware and give you access to any phone?"

By the way, watch the entire congress hearing. It's about 3 hours long, but totally worth it. I was surprised that a lot of congressmen and women did some research and some of their questions weren't "stupid". Except for one arrogant angry moron who was trying to get a lawyer to write a law for him on the spot within 5 minutes. But the biggest picture that the FBI director painted was that the FBI would not take any responsibility if the software got out. When asked questions like if this would be leaked what would happen, or how they would secure it, or if it was presented to the courts how his agency would handle it; his answer to absolutely every single question was "that's for the judges to decide", "that's for the courts to decide" and "I'll let the judges worry about that".

Even the NSA is against potentially making things less secure. I think the FBI wanted this for a very long time, and the best thing happened to them. A terrorist shooting that they can use to leverage and extend their power. American's hear "terrorist" and immediately vote for any law and throw their rights at it out of fear. 9/11 was horrific, it really was, but man was the fear or people exploited and taken advantage of by the government.

Either way, I'm impressed and glad that congress wasn't biting FBI's bait... Hopefully we learned from the past. But we'll see.. This struggle of power is a really big deal and will be a cornerstone of things getting better, or us becoming China.

Fair points. In the interest of discussing this case though, I don't believe anyone is in trial. Moving forward, these are fair points. Right now the discussion is unlocking the phone of a dead man. There is no presumption of innocence. I imagine this particular case is exactly why that stepping stone is in place. Who's rights are being violated here? Nobody living.

 

[CaTOAGU]

Right. And of you look down further in the order, if Apple determines they're able to just unlock the device while not altering the data on it, that is acceptable too. All apple is belong compelled to to is make sure the device has effectively unlimited.oasscode attempts without the fear of a wipe or pass code entry delay. If they wish to provide help beyond that that's on them. If it's deemed that they absolutely will have to go through with this, and security is their top priority, I don't see why the password wouldn't just be removed for the FBI and no custom software transfers hands.

The real question I still have is whether Apple can be compelled to make what is essentially a custom product.

This can't be done, the password is part of the encryption key, without it the data stays encrypted. The FBI could in theory attempt to decrypt themselves of course but such an action wouldn't fulfil the terms of the order, as I understand them. The FBI is specifically trying to get Apple to do the majority of the work here, as it is more beneficial now and in the future for them to do so.

There are ways the FBI could break into the phone without Apples help, why are they not pursuing those avenues if it's just about getting the data?

 

[lordofthereef]

It's not


I'm not sure the issues are separable in the way you'd like them to be. The fact it creates a precedent makes what ever software they write a "de facto" back door, as Apple will either have to keep the software, or be faced with writing it again whenever the government asks them too, if this order is allowed to stand.


Just because something can be done, it does not necessarily mean that it should be done.

I'm really not trying to separate the issue. It may help of you read all of my responses.to this thread to get context of what I am trying to say.

The only reason I haven't mentioned it'd an issue of precedent is because I agree. I just see a lot of people having a completely upside down understanding of what's being demanded of apple and I was trying to clarify the many incorrect statements. I simply didn't feel I needed to start my statements with "yes I agree it sets a dangerous precedent..." Because I felt that was redundant.
[doublepost=1457688132][/doublepost]

This can't be done, the password is part of the encryption key, without it the data stays encrypted. The FBI could in theory attempt to decrypt themselves of course but such an action wouldn't fulfil the terms of the order, as I understand them. The FBI is specifically trying to get Apple to do the majority of the work here, as it is more beneficial now and in the future for them to do so.

There are ways the FBI could break into the phone without Apples help, why are they not pursuing those avenues if it's just about getting the data?

Apple could remove the security layers outlined in steps one and two and just unlock the phone themselves with software brute force entry of the pass code. Disable pass code. Done. They've essentially done the work of the fbi who plan to, apparently manually, enter a couple thousand possible pass code attempts without handing a device with altered software over.

But even with the altered software, there's no way to load it to another device without Apple's servers signing it anyway.

Perhaps my intentions aren't clear. I'm not trying to defend either entity nor am I trying to attack either entity. This entire chain of responses happened because I read someone saying that this backdoor would let random criminal hackers steal our bank accounts (paraphrasing), and that to me reads as a complete misunderstanding of what is supposed to happen here. This isn't even the first time I read such a statement. We have buzzwords like "backdoor" being thrown around and I saw.peoole getting confused. As such, I tried to shed some light, which ultimately..took us down this rabbit hole.

 

[AFEPPL]

apple do the right thing and just get on with it and give the data to the government.
this is a known terrorist/criminal.