FBI Can’t Compel Apple To Unlock iPhone, Rules NY Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ? I mean, i understand their position not to give the backdoor to all iphones on the market but i do believe that they have internal testing rings that can be used to unlock devices used in terrorist attacks.

Don`t give the tools to FBI.. but do unlock it yourself inside the company and then hand over the information to FBI ...problem solved both ways ... but for now Apple is playing their cards just to get free publicity from this "look not even the FBI can crack down an Apple device".
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
wait a minute..... i thought the gov was only asking apple for a one time never to be repeated hack into one iphone?? i am pretty sure this is not the iphone we have been hearing so much about. you mean they want more iphones hacked despite claiming it is just one?? i'm so confused... i KNOW the gov would never lie to me yet this seems kind of contradictory.

please oh please merciful and enlightened government, please help me to understand how one and only one time seems to be more than one time.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ?
Not willing to set a precedent (factual or legal), for one. Unlock this one phone and the FBI will spring up with dozens more.
The precedent is not to unlock any phone ... but in serious cases like this one anyone with a brain attached to his neck will find it normal to be done.

I understand that the FBI would try to come to Apple to unlock random phones etc and this might be in Apple`s best interest not to do it, but when the device is used by people who can make a lot of damage or hurt lots of other people believe me that you want Apple to unlock that phone.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ? I mean, i understand their position not to give the backdoor to all iphones on the market but i do believe that they have internal testing rings that can be used to unlock devices used in terrorist attacks.

Don`t give the tools to FBI.. but do unlock it yourself inside the company and then hand over the information to FBI ...problem solved both ways ... but for now Apple is playing their cards just to get free publicity from this "look not even the FBI can crack down an Apple device".
yup you are the only one.

what you forget is the nsa already mines the web and phones worldwide "to keep track of terrorists". they already log phone calls so that when a phone number turns up as a bad guy they can quickly put together who the have been talking to. is this not exactly what they claim to want from the iphone in CA?

wake up a smell the coffee, this has nothing to do with the single case. it is simply a way to get the idea going and then slam apple with thousands of requests to do this over and over. they made more than a dozen requests for this same thing withing 24 hours of filing for the CA case. plus there are literally thousands of cases by various state agencies and local ones as well that want this same thing.

don't kid yourself that this is a one of thing. we have already seen how the nsa has misused the data they have for political reasons and continue to. the fbi wants them some cool secret data as well they can use for their political purposes as well. that's all this is about.

so yah you're the only one who does not get what really is going on here.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
i do like apples idea of encrypting the icloud data as well. this is something they have been handing over for years now. would make it so literally nothing about a customer's data is accessible to anyone other than the user. i'd post the feature when it comes out with a pic of cook with his middle finger in the air and caption of "for you fbi"
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26

I understand the privacy concerns and i`m not supporting NSA or other gov institution anyway. Ofc there will not be only 1 time request for an unlock, but like in this case Apple should unlock that phone, what FBI is actually asking is a tool to unlock any iPhone when they want, and on this matter i`m all with Apple. But having a company put to unlock a certain device if that device was used in a scenario like this without any reason of a doubt then i believe that be it Apple or any other phone company should comply and unlock that device.

Just imagine yourself having your family butchered by some idiots and their phone could have important information ... would you care about Apple`s image as a company that doesn`t unlock anything under any circumstance or you would want that info being taken out of that device ?

I`m not in favour of governments to be able to spy anyone but i don`t give a crap about any corporation`s image either.

I repeat, the unlocking should be done only in house of the company, and only in cases that are very serious, probably needing a warrant to be done.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


You have to remember it took hackers getting personal pictures of celebrities and normal people for Apple to actually consider encrypting iCloud data.

That said I agree with Apples stance on creating a universal back door, even if I am not a fan of their company or their practices, but if there is a specific phone needing unlocking and there is a warrant then they should just do it. Same with MS or Google.
 

nekatreven

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
415
0
18,780
0
ohim Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ?
To which "one phone" are you referring? The San Bernardino one, this one, or the hundreds of others that law enforcement has already said they want unlocked?

"Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case," the company said in a statement Monday.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-apple-ceo-tim-cook-fbi-iphone-20160222-story.html

It was never just one phone.

On top of that Apple could be hacked and the magical keys could get it. You want to think (we all do) that something that sensitive would never get taken, but you only have to consider the OPM hack to see that important and supposedly top secret things are not immune to these threats just because of said importance; it takes an insane amount of due diligence to keep such things safe. Not to mention the prospect of North Korea paying off high-level Apple people (who are probably good normal folks; but money talks) with millions of dollars.

Back then, the Obama administration estimated that security clearance data—including fingerprints, Social Security numbers, addresses, employment history, and financial records—of 4 million people was exposed. In July, the administration revised that estimate to 21.5 million after a second intrusion was detected. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta resigned soon after.
I made an effort to keep some civility here... but if none of that sways you you're a fool and you deserve what we get.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
ohim Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ?
To which "one phone" are you referring? The San Bernardino one, this one, or the hundreds of others that law enforcement has already said they want unlocked?

"Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case," the company said in a statement Monday.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-apple-ceo-tim-cook-fbi-iphone-20160222-story.html

It was never just one phone.

On top of that Apple could be hacked and the magical keys could get it. You want to think (we all do) that something that sensitive would never get taken, but you only have to consider the OPM hack to see that important and supposedly top secret things are not immune to these threats just because of said importance; it takes an insane amount of due diligence to keep such things safe. Not to mention the prospect of North Korea paying off high-level Apple people (who are probably good normal folks; but money talks) with millions of dollars.

Back then, the Obama administration estimated that security clearance data—including fingerprints, Social Security numbers, addresses, employment history, and financial records—of 4 million people was exposed. In July, the administration revised that estimate to 21.5 million after a second intrusion was detected. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta resigned soon after.
I made an effort to keep some civility here... but if none of that sways you you're a fool and you deserve what we get.
The San Bernardino one, but ofc it`s expected that FBI wants to also exploit this :)
 

EtnoNyt

Honorable
Jun 15, 2013
209
0
10,710
24
Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ? I mean, i understand their position not to give the backdoor to all iphones on the market but i do believe that they have internal testing rings that can be used to unlock devices used in terrorist attacks.

Don`t give the tools to FBI.. but do unlock it yourself inside the company and then hand over the information to FBI ...problem solved both ways ... but for now Apple is playing their cards just to get free publicity from this "look not even the FBI can crack down an Apple device".
Am i the only one that doesn`t understand why Apple doesn`t want to unlock this one phone inside their company ? I mean, i understand their position not to give the backdoor to all iphones on the market but i do believe that they have internal testing rings that can be used to unlock devices used in terrorist attacks.

Don`t give the tools to FBI.. but do unlock it yourself inside the company and then hand over the information to FBI ...problem solved both ways ... but for now Apple is playing their cards just to get free publicity from this "look not even the FBI can crack down an Apple device".
Once there is a start, It will never end. If Apple makes the backdoor, every country and government will ask them to provide "public safety" information.
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
2,052
7
19,815
15
The reason why this can set a dangerous precedent, as it would allow law enforcement to force a company to create code (in violation of the 13th amendment) to meed the demands of law enforcement. If this very act is allowed, then it becomes possible for the government to easily request that other code be made, e.g., pushing an update to an IOT device to activate its microphone and spy on you, or forcing a company to add an option to remotely tap into a phone's camera or microphone.

The government does many secret orders which do not set a precedent, but in a public case like this, it will, at which point, it can be used in more secretive court orders to add additional spying capability.

Also understand that encryption on modern systems no longer relies on secret algorithms to encrypt data, they instead rely on an understanding that everyone knows exactly how it works, and thus the most efficient way to crack it, and still have that process take an excessively long time. Anything that weakens the time aspect, is a back door, as that is the encryption's only line of defense.

If you wanted, you could teach a toddler to crack AES 256 successfully, it is well known to that extent, but even with complete knowledge of it, it doesn't make it any faster to crack when implemented properly.

hat the government wants in the case of apple, is to cripple the implementation of it. Furthermore such a ruling will cripple the ability for cellphone makers to further improve the security of their devices as they will have to maintain the ability for the government to gain access to the devices.
 

davewolfgang

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
451
0
18,810
17
The reason why this can set a dangerous precedent, as it would allow law enforcement to force a company to create code (in violation of the 13th amendment) to meed the demands of law enforcement. If this very act is allowed, then it becomes possible for the government to easily request that other code be made, e.g., pushing an update to an IOT device to activate its microphone and spy on you, or forcing a company to add an option to remotely tap into a phone's camera or microphone.

The government does many secret orders which do not set a precedent, but in a public case like this, it will, at which point, it can be used in more secretive court orders to add additional spying capability.

Also understand that encryption on modern systems no longer relies on secret algorithms to encrypt data, they instead rely on an understanding that everyone knows exactly how it works, and thus the most efficient way to crack it, and still have that process take an excessively long time. Anything that weakens the time aspect, is a back door, as that is the encryption's only line of defense.

If you wanted, you could teach a toddler to crack AES 256 successfully, it is well known to that extent, but even with complete knowledge of it, it doesn't make it any faster to crack when implemented properly.

hat the government wants in the case of apple, is to cripple the implementation of it. Furthermore such a ruling will cripple the ability for cellphone makers to further improve the security of their devices as they will have to maintain the ability for the government to gain access to the devices.
And we all know how Gubment is at "keeping" and "holding on to" secrets....they have such a "perfect" records......
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
as a side note, anyone wonder why no android phone has ever been the subject of such a request??? despite google speaking in favor of apple, no version of android is safe in any way. the gov does not have to ask since it already has the source code and has written these backdoors and special access OS's for each version already on it's own.

i'm not an android hater and even use one as a business line but it is something to think about for android users. open source is nice in many respects but it also has its drawbacks in many more.
 

Finally. This is the first comment I've seen in months which really gets to the crux of the matter. The real issue is can the government coerce a company into producing a product (software in this case) that it doesn't want to produce?

Unfortunately this whole thing has been taken over by privacy advocates in the media. Privacy is actually irrelevant to the San Benardino phone case. The NY iPhone case is likewise irrelevant because that phone belongs to the suspect. The San Benardino phone belongs to the San Benardino county government. Nearly every story I've seen about the SB iPhone calls it the shooter's phone. It's not the shooter's phone. It's the county government's phone. It was assigned to the shooter for work since he worked for the county.

So there is no privacy issue with the San Benardino phone - the phone's owner is asking for Apple's help to bypass its encryption. The only question is can the government force Apple to help if it refuses. Apple doesn't want to do it first because it sets bad precedent for their rights as an independent company. But secondly because if they do produce it, they'll have to deal with millions of parents who will be irate that Apple won't let them use it to spy on what little Timmy is doing with the iPhone they bought him.
 

Android is produced by one company, while the hardware is produced by another, so there's less integration between the two. Since the iPhone's software and hardware are both produced by the same company, my understanding is that Apple has finagled it so that if you try to bypass the software encryption too many times, it'll permanently brick the hardware.

You see the same thing on PCs. Intel makes a TPM module which does the same thing, and hard drive manufacturers make HDDs with built in encryption. But unless the software running on the computer actually supports these things, it doesn't offer any protection. (Most business laptops do go out of their way to support these things. If you have this enabled and forget the BIOS password on a Thinkpad, that's it. The only way to bypass it is to replace the motherboard, which coincidentally will make any encrypted HDD locked to the original motherboard useless.)
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
yup, that's exactly the point of it. android has so many hands in the process that it is all but impossible to secure it. the other major factor is the sd slot on the phone. while it is awesome to be able to expand the storage, this is a quick and easy way to get new code to phone. i don't have to hack in so much as load it from the sd slot and go from there. as we know, apple's memory is encrypted and protected from it being accessed if the phone is taken apart. however the sd slot makes this impossible for most android phones as even an encrypted sd card can be removed from the phone and messed with on a pc apart from the phone's os and such.

my sister who has been an apple hater since the iphone came out has changed her mind the last month or so once she started to understand what exactly was going on with this whole sordid affair. once i explained to her how secure the iphone is vs the android she had in her purse.... well ... the family now has some shiny new iphones and she sold the android phones on craigslist.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


Proper encryption though is impossible to break. Sure someone can spend the time to try and break a 512bit AES encryption but the time it would take would mean their great grand kids would still be staring at the screen.

Security is up to the person. There are apps you can get that allow you to remotely disable a lost phone or securely erase a SD card.
 
It is not that the FBI wants Apple to unlock one phone.
The FBI wants Apple to write a new OS for the phone and upload it remotely as if it was a regular update.
This would give the FBI a copy of the OS that they could then upload on any Apple phone they wanted to.
They already have "Stingers" or fake cell towers that tricks your phone into connecting to it, instead of a real cell tower.
Add the newly created software to it and everybody's Apple cell phone is now hackable by the FBI and whoever they share it with or steals it from them.
I despise Apples business practices and well the whole company for that matter.
But in this case I would have to support them not complying with the FBI's demands.
Never thought I would support Apple in any way ,but in this case ,I would.
 

mosc

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
25
0
4,530
0
Apple should also answer why it is even saying this is possible. They should pledge in a future update to cover whatever backdoor they THINK they could create if required with code that would automatically wipe the device.

If there's some magic flag they can set to automatically make it take an OS update whither the user agrees to it or not, that's a serious security flaw they need to fess up to.

The only defensible answer I can come up with is that they could create a custom iphone-like piece of hardware with a custom firmware and plug in the accused person's memory chip to that would be able to read it but even then the chip itself should be encrypted and useless without the right pass key. I suppose though that whatever code designed to auto-delete on failed login attempts might not work in that context (which is what the FBI is specifically requesting). They'd still need his password, they'd just be able to guess a whole lot more.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
hearings in front of congress started this week and so far it has not looked good for the fbi. the committee seems to have little respect for them and even brought up that the fbi won't tell them what they are doing with any of the stuff they do have so there is no oversight on any possible abuses. they do not wish to hand them something else they would use without oversight. basically they have said the fbi has not kept up with technology and that is not apple's fault. apple should not have to do the gov's work for them

the example they brought up is that a safe maker is not required to keep master keys to their models or to make them easy to break into. why should a digital safe creator have to keep a master key for that safe?? good solid point when you think about it that way.

the hearings have been live streamed on youtube. if i can find a copy of the video i'll post it if anyone cares to watch.
 

RedJaron

Splendid
My understanding of this is that Apple was able to unlock phones in the past fairly easily, which is why they have done it before, but they changed the way encryption was handled on the device and so now they're unable to without a lot of extra work. Basically, they're not saying, "We won't give you a copy of our key," they're saying "we can't give you a copy of our key because we destroyed it."

Yes, they would have the ability to bring the phone in-lab and crack it there, but they're saying they won't do that because then they would be inundated with submitted phones and it would be a drain on their resources and employees just to keep up with the demand. Thus the "solution" would be to create some kind of backdoor, which as others have pointed out is a violation of the company's rights to not be coerced to making a product they don't want to.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
yah that's pretty much apple's stand. they can create this special os to disable the ten try limit for guessing the pin but only because it is an older model of iphone. this is not possible at all on newer models. a 4 digit pin is only 10,000 combonations so without the 10 try limit, it won't take but a minute to brute force the pin number and get in. they also want the delay between attempts removed so they can do it real quick and not wait 60 secs (i think it is) between tries which adds a ton of time to the 10,000 possible attempts.

on newer models there is no way this can be done if apple is to be believed. so a newer phone with a pin is simply gonna stay locked. if the data has been uploaded to the icloud then apple can get to it that way and hand it over (and they admit they have been doing this for a while now when court ordered). this is why cook has stated they are considering encrypting the icloud as well so even that can't be handed over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS