41–50 of 1001 posts
The fact that they can create this backdoor, doesn't that mean it already exists? What Apple needs to do then instead of writing this letter, is release an update that closes this backdoor.
[deleted]
Could someone answer a question I have though? The government wants Apple to create this backdoor and tailor it to the specific device, so presumably it will have a line that goes
if (!deviceID.equals("san_b_device_id"))
return;
With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ? As much as I value privacy I really don't agree with Apple's stance here - if due legal process has been followed, why shouldn't they be able to read the contents of an iPhone ? And yes I get that third party encryption can be used…
Because the "master key" alluded to in the letter is ethereal and can be duplicated (as opposed to handed over). This means:
- Since the key can be duplicated, there is no serious way to ensure that only the police (or any other legally entitled organ) can do the search. Anyone who can get it will have police-level access to anything and will be able to offer police-level access to anyone. The "anyone" in question can be a former policeman who hates life, some script kiddie, the Chinese and so on -- and neither of these people are likely to care much about the "due legal process".
- The police can trivially search it without the owner's knowledge and without leaving evidence. The high costs in time and money are a reasonable deterrent for searching property, vehicles etc. without the due legal process. For an electronic device, that cost is practically zero.
Regarding the first point -- for what it's worth, a while ago, army regulations here required that all doors have a physical lock and key, even if they also had an access code, for precisely this reason. The access code or the card swiping were used to log access (i.e. everyone had their own card, access codes could be logged so that you at least knew when someone was entering etc.) but when a door was supposed to be locked for good (e.g. labs not in use during the night), they were locked with real keys and sealed with old-fashioned wax seals. The rationale was that breaking the lock required quite a little time (and maybe even some door banging), increasing the chances that someone who tried to break in would be discovered, and physical evidence of a break-in was fairly hard to erase, as opposed to a purely electronic break-in which was quick to do (just enter the code). I don't know if this is true anymore, nor how common it was outside this part of the world, but it makes some sense.
This is quite unlike Apple. Is this the same company that insists on keeping its source proprietary and is always against FOSS? The idea that you care for your users' privacy and still like to keep control on them by not giving them the freedom to modify source-code is not what I buy.
You're talking nonsense. Protecting users' privacy and keeping source code closed aren't mutually exclusive.
Very impressive letter. They've expressed their position in language that a layman can understand, there's abundant evidence that they respect the intent of the law authorities, and even clearer evidence that they are drawing a line in the sand based on their principles. They will protect their customers. I wish more companies could speak so clearly and courageously.
Where is this stated so that I can claim damages if they break said promise.
I'm sorry, but how can it not be seen that it a really is bad sign that Apple has made this public. They may already have built the backdoor and this is a public stunt or no matter what you do, owning a smart is not that smart.
Huge props to Apple - here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this. One thing I was wondering is how Apple is even able to create a backdoor. It is explained toward the end: "The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force…
Why against hope?
What im reading is that apple can remote install an update that disable encryption. They dont want to do it. But that they have the capability is a bit scary.
Am I wrong to think that this brute forcing can still be applied when the raw memory chip is taken of the iPhone? The wipe-all-data-feature requires write access to the chip + some intelligence and monitoring. These capabilities should be physically removable from the actual memory chip, right?
They aren't talking about putting a back door into systems to be used in the future, they are saying it's indeed feasible to place a backdoor on a device already out there and then use the backdoor to access the device. That means the device is not actually secure.