A Message to Our Customers • Hacker News Board

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#531

Post by tdaltonc » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

jusben1369 wrote: post #512

I think, as a society, it boils down to this: "And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." Can a private, for profit, company deny the will of an elected government working to solve a heinous crime based not on what they say they will do but because they cannot give a 100% guarantee that this is the only time/way it'll be used? Apple ackno…

I see your point. Defying a order from a democratic government is a big deal.

But Apple isn't saying they wont do it. They just want to make it really clear that they're not happy about it and they want the government to change their mind.

The government still has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#532

Post by blazespin » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:20 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #175

epaga wrote: post #2

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…

I'm afraid I'm too skeptical to get the same assurances as you. Apple accuses the FBI of playing language games with the term "backdoor", but I think Apple has done the same. The fact that they can push weak OS updates to a locked phone is the backdoor . This means that they can already comply with the court order, and they likely will. This letter covers them from PR damage.

It's not just PR. It's actually really hurting their company. Weaker security means less data can be stored on the iPhone which means less need for it, which means fewer sales.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#533

Post by aiabgold » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

I'm curious: is it likely that Apple was under a gag order regarding the backdoor proposals/discussions?

I've always wondered why large tech companies/corporations abide by such orders instead of speaking out. Even if Apple was under a gag order, they've created a PR nightmare for the alphabet agencies; Apple could be pursued in court, but that pursuit would now likely be done in the face of negative public opinion.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#534

Post by Oletros » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

morganvachon wrote: post #519

Oletros wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about. Your point is wrong regarding Google and smartphones if the smartphone is encrypted

There's a huge distinction between Google (Android) and Apple (iOS) though: Apple affirms they don't have your keys, and this case bears that out (else the FBI would obtain the keys via subpoena to Apple rather than asking the court for a circumvention tool). Google is ambiguous about whether they have your Android keys; they claim they don't, however if you forget your device password it is possible to unlock your d…

> For either company to unlock the device without the owner’s permission the smartphone or tablet must not be encrypted, according to the report.[0]

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/24/google-can...

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#535

Post by ctstover » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

Flame bait:

We need to surrender all firearms, encryption, and gold to our serf lords so as to ease the pain of "feeling the Bern".

plus my obligatory comments:

-believing apple is on the side of your rights is naive -gray text on white background promotes illiteracy

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#536

Post by rhino369 » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

cognivore wrote: post #407

If I were Cook, I'd draw a line in the sand. If we are force to comply, we exit the phone business, because we won't make phones that compromise our customer's security. But that would take more balls than anyone left here in this "Land of the free and home of the brave" seems to have left anymore.

The board of directors would string him up. And if they didn't the stockholders would. No way would apple give up the phone business.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#537

Post by rconti » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

wildmXranat wrote: post #97

To all in-love-with-Apple downvoters, please read this Schneier sound analysis of the same type of situation that RIM(Blackberry) has been met with: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/08/uae_to_ban_bl... /quote: "RIM's carefully worded statements about BlackBerry security are designed to make their customers feel better, while giving the company ample room to screw them." /endquote I have lost enough points…

"This is not a good sign" != "This is a bad sign".

I've re-read your comment several times, and I don't get how it's novel or how it applies here. Of course it could be true in this case, as it could be true in any decision any company makes. But I don't see how it's insightful or proves or suggests that Apple is doing the same.

You're not some kind of martyr for the anti-Apple cause here. I think we all know that Apple could be saying one thing and doing another. That doesn't mean that they are, and it doesn't mean that this open letter is proof that they are.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#538

Post by mineshaftgap » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #175

epaga wrote: post #2

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…

I'm afraid I'm too skeptical to get the same assurances as you. Apple accuses the FBI of playing language games with the term "backdoor", but I think Apple has done the same. The fact that they can push weak OS updates to a locked phone is the backdoor . This means that they can already comply with the court order, and they likely will. This letter covers them from PR damage.

Apple has to be bad, it just has to. It is part of my identity to believe that.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#539

Post by cmsimike » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

Heads up that I just recently discovered - if your iphone has touch id enabled, you can go into the touch id settings and selectively disable touch id for phone unlocking while keeping it for the app store.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#540

Post by rsync » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

coderjames wrote: post #403

threatofrain wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid I'm too skeptical to get the same assurances as you. Apple accuses the FBI of playing language games with the term "backdoor", but I think Apple has done the same. The fact that they can push weak OS updates to a locked phone is the backdoor . This means that they can already comply with the court order, and they likely will. This letter covers them from PR damage.

I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that Apple can push OS updates to a locked phone. What Tim Cook wrote is that > "install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation." > "the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession." So the FBI has the physical phone already. They can deliver to Apple who can disassemble it and either use a JTAG/Flash programmer on an internal connector to manua…

"I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that Apple can push OS updates to a locked phone."

The iphone contains a sim card.

A sim card is a complete, general purpose computer with its own CPU and RAM and the ability to run arbitrary java programs that can be uploaded, without your knowledge by your carrier.

You are owned. Deeply, profoundly, in ways that you have no way to manage/mitigate.

The real question, for me, is why authorities are dealing with Apple at all and not just working with the carriers who have proven to be their trusted allies.