Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 364 posts

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#321

Post by AnthonyMouse »

harryh wrote: post #320
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You ever get in a fight where it wasn't 100% clear who was right and who was wrong? You were both a little bit right and a little bit wrong? I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Yes, the world is not black and white, but neither is math. If you have e.g. a car crash where one person was speeding and the other failed to yield the right of way, they're both at fault. Maybe one is more at fault than t…

It's impossible to design an appropriate algorithm ahead of time capable of accepting all of the possible inputs that might occur. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do our best. We shouldn't just throw up our hands. But I think it's important to admit that judges will always be necessary to handle inevitable ambiguities.

It's completely possible to design an algorithm that will give a deterministic result in every case. It might not always be the result you want, but a judge might not give the result you want either. And at least with the algorithm the result is predictable (even if not predicted) and, if wrong, can be fixed and then apply consistently in the future without making decisions based on politics or race or personal relationships.

Or to put it another way, we could have an algorithm make the decision but then have a judge whose job it is to find when the algorithm is wrong and then fix it for future but not past/current cases.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#322

Post by harryh »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #321
harryh wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to design an appropriate algorithm ahead of time capable of accepting all of the possible inputs that might occur. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do our best. We shouldn't just throw up our hands. But I think it's important to admit that judges will always be necessary to handle inevitable ambiguities.

It's completely possible to design an algorithm that will give a deterministic result in every case. It might not always be the result you want, but a judge might not give the result you want either. And at least with the algorithm the result is predictable (even if not predicted) and, if wrong, can be fixed and then apply consistently in the future without making decisions based on politics or race or personal relat…

Yes. That's why I said "appropriate algorithm" and not just "algorithm."

There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#323

Post by kevin_b_er »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #143
anonydsfsfs wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be example of parallel construction[1]. They may already have unencrypted it via a backdoor, but they wouldn't be able to use anything they find as evidence in court because they'd have to reveal the backdoor. If they can plausibly show they brute-forced it instead, they keep the backdoor hidden. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

"it could be parallel construction" is true in literally every instance since it's impossible to prove the negative case. This is becoming my cue to stop reading the comments; when parallel construction is the most obvious argument, you've read the interesting ideas up thread.

However, the US Government is known to have gathered hidden evidence in drug cases, then used parallel construction to hide the violation. So, now the government's presentation of evidence should always be considered in question. As it has shown dishonesty at the presentation and gathering of evidence and there's nothing that says they haven't changed their unethical ways, how can they be trusted to present evidence legally gathered?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05...

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#324

Post by AnthonyMouse »

harryh wrote: post #322
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely possible to design an algorithm that will give a deterministic result in every case. It might not always be the result you want, but a judge might not give the result you want either. And at least with the algorithm the result is predictable (even if not predicted) and, if wrong, can be fixed and then apply consistently in the future without making decisions based on politics or race or personal relat…

Yes. That's why I said "appropriate algorithm" and not just "algorithm." There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people.

> There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people.

Because I don't see it as a tradeoff between predictability and correctness, I see it as a tradeoff between correctness for past acts and correctness forever in the future.

If you know a law is ridiculous but you also know that a judge will see the same thing and then not let you do that, you won't do it. Some people like that result. The problem is it causes the ridiculous law to carry on existing and not be fixed, because nobody is willing to challenge it when they know they'll lose and go to jail even though by the letter they shouldn't. So then nobody ever knows what the law actually is because it clearly isn't what it says it is, but if it isn't that then what is it?

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#325

Post by pc86 »

tptacek wrote: post #4

Remember, this is an iPhone 5C, which doesn't have Touch ID or the Secure Enclave; the security model for this phone is significantly different from that of more recent iPhones. On phones with a Secure Enclave, the wipe-on-failures state is managed in the coprocessor (which runs L4), and is not straightforwardly backdoor-able. If you're worried about the police brute-forcing your phone, enable Touch ID and set a pass…

I was under the impression that law enforcement can coerce you to put your finger on the touch pad to unlock your device much easier than they could coerce you to provide the pass code. I have Touch ID disabled on my device for exactly this reason. Is that not the case?

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#326

Post by radiorental »

dplgk wrote: post #104
radiorental wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble correlating the intent of the law with your suggestion "[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" Person/Compelled is key here, not the facts of the case or where they reside.

So when technology arises that can scan a person's brain for memories and thoughts, that will be evidence admissible in court?

If the person agrees to the scan. I'm not sure you fully understand the law.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#327

Post by kevinchen »

tlrobinson wrote: post #195
tptacek wrote: post #4

Remember, this is an iPhone 5C, which doesn't have Touch ID or the Secure Enclave; the security model for this phone is significantly different from that of more recent iPhones. On phones with a Secure Enclave, the wipe-on-failures state is managed in the coprocessor (which runs L4), and is not straightforwardly backdoor-able. If you're worried about the police brute-forcing your phone, enable Touch ID and set a pass…

So all the FBI has to do is desolder the flash chips and hope it was a weak passcode? Seems like they're just hoping to use this as an opportunity to set a precedent. Never let a serious crisis go to waste? Also hasn't Apple been able (and previously willing) to unlock pre-Secure Enclave phones for law enforcement for... ever?

No, because the flash chips are only decryptable when they're installed in the phone. The user's passcode is tangled with a long key burned into the SoC, so you need both to decrypt the flash.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#328

Post by stinkytaco »

bsbechtel wrote: post #301
harryh wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ever get in a fight with someone? You ever get in a fight where it wasn't 100% clear who was right and who was wrong? You were both a little bit right and a little bit wrong? Welcome to the problems our legal system has to deal with. The world isn't a mathematical equation. It's fuzzy. So is our legal system.

I think my comment was misinterpreted. Our legal system is a part of our government, which is a representative democracy. Part of the idea behind a representative democracy is that it is designed to protect the minority from majority mob rule. By definition, edge cases are cases that fall outside of the normal majority. Our legal system is fuzzy because it is operated by humans, not silicon. The design of a case law…

I disagree, I think precedent reduces fuzziness because it shows how the law has been interpreted in the real world.

No cases are identical, but knowing how a similar situation was handled in the past clarifies, not confuses the situation. It gets us closer to a consistent interpretation of the law, which is, in my opinion, paramount because consistency ideally means predictability and equality.

Indeed the roots of the common law go back to making sure all people are viewed equally under the law, rather than having random interpretations based on who's judging and who's being judged.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#329

Post by Fundlab »

bardworx wrote: post #255
chenster wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that?

Poor sales, major benefit of blackberry overshadowed by other services (BBM), late to adjust to the times, etc. I doubt you were suggesting that BB's downfall is rooted in their encryption, however. In the slim case that it did, they didn't speak up about backdoors and letting .gov into their devices until 2015, way after their market share has shrunk.

While I havent seen heavy market in that aspect there appears to be some level of improvisation with Blackberry's messenger http://www.bbm.com/bbm/en.html

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#330

Post by elliotec »

pc86 wrote: post #325
tptacek wrote: post #4

Remember, this is an iPhone 5C, which doesn't have Touch ID or the Secure Enclave; the security model for this phone is significantly different from that of more recent iPhones. On phones with a Secure Enclave, the wipe-on-failures state is managed in the coprocessor (which runs L4), and is not straightforwardly backdoor-able. If you're worried about the police brute-forcing your phone, enable Touch ID and set a pass…

I was under the impression that law enforcement can coerce you to put your finger on the touch pad to unlock your device much easier than they could coerce you to provide the pass code. I have Touch ID disabled on my device for exactly this reason. Is that not the case?

This seems more reasonable. Also typing out a complex password on the iPhone is a pain in the ass when you just want to reply to your buddy's text.
Post reply on HN