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

A Message to Our Customers

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#801

Post by vacri »

dh997 wrote: post #270

Tim Cook: a really nice guy with blue whale-sized cohones. There can be no compromise because China, Syria and Turkey would also lean on Apple to break into phones of dissidents, and pretty soon, future whistleblowers here in US too in order to prevent leaks (iPhone 7 and iCar notwithstanding). That's the tradeoff in not giving in to faint, vague "maybes" that there were "external coordination" when in all likihood i…

> Tim Cook: a really nice guy with blue whale-sized cohones.

... backed by a company that at one point literally had more cash than the US government. A company with a strong, expansive, and experienced legal team. He's not a small fish; he's a major captain of industry and has a lot of political clout. I mean, good on him for his standing on this issue, but he wields a lot of power here.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#802

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

fixermark wrote: post #483
SoMuchToGrok wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you, I appreciate the sentiment - happy to hear Apple speaking up. However this shouldn't change how we use Apple products. I operate under the implication that the device is compromised from the factory. Closed source software cannot be trusted, good faith is not enough.

I can't disagree with your point of view; I merely point out that a world where everyone who wants a secure smartphone needs to own their own smartphone factory isn't a very practical world.

Only needs to have access to software source code, and presumably a way to verify the binaries match. Not an entire factory.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#803

Post by berkeleynerd »

hn9780470248775 wrote: post #800
berkeleynerd wrote: post #779

A friend of mine at Apple reported multiple Black Vehicles (Lincoln Town Cars and Escalades) with at least one having MD License Plates at the Apple Executive Briefing Center this morning between 11AM and Noon. Occupants had ear pieces and sun glasses and were accompanied by a CHP (California Highway Patrol) cruiser and three motorcycle escorts. I suppose it's possible this was a quick (less than 1 hour) VIP stop but…

> at least one having MD License Plates Don't vehicles used by federal agencies typically bear U.S. Government license plates?

According to @HillRat in the other thread : "Based on open sources, NSA has a fleet of about 100 vehicles at most in CONUS, so they would be more likely to fly vehicles cross-country if DIRNSA needed to use a fleet vehicle. Having said that, NSA doesn't just arbitrarily get involved in domestic law enforcement cases, even ones involving crypto, so let's wait to see if there's more evidence than a random HN post to support this allegation." Good information and an entirely fair statement. I'm hoping someone from Apple can chime in directly.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#805

Post by mikeash »

zepto wrote: post #787
mikeash wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the slippery slope here. The government is asking Apple to do something that is both possible and reasonable. I see no slope to that from other typical court orders. Giving the government a way to brute force PINs wouldn't break the trust of every iPhone owner, merely the owners of iPhones with pre-A7 CPUs. And great, if they trusted Apple on this their trust was misplaced. You can't trust companies not t…

The slope is that if they can order Apple to engineer one thing, they can order them to engineer another. It is possible for Apple to the weaken the secure enclave on all future iPhones. It would be reasonable to do so from the point of view of giving law enforcement a useful tool. Therefore since Apple can be ordered to do engineering to make law enforcement easier, why should they not be ordered to do this? That is…

> The slope is that if they can order Apple to engineer one thing, they can order them to engineer another.

How does that at all follow? Right now, a cop can lawfully order me to identify myself. Does that mean they can also lawfully order me to go to the nearest coffee shop dressed as Bozo the Clown and shout, "I am in love with the ghost of Princess Diana"?

I don't understand how complying with an order to use an existing security hole to break into in someone's device somehow sets a precedent that the FBI can in the future go to Apple and set the parameters for how their products are designed.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#806

Post by omarforgotpwd »

StillBored wrote: post #609

Ok, so I completely fail to see how a random crazy guy with a gun who shoots up a bunch of unarmed people has "national security implications". This seems to be a "fact" that everyone wants to agree on, but is frankly a load of BS if one considers the government probably already has his entire call/texting history for the last couple years. I see this as just another "its for the children" ploy, of which I'm complete…

If it was many of the shootings perpetrated by non-muslims every day in the US, they wouldn't have cared. But because these Americans were muslims they need to scan their phones and make sure they weren't getting orders from some terrorist network.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#807

Post by berkeleynerd »

berkeleynerd wrote: post #779

A friend of mine at Apple reported multiple Black Vehicles (Lincoln Town Cars and Escalades) with at least one having MD License Plates at the Apple Executive Briefing Center this morning between 11AM and Noon. Occupants had ear pieces and sun glasses and were accompanied by a CHP (California Highway Patrol) cruiser and three motorcycle escorts. I suppose it's possible this was a quick (less than 1 hour) VIP stop but…

According to my source at Apple HQ a TV van is on the way. We should see some news coverage soon.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#808

Post by mef »

bluesaunders wrote: post #782
d_theorist wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's more interesting to think about the case where the phone does have a secure enclave.

In that case, they could just bring the phone down to the morgue and unlock it with touch id.

Touch ID requires the passcode after reboot or timeout. They'd need to do it very quickly.

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#809

Post by mikestew »

interpol_p wrote: post #291
mirimir wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It implies that the FBI wants Apple to do that. Tim Cook doesn't offer an opinion about how possible that might be. As a matter of principle, he doesn't believe that Apple should be forced to make the attempt. That doesn't stop anyone else from doing so, however. And I suppose that the FBI could seek discovery on all requisite information, take depositions, etc, etc. However, I vaguely recall that discovery can't com…

That's a good point. I guess I figured if they simply can't do it why not say "it's impossible by design," rather than argue the principle? It seems like their stand would be better saved for when a compromise is requested that is actually possible for them implement.

* I guess I figured if they simply can't do it why not say "it's impossible by design," rather than argue the principle?*

Because the larger principle is what's really at play here. Whether Apple can do what the FBI asks, or not, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that what the FBI asks is bad. Even if Apple can unlock this phone because of shortcomings of the 5C (versus later model), it sets a bad precedent for later, especially if Apple truly cannot unlock the 6s and beyond ("you could do it on the 5, why not an iPhone 7?").

I'm no lawyer, but I'm of the opinion that this is a legal crowbar for later cases, and the Feds are using a tragic incident to drum up support ("you don't support terrorists, do you?")

Re: A Message to Our Customers

#810

Post by jsprogrammer »

azzafazza wrote: post #624
jsprogrammer wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court order says that the software must only work for the specific device in custody. Apple is not supposed to create a general tool.

If you believe that the FBI wouldn't abuse a tool like that after the past few years of coverage of the Security sector there is really very little hope for you.

Personal attack much?

The order says that Apple's exploit should only work on this specific, already existing device.

Post reply on HN