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

FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#41

Post by rtpg »

symlinkk wrote: post #25
rtpg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant

So Tim Cook was wrong? Look at what he wrote: "Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. The FBI may use different wo…

Yes, Tim Cook is lying (EDIT: perhaps not lying, but being creative with the meaning of "potential").

The software asked for by the FBI would only work on one phone because it would both have a check for the specific phone, and be signed by Apple (so can't be modified).

The software would need to be modified and resigned by Apple to be used on another phone.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#42

Post by rtpg »

plorg wrote: post #36
rtpg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant

Similarly, you could reasonably argue that if there is a master key in this situation, it is Apple's firmware signing key, which the company already possess and has been using as a consequence of its inadequately examined security model. Edit: LOL, downvotes because you don't like it. Apple made a bad design decision, and it's coming to bite them in the ass. Yeah, it sucks, but I'm not the one who designed the backdo…

Yes, Apple's signing key + the lack of user confirmation for OS updates is the master key + backdoor here.

User confirmation has come in later OS updates it seems, so the actual backdoor has been closed.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#43

Post by rando289 »

rtpg wrote: post #24
symlinkk wrote: post #16

> We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land. This directly contradicts Tim Cook's statement, in fact he used the same term "master key": > In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. It either is a master key or it isn't.

It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant

This comment will never be a reply to any other comment. However, if I wrote it because the fbi told me to, why wouldn't I reply to absolutely any other comment the fbi told me to?

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#44

Post by cmurf »

I don't like it, but I think we're better off if the courts side with FBI on this case, because it should accelerate the inevitable: either Apple and other mobile device makers give up on privacy and governments around the world get whatever they want, or they make zero knowledge devices that can't expose their data unless the user complies.

In the meantime, FBI losing this case just means they try again. And again. And so will other governments, not just federal, but state and local. And foreign.

The reality is Apple can change the software to in effect cause the data to become accessible. Apple doesn't have keys to the front door. But they have the power to weaken the hinges. Saying they won't do that isn't the same as it not being possible.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#45

Post by justin_vanw »

BWStearns wrote: post #14
mhays wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he did go to Congress, and came back with nothing, forcing him to use the AWA. So who is pushing who exactly? And who has a louder voice in criminal justice matters than the FBI?

Hadn't thought about it this way before, but he might be turning to the AWA because a reasonable piece of legislation can't make it through congress.

Reasonable according to whom?

This is why we have Rule of Law. There is no "we follow the law when it seems reasonable". Whatever the law is, it should be followed, and it does not matter at all what anyone's personal opinion is regarding what the law should be.

Perhaps it is more complex than this, for example in cases of civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is for cases of conscience when you cannot personally participate in something that is immoral, so you refuse to participate or you protest it. The key here is that this is ignoring the law to resist immoral uses of power, not ignoring the law to remove intentional restrictions to the application of allocated authority.

This applies doubly to the legal system itself. An appeal to the inability of legislatures to "get things done" has been the argument of every tyrant since Caesar.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#46

Post by FreedomToCreate »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #11

You don't get it, Comey. The problem isn't that you want this information. Obviously you want this information as an investigator of a crime. The problem is, we can't fucking trust you or anyone enough to cross that bridge, because we know if it's there, you're just going to want more. You and every law enforcement agent in the United States has lost our trust. Call it overreach, or overzealous prosecution, high inca…

A few things. If you want to make your argument legit, refrain from calling the other person names. Second, besides drinking and making yourself essentially useless, what are you doing to improve this situation. One person may not be enough to make a difference but its better than zero.

America is entirely being driven by fear and anger. The current presidential race is a perfect reflection of the hate, anger, and fear that Americans believe exists. The system is a reflection of what the "good" people allow to happen.

The FBI has a job, and Apple has a commitment to its customers. Technology is going to get more advanced, does that mean that we should let it be a tool to obstruct justice. You may not trust the people tasked with the investigation, but people should also look at the fact that the encryption here is obstructing justice.

Tomorrow if a criminal kidnaps a bus of school children and the police are able to get a hold of a locked phone that holds their location, would you be as opposed to the current situation?

The creation of a method to disable the phones encryption is a slippery road, but the option of not aiding the FBI is also a slippery road. This is a organization created to protect the people.

We need to have a open discourse on how the information can be taken off this phone while minimizing the loss of public security and privacy . This is not a black and white issue like many people are treating it.

And just to make it clear, I do agree that the government has done extremely questionable things as well as committed offenses against the publics privacy. We need to fix the issue of distrust, because a lack of trust in our system is equal to cancer within a body.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#47

Post by 05 »

ikeboy wrote: post #26
thetruthseeker1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds extremely straight forward and sincere(many bad decisions are also taken with utmost sincerity) but I would think it would be a bad idea to provide FBI this ability. For one, it is forever weakening the security and privacy of your iphone. Bad guys who want to evade the policy officers will do it anyway with encryption systems/software available from any of the non US territories. Considering that FBI can get…

http://bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-17/the-apple-fight... argues and I agree that the loss of freedom is precisely when you can't install your own software onto a phone in your possession.

The article author is incompetent, it's all about private keys, not 'source code'. Neither Android OEMs nor Apple allows the user to set their own root cert.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#48

Post by zymhan »

ikeboy wrote: post #27
rtpg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant

Plus, even if it didn't have that check, every iOS update is signed by Apple specifically to the device being updated at the time it's being updated, so even if the image was released publically with no restrictions, nobody could install it.

But they could reverse engineer it and reimplement it without the device-specific restriction.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#49

Post by taneq »

rtpg wrote: post #41
symlinkk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Tim Cook was wrong? Look at what he wrote: "Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. The FBI may use different wo…

Yes, Tim Cook is lying (EDIT: perhaps not lying, but being creative with the meaning of "potential"). The software asked for by the FBI would only work on one phone because it would both have a check for the specific phone, and be signed by Apple (so can't be modified). The software would need to be modified and resigned by Apple to be used on another phone.

This is true but, in terms of security, is meaningless. If they can order Apple to unlock one device this way, they can do it again, and once they've got a precedent, the next time won't be national news, it'll just be routine.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#50

Post by rando289 »

imh wrote: post #35

> ...it does highlight that we have awesome new technology that creates a serious tension between two values we all treasure — privacy and safety. I hate this narrative so much. Just because we happen to be storing everything we do now, doesn't suddenly create tension between privacy and safety. We used to not store it at all! It's really just a question of keeping privacy with new tech.

Yes, it's a false dichotomy. Either we have a police state, or the terrorists win, take your choice! Don't forget the children, and the .0001 % chance of horribly brutally muderdered by terrorists!
Post reply on HN