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

61–70 of 142 posts

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#61

Post by ubernostrum »

plorg wrote: post #30
BWStearns wrote: post #12

I wonder if they did or what would have happened if they had approached Apple in a non-compulsory manner regarding this. He is right on the fact that the specific task they're seeking Apple to perform is more or less obsolete and will be entirely so shortly so I'm inclined to believe that they're not really going through all this to abuse that specific tool (though the precedent would be worth the fight in order to a…

It seems that Apple got sick of servicing these requests, particularly as they started increasing in frequency. The NYTimes [0] reported earlier this week that Apple had been basically complying until last year, when they decided that they could no longer deal with the burden of evaluating the large amount of legal orders they were receiving and unlocking or retrieving data from phones. It seems unlikely, given their…

As far as I can tell Apple has never complied with a request for what the FBI is asking for here. It has complied in cases where the phone was not encrypted, or where a backup in iCloud could be made available to law enforcement, but Apple has never actually produced, signed and installed a custom "this phone only, and only so law enforcement can brute-force it" version of iOS.

And given that we're talking about a federal government that was perfectly happy with pictures of the TSA's master luggage key being published in newspapers, I don't fault Apple one bit for being scared of handing over what are basically the keys to the kingdom.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#62

Post by brians »

rtpg wrote: post #37
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And next week they ask for them to sign the next thing to work on the next phone. At this point, the only valid answer from Apple is that any future devices (if they aren't this way already) should either require the password to do a software update, or wipe the phone.

Right, if the FBI has a search warrant for a phone, Apple can be compelled to comply. The core thing that makes this not a master key is that Apple has to make the decision to comply on each phone (and warrant). Which gives them the opportunity to push back if it chooses to. If the FBI has somebody's phone and secretly wants to unlock it, it can't without going through the courts and Apple.

What makes you think the US Gov't can't break in and take this, once Apple has built it? They'll have to QA it, it'll be on at least a handful of machines---and the order requires it be network connected.

At that point we should expect more world governments to get the key. Where does that end? Maybe with more companies having to demonstrate that they defend against their own subversion.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#63

Post by ikeboy »

zymhan wrote: post #48
ikeboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if it was open source, they couldn't install it on any iOS device without a signature from Apple, tailored specifically to the device being updated and the software version being signed.

You can't even downgrade to an old iOS version, because Apple won't sign them anymore.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#64

Post by FreedomToCreate »

allworknoplay wrote: post #53
noobermin wrote: post #9

I'll go ahead and say that it sounds extremely sincere and straight-forward, much unlike most official statements I've seen from the FBI. He does suggest that his view is right, but he does the right thing, as apple did, in supporting a public discourse about the so-called balance between privacy and safety. I know many people seem to gravitate to the extremes on every issue, but both Cook and Comey are right in sayi…

Security vs privacy is a false dichotomy here. Backdoors can help law enforcement achieve some goals but weaken overall security. The debate is security vs security, and framing it any other way reflects either willful deceit or ignorance.

Encryption could also help obstruct justice and let criminals get away with things. Most people won't understand till it impacts them personally but imagine if you are robbed of all your money and the answer of who did it lies in a computer you are able to get your hand on. Wouldn't you love it if the police had a backdoor now.

You are wrong in framing the debate as security vs security. Its like everything else when it comes to liberty and protection. The question is how much liberty are we willing to give up for protection. We can't let a corporation or the government anchor our opinions on the left or right.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#65

Post by mtgx »

mhays wrote: post #10
bradleyjg wrote: post #7

It should be resolved by the American people deciding how we want to govern ourselves in a world we have never seen before. We shouldn’t drift to a place—or be pushed to a place by the loudest voices—because finding the right place, the right balance, will matter to every American for a very long time. So why are they asking the courts to stretch the 1789 All Writs Act beyond its breaking point, instead of going to C…

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?

Exactly. From the public and its representatives' view, the matter is settled. But the FBI keeps saying "we need more debates on this" because it didn't go the way it wanted it to go.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#66

Post by ilostmykeys »

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…

dude, you're an amazing person for saying this. Thank you.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#67

Post by ikeboy »

brians wrote: post #62
rtpg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if the FBI has a search warrant for a phone, Apple can be compelled to comply. The core thing that makes this not a master key is that Apple has to make the decision to comply on each phone (and warrant). Which gives them the opportunity to push back if it chooses to. If the FBI has somebody's phone and secretly wants to unlock it, it can't without going through the courts and Apple.

What makes you think the US Gov't can't break in and take this, once Apple has built it? They'll have to QA it, it'll be on at least a handful of machines---and the order requires it be network connected. At that point we should expect more world governments to get the key. Where does that end? Maybe with more companies having to demonstrate that they defend against their own subversion.

It can't be installed on any iOS device without Apple signing it at the time of installation. The software is useless without Apple's signing keys.

Apple could sign it offline when installing to the device.

The signature is customised to each device it's installed on, and has a nonce so it can't be saved.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#68

Post by allworknoplay »

symlinkk wrote: post #34
sneak wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The precedent is a master key that can be used to compel Apple (or any other company) to do this again in the future for any device.

It sounds like Cook wasn't talking about a "precedent" but about the actual OS: "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 posses…

Cook responded before there was much public discussion on the issue, and may have framed it in these terms thinking they would garner support (I never agree with those decisions, but it seems likely). He may also be under obligations to refrain from discussing certain aspects of the FBI's work or may for legal purposes not have been willing to make accusations (they only want this for precedent) that aren't possible to back up. He may even have his own motivations that diverge from those of the public (gasp). Regardless, we as tech-literate folk can understand that this isn't a master key but would be unprecedented (and therefore create new legal precedent).

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#69

Post by eridius »

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

That's extremely disingenuous.

Yes, the particular OS image they produce would only work on that phone. But all of the work they did to enable the hack would work on every iPhone in the world, and the work necessary to take this OS image and use it on another device is effectively zero. As such, you can be absolutely certain that the FBI would start demanding Apple do this for other phones. And it's not just the FBI, every repressive regime in the world would start demanding this same capability. And Apple would have no grounds to deny it at that point.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#70

Post by mtgx »

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.

I think that was his point. If he can't pass a law through the People's representatives, then he shouldn't be using mental gymnastics with one of US's oldest laws in existence to force a company to hack its own device...

And no, "Congress gridlock" is not a good response to abusing existing laws.

Post reply on HN