What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?
Well who the heck do you think run corporations?
Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
101–110 of 293 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#102What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?
Apple believes they are serving the people by protecting their privacy. The FBI believes they are serving the people by hunting down terrorists. Just two different beliefs in what serving the people means.
>The FBI believes they are serving the people by hunting down terrorists.
No, they don't have any credibility in the matter. They're working an emotionally poignant tragedy to curry favor for the expansion of their authority.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#103Can somebody explain to me why Apple couldn't create this exploited OS and restrict it to only run on the specific device in question?
If that's the case, then they could post the source code on Github and it wouldn't make any difference. Modifying the code to remove the device restrictions would invalidate the signature and any iPhone would refuse to run it. Isn't that the whole point of code signing?
I'm finding it hard to see how Apple's stance is anything other than meaningless grandstanding. Since the vulnerability already exists, the security of similar iPhones is currently reliant on the security of Apple's private signing key. After releasing this exploited OS, the security of similar iPhones would still rely on the security of Apple's private signing key. Nothing at all would change, it's Apple's fault for allowing this vulnerability to be there in the first place.
Where am I wrong on this? I've been hoping Apple would answer this question for me but instead I've just gotten more hyperbole.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones. This is a case where having a little bit of knowledge leads to a wildly inaccurate conclusion, similar to Greenwald's original PRISM reporting.
It sure does if that signed malicious firmware ever got out. And it will eventually since once it's written it will be requested by every police department and federal agency for ever increasing trivial cases. Every government in the world will want access to that piece of code. If Apple really can tie the firmware to a specific piece of hardware with no possibility of it being modified I would be impressed but even…
The FBI has given Apple the option of brute-forcing the phone for them. In that case, the build never leaves Apple, just like the build that Apple has previously used to extract unencrypted data from iPhones.
Making the build not-modifiable is easy. That's what's stopping the FBI from modifying the existing build to remove the wipe rule.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#105What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?
Before you get too breathless over this, know that Apple has been unlocking phones for the government, in nearly this exact situation, for a long time now: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of-apples-... This is an entirely new stance from Apple. Historically, they've been on the other side.
Arguably, one of the reasons that Apple implemented the security measures they did was to get rid of similar situations. That's why there was kerfluffle about it when they announced it.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#106What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?
Apple has an incentive to serve its customers and provide a product that they want. Governments have no such incentive and indeed do their best to ignore the wishes of their "customers." Companies measure success by profit. Governments measure success by the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats and egomaniacial politicians.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a DO (digital ocean) customer, care to elaborate?
While we're talking about Digital Ocean, how has your experience been? My company currently uses Dreamhost, but we've had quite a few problems with them lately and we're thinking about switching.
Could you tell me about your problems with Dreamhost?
I've had minor problems with Dreamhost, but nothing major yet.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#108Can somebody explain to me why Apple couldn't create this exploited OS and restrict it to only run on the specific device in question? If that's the case, then they could post the source code on Github and it wouldn't make any difference. Modifying the code to remove the device restrictions would invalidate the signature and any iPhone would refuse to run it. Isn't that the whole point of code signing? I'm finding it…
There isn't any fool proof way to single out this device from any other. There are certainly ways they could try and build something that relied on checking the serial number, or something of the like reported by the hardware.
But then someone could just build a hardware level hack, to make any other device report it's serial number as if it was this phone.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you get too breathless over this, know that Apple has been unlocking phones for the government, in nearly this exact situation, for a long time now: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of-apples-... This is an entirely new stance from Apple. Historically, they've been on the other side.
They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to. It's not rare for a company to provide info/help to law enforcement when asked/compelled. It was easy to do on iOS 7. The ask in this case is totally different.
"They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to."
No, there really aren't. From the article:
"The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government service."
Moreover, the "ask" in this case is nearly identical. Apple is being asked only to bypass the 10-failed-attempt device wipe, so that investigators can enumerate all 10,000 codes:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stak...
...which means that it's effectively exactly the same thing that Apple has done in previous cases. The only technological difference is one that has been manufactured by Apple.
This whole thing boils down to a question of whether or not Apple should facilitate a brute-force attack on a single phone, under a search warrant, for a known criminal. And they've done same thing 70-some times in the past.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple believes they are serving the people by protecting their privacy. The FBI believes they are serving the people by hunting down terrorists. Just two different beliefs in what serving the people means.
That's what apple wants us to believe, but they also have powerful financial interest in the matter. No one has called them out on it yet because it would be rather unpopular to do so.
Or that Apple's financial interests, moral interests, and the interests of their customers are all in alignment on this issue.