Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#111

Post by Pyxl101 » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:19 AM UTC

noelsusman wrote: post #103

Can 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…

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other circumstances.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#112

Post by prewett » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:19 AM UTC

ignoramous wrote: post #97

wskinner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like governments, corporations are groups of individual people nominally organized around a common goal. If the government overreaches to a degree that will have a significant negative effect on corporations' bottom lines, as would Apple being forced to backdoor its software, we should absolutely expect corporations to step in on the side of their customers. Of course corporations will be pragmatic about when th…

> But let's not kid ourselves about governments ever being fully (mostly, even) on the side of the people. Exactly. What kind of democracy is this?

It's not, it's a republic. In fact, the Founding Fathers considered democracy a terrible form of government.

"Democracy is the most vile form of government" (James Madison)

"A simple democracy is the devil's own government." (Benjamin Rush, signed Declaration of Independence)

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy..." (John Adams)

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." (Thomas Jefferson)

Many, many more at http://www.godtheoriginalintent.com/democracy_republic_quote... (sorry about the choice of web site, but the selection of quotations is impressive.)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#113

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:21 AM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #95

timr wrote: post #85

Earlier 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.

It is just as easy to do in this case. iOS 7 does not include code for extracting data from a locked device. Apple flashed a special build onto those phones to do that. Similarly, Apple is being asked to flash a special build that allows PIN brute-forcing, and if they don't want the build to leave their premises, they've been given the option of brute-forcing the PIN themselves.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#114

Post by rz2k » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

pcurve wrote: post #89

altitudinous wrote: post #26

Earlier 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.

The US Department of Justice has very publicly made that claim, it just fell flat.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#115

Post by whybroke » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:24 AM UTC

exodust wrote: post #72

rconti wrote: post #40

>“I don’t think building back doors is the way to go, so we’re pretty sympathetic to Tim and Apple,” said Mr. Zuckerberg Shortened the article for ya.

Nice one. And not only that, but "backdoor" isn't accurate. It's not what has been requested. "Backdoor" sounds more provocative though, and helps build numbers for the Apple side of the debate. If Apple can crack the phone open, let's see it happen. And then after that, they should improve iOS security so not even Apple can crack it. I'm not impressed that Apple can if they wanted to, build in a system to weaken my…

Backdoor is not what is not mentioned today but it is what will be sought when Apple does make an unbreakable phone.

If a loudly media backed ruling to force Apple to comply with the FBI is then followed by Apple making a phone which makes it impossible to comply with such requests in the future, it will much easier to get legislation or rulings requiring the all phones have an inbuilt backdoor.

This is why the FBI is forcing Apple specifically to do what they or another organization (eg McAfee) might do. Especially since the phone in question, while spectacular from a media perspective, probably has very little interesting on it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#116

Post by varenc » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:24 AM UTC

Pyxl101 wrote: post #111

noelsusman wrote: post #103

Can 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…

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly low…

That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated.

> "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."

The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#117

Post by haberman » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:25 AM UTC

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about.

The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking?

Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the form of a signing key controlling what payloads the iPhone will agree to load? Is Apple primarily concerned with both precedent and perception of security on its phones?

I personally feel that any mechanism by which iPhones could be unlocked with a warrant -- but only with a warrant (ie. the gov't physically lacks the capability to do it themselves) -- is a good compromise. It's in Apple's interest to push back on such requests, so you have two powerful and well-funded entities adversarially fighting to define the line of what can get unlocked and what can't.

Now NSL's, those are a whole different kettle of fish.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#118

Post by Bud » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:27 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #117

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking? Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the…

The problem is that there is no mechanism by which iPhones can have a back door, but only for the good guys and only with a warrant. That does not exist. And it never can exist.

There is no grey area for compromise here. The encryption is either secure and free of known backdoors—and thus it grants real security—or it isn't, and it doesn't.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#119

Post by vectorjohn » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:28 AM UTC

Pyxl101 wrote: post #111

noelsusman wrote: post #103

Can 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…

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly low…

Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#120

Post by prewett » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:28 AM UTC

exodust wrote: post #78

neom wrote: post #4

Given what I saw when I was at DO, everyone should back apple in their refusal to unlock the iPhone.

No. Everyone should not back Apple. Let's crack that phone open. We then want Apple to improve their security so that no such request by governments would be possible in future. Tighten the security so that not even a special custom version of iOS would make a difference to the self destruct measures in place. Then we wouldn't need to waste any time arguing about it.

How do you suggest that Apple do that? Somewhere there has to be some code to check if security passed. It is always feasible for Apple to remove/disable the security check in a custom version of iOS.