Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

Post by noelsusman » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:30 AM UTC

AlexanderRB wrote: post #108

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…

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.

Post by vectorjohn » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #118

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.

Post by aljones » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:35 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…

Post by prewett » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #56

karmelapple wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level. Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place…

> but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. Where can I sign up for that Congress? Is that opt-in? Because that sounds great.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

vectorjohn wrote: post #123

Bud wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all! And to your last point: this softw…