141–150 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Did you miss the part where the government said they were fine with Apple keeping the custom iOS software version in their possession, and not giving it to the government? http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/20/us/politics/ap-us... "Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it…
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 FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue!
If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so close to point B, there is no issue!
If the FBI wins point C, then they will argue for point D. - it is so close to point C, there is no issue!
Repeat over and over.
At about point M or sooner an exploit or the extraction processes to the gradually less secure device would probably become available to governments through means legal or otherwise and we would probably hit point Z straight away.
Apple are trying to stop the inevitable by not starting, the FBI are arguing for point B.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Did you miss the part where the government said they were fine with Apple keeping the custom iOS software version in their possession, and not giving it to the government? http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/20/us/politics/ap-us... "Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it…
What's preventing the government from just copying the software off the device and keeping it for themselves? Obviously they'd have to do some work to make it universal, but do we really think an agency with pretty much unlimited budget, and brilliant mathematicians, couldn't get it done?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hardware chips with tamper protection can hold encryption keys which Apple wouldn't be able to modify. It is technically feasible and I'm pretty sure this is why people are saying Secure Enclave protects against this in newer iPhone models. This is also the idea behind TPM chips which are in almost every phone/laptop these days, so consumers couldn't tamper with DRM and other similar crypto systems.
I find it ironic that this argument in support of TPM, etc. is being made for phones (not necessarily by you), but this same site has vigorously opposed it for PCs, especially Linux.
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…
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/att-ceo-wont-join...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the part where the government said they were fine with Apple keeping the custom iOS software version in their possession, and not giving it to the government? http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/20/us/politics/ap-us... "Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it…
[deleted]
Regardless of this court order, Apple already has possession of keys that can sign iOS updates to disable security features. So this "master key" already exists.
Meanwhile the government is saying that Apple can delete the tool the moment after the court order is executed, so then what is there to steal?
I just don't get the argument that this tool is any more of a "master key" than the actual "master key" Apple already has.
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…
It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z. The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the part where the government said they were fine with Apple keeping the custom iOS software version in their possession, and not giving it to the government? http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/20/us/politics/ap-us... "Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it…
The problem is, Apple designs the software, loads it onto the device, and gives it to the government so they can do their brute force on it. What's preventing the government from just copying the software off the device and keeping it for themselves? Obviously they'd have to do some work to make it universal, but do we really think an agency with pretty much unlimited budget, and brilliant mathematicians, couldn't ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure the people did wish for it, but not being able to afford armor or horses their voices where not heard. You're ignoring the desires of the people simply because they didn't have the political leverage to gain them.
No. I am not. I am just saying that they weren't the defining factor in the decision back then, and they don't seem to be the deciding factor in the decision now (but that might come down to bias in which segment of "the people" I hear from the most). I am saying that powerful interest groups can, occasionally, half-by-accident, represent the best interests of the powerless. We probably shouldn't rely on them to do s…
Thus, furthering lazaroclapp's point that sometimes there are special interests (the church, companies, nobles/rich people) that are aligned with average people. That is beneficial for society, but it in no way is a solution to the problem. We need to actually restructure our government so it is not an oligopoly.
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...