Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 293 posts

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

#151

Post by arrrg »

prewett wrote: post #112
ignoramous wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 willi…

That’s simply a discrepancy in definitions. ”Democracy” as used in your quotes is not “democracy” as used elsewhere here. With democracy the people you quoted meant something more specific than the people using it here.

Today democracy is simply a catch-all term.

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

#152

Post by cft »

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…

Theoretical question: can the FBI create the modified OS without Apple, and simply command Apple to sign it with Apple's private key, so that it can be installed on this phone without entering the passcode?

Granted without the source code it would be quite difficult, but in theory, is signing the software with Apple's bootloader private key which is the same for each class of phones the only thing required?

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

#153

Post by vectorjohn »

whybroke wrote: post #115
exodust wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

What Apple should have done is quietly comply and NOT set a precedent. Then quietly make it impossible to comply on later phones. Instead they're making a scene about an issue they probably will and should lose.

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

#154

Post by intrasight »

wildmusings wrote: post #80
exodust wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been trying to stir conversation on this point, to little success unfortunately. The whole affair is pretty damning for the tech industry. The people who should know better are parroting Apple's deceptive claims, and many more are just hopping on the anti-surveillance anti-FBI/NSA bandwagon because it fits their political narrative. Just to be clear, I'm against mandated backdoors in products. I should be allowe…

I disagree, and here's why it is different. If Apple had a "thing" and a warrant said "give us this thing", then Apple would be compelled to turn over the thing. But Apple doesn't have this thing (the software to hack their own security). The government is saying "make us this thing", ie asking Apple to execute the warrant - which is unprecedented - it's the governments job to execute the warrant not a private company's.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

haberman wrote: post #138
[deleted] wrote: post #126

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…

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by vectorjohn »

cft wrote: post #152
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…

Theoretical question: can the FBI create the modified OS without Apple, and simply command Apple to sign it with Apple's private key, so that it can be installed on this phone without entering the passcode? Granted without the source code it would be quite difficult, but in theory, is signing the software with Apple's bootloader private key which is the same for each class of phones the only thing required?

Nothing, but that would be terrible. We WANT Apple to do it because they could ensure the software is device locked.

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

#157

Post by aljones »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #113
themartorana wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The order explicitly requires the cracking tool to not be written to flash.

Just as easy? Maybe if you ignore the effort to create it and secure it. I really can't believe writing secure software is being trivialized in the comments here.

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

#158

Post by studentrob »

empressplay wrote: post #134
varenc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this?

Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.

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

#159

Post by School-Cotton »

vectorjohn wrote: post #156
cft wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretical question: can the FBI create the modified OS without Apple, and simply command Apple to sign it with Apple's private key, so that it can be installed on this phone without entering the passcode? Granted without the source code it would be quite difficult, but in theory, is signing the software with Apple's bootloader private key which is the same for each class of phones the only thing required?

Nothing, but that would be terrible. We WANT Apple to do it because they could ensure the software is device locked.

Apple could just bindiff to figure out what changed in the FBI's version.

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

#160

Post by vectorjohn »

aljones wrote: post #137
vectorjohn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Now wait. If the passcode is complex then it is secure, which is a very typical requirement for security.

Which doesn't change regardless of the outcome of this FBI case.
Post reply on HN