171–180 of 293 posts
Good for Mark. Not an easy position to justify to shareholders. I can think of one ceo who is outrageously cowardly in contrast. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/att-ceo-wont-join...
Plus their CEO studied accounting. When you see a tech company led by someone without an engineering degree or somewhat similar experience, its days are numbered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the FBI. If Apple builds an OS update to make that specific iPhone easier to unlock, they'll be setting an international precedent for all countries that they do business in. So the Russians, Chinese, Saudis, etc will see it as an option when they want access to a phone that they see as in their national interest to unlock. This could even lead to a phone with US state secrets being cracked for a rival…
And they wouldn't just ask Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Jefferson quote shows a lot of chutzpah for a slave owner.
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…
They're forcing Apple to kill its own children as a sick sort of game.
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…
Cryptographic hashes like SHA and AES are designed for "dispersion" meaning, in the idea case, flipping only one bit of the input leads to a 50% probability of every single bit in the hash flipping. So while it's theoretically possible to make a change to the code, and find a way to insert that change that both (1) does the same thing and (2) hashes the same way as the original build, it's probably beyond the realm of what even a motivated attacker could do today.
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.
There may be a few hardcore privacy advocates that buy an iPhone because of this, but it's not going to make any significant change in sales.
And as for criminals, well most of them don't know or care about encryption and aren't thinking far enough ahead about what would happen if the cops seized their phones. The organized "professional" criminals aren't going to rely on device encryption to protect their secrets.
And of course, the cynic in me thinks that Apple (et al) has already given the FBI what they want and this whole case is just public posturing to make the world think that iPhones are immune to government snooping.
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's endgame is requiring companies to build backdoors into their devices. Once they are able to successfully compel a company such as Apple to help them break into the phone, they are very close to compelling congress to pass laws to require that the option be available in the first place. "Hey, the court told them to do it before so why should they be allowed to block future need?". Here is where Apple's screw up comes into play. After all this they could shore up the security gaps to further remove themselves from the equation, but after a successful court order the FBI will move to block them from making an even more secure device.
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…
Putting aside the technical issues for a minute, let's say everyone agrees Apple ought to help the US government's investigation of the San Bernideno terrorism case. Fine, and Apple might want to help, but how does their desire to help weigh against the hassle and expense of creating a new build of the OS every time something bad happens? Will it eventually get to a point where every impounded phone, of which I have to believe there are millions, can have a warrant issued and Apple has to help get the data out? They'd have to set up an entire department just to comply with the FBI's requests. At the scale of global law enforcement, it doesn't look so unreasonable that this ongoing nusiance will cost a ton of money and impair their ability to operate for their shareholders.
There's the encryption stuff, and how we have a right to privacy, but the real question is just how far a company has to go when the government asks for help with an investigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 compan…
It's not completely unprecedented to require active assistance from a third-party. There's a Supreme Court case about this very issue, United States vs New York Telephone Co. The FBI wanted New York Telephone to install monitoring hardware on their premises and assist the government in its operation. The district court issued an order to that effect. The company offered to instead give the FBI only information, which the FBI could then use to install and maintain the system themselves. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the FBI.
The main criteria that people have read out of that case is "unreasonable burden". I don't think that the FBI's request to Apple is an "unreasonable burden", especially since the government will pay for any costs. The biggest burden will be on Apple's reputation, but that is self-inflicted from making claims (honestly or not) that ultimately weren't true. I can't imagine the court allowing Apple to keep its technical assistance from the government.
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…
> this software is not secure. That's why we have this backdoor option.
It's not perfectly secure, but still awfully secure if even the US Government can't break it themselves.