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

191–200 of 293 posts

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

#191

Post by acqq »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #24
neom wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under penalty of prosecution, not really. All I can say is that they genuinely do their best to protect you. For me it's that they have to spent a lot of resource (fiscal and other) to protect you from what is in my opinion: really sketchy shameful shit on the US and many other government's part. If people want to really know why tech companies are at the point of enough is enough, it's because many governments conti…

> Under penalty of perjury, not really. Since you're quite obviously having to dance around how to communicate the fact that you've received NSLs and invocations of CALEA that made you feel queasy (I feel your pain for similar, vague, hypothetical reasons), perjury isn't the legal concept that you're after there. You want 18 USC 2709, and for those keeping score at home, to my knowledge nobody has been prosecuted for…

You see, Apple's "enough is enough" is exactly, "you have CALEA, we work with you based on that, but now you ask us based on 'All Writs' to modify our products."

The essence of "All Writs" is (actual quote) "all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

which if I understand means in simpler English "we can officially request anything from everybody when we do our job, unless it appears as too illegal."

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

#193

Post by sjwright »

haberman wrote: post #140
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.

By your definition then, the iPhone doesn't grant real security since Apple is capable of installing this modified iOS version. So given that the iPhone is not secure, what do you think about whether Apple should execute this court order?

The iPhone does grant real security, it just requires the user to choose an encryption key that isn't trivially brute forced. (And depending on the circumstances, forego use of the fingerprint reader.)

If the dead attacker had a twelve character passphrase, any amount of help from Apple would be utterly useless. Apple could write all the back-doors they liked but if the content is encrypted and the key is unknown, brute forcing is the only option.

The addition of the secure enclave makes it potentially infeasible to extract the UID so that the brute forcing could be performed on a powerful supercomputer. It depends how well the enclave has been hardened against firmware changes. Can the enclave receive a seamless firmware update while in a locked state? Can the enclave firmware be rewritten to output the UID to the main CPU? We don't know.

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

#194

Post by spencefu »

vectorjohn wrote: post #119
Pyxl101 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.

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

#195

Post by akerro »

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…

Corporations make good PR so you can trust them with more of your personal data, while PRISM still is operating, Facebook and Apple are still cooperating with NSA.

The more and more NSA friendly corporations back Apple the less I trust all of them.

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

#196

Post by MacsHeadroom »

haberman wrote: post #140
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.

By your definition then, the iPhone doesn't grant real security since Apple is capable of installing this modified iOS version. So given that the iPhone is not secure, what do you think about whether Apple should execute this court order?

The iPhone is secure when used with a complex passcode (something like 11 years to crack an 8 character password), even if Apple aids the FBI. So individuals who know and care enough, like terrorists, will still be just as secure.

But common people won't. So no, Apple should absolutely not destroy the security of hundreds of millions of individuals just because some government agency wants a shot at access to some dead guy's phone.

What happens when the PRC or Saudi equivalent of the FBI demands the same for an FBI agents phone? Why should the populace and Apple have to suffer for making the world more secure?

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

#197

Post by exodust »

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…

I understand your point. But I think too many people have already hosed down the idea of true backdoor features inbuilt for all phones to get around encryption. It was raised previously, and smacked down by the majority, including from many voices within the government.

I think honesty is the best option. Apple should say "yes, we can help this time, but we believe in privacy and security, so in future our phones will not be able to be cracked by this or any method". Apple gets to be the good guys for customers, AND help the FBI in this instance. Win win.

In future, the FBI couldn't ask Apple anything because we all know their phones are unbreakable.

But Apple have dug themselves a hole this time by refusing to go the full distance even though it's technically possible. Probably not the best move IMHO.

I'm of course only presuming it's possible to make such an unbreakable phone in future.

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

#199

Post by mr_luc »

vectorjohn wrote: post #119
Pyxl101 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need."

Except that invention != turning over information.

The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do.

Which is a massive, blatant power grab.

Post reply on HN