Please call your representative and senators about this. Not email, not mail - call. Even if it means holding for half an hour. It makes a difference, and they need to hear us.
Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
201–210 of 293 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sure does if that signed malicious firmware ever got out. And it will eventually since once it's written it will be requested by every police department and federal agency for ever increasing trivial cases. Every government in the world will want access to that piece of code. If Apple really can tie the firmware to a specific piece of hardware with no possibility of it being modified I would be impressed but even…
The FBI has given Apple the option of brute-forcing the phone for them. In that case, the build never leaves Apple, just like the build that Apple has previously used to extract unencrypted data from iPhones. Making the build not-modifiable is easy. That's what's stopping the FBI from modifying the existing build to remove the wipe rule.
Where do you get the idea Apple made a special build to extract unencrypted data?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#203The nightmare scenario is as follows.
Sure, unlocking this one phone sounds pretty reasonable. Apple will maintain control of the unlock mechanism, the FBI gets it warrant obliged, end of story. This is what the government side is spinning (see the nytimes op-ed today from William Bratton, NYC police commissioner).
The reality is that is not the end of the story. New York City has already said they have 200 phones waiting to be unlocked. Given an FBI win in the case, and Apple building the unlock mechanism, there's no reasonable defense against these unlocks. And this is just one city.
I wonder how many full time Apple employees would be required to service the steady flow of requests from law enforcement across the world to unlock phones. Hundreds? Thousands? I'm sure they already have law enforcement liaisons, but we're talking a whole other level of commitment in order to essentially create a worldwide law enforcement IT help desk.
Somewhere during the process of industrializing the unlocking of phones, a lot of people are going to start saying it would make sense if Apple would just provide the ability to unlock directly to law enforcement agencies. That would solve the problem of law enforcement heavily burdening Apple with all these requests.
Assuming Apple capitulated to that (presumably forced to capitulate because I doubt Tim Cook would do it willingly), we finally reach the nightmare scenario where access to the unlocker is no longer strictly enforceable and it's only a matter of time to where criminals have it. This is a true Pandora's Box, because there's no patch that will plug this hole.
This is a true slippery slope, in that its progression is all but assured. The only thing capable of stopping it is to have hardware that is incapable of having an unlocker created for it. Hopefully that's where we're at with newer phones, although that seems to not be fully confirmed. It's one thing for law enforcement to make Apple open a lock it has the capability to open. It's another to require that Apple make their product less secure than they otherwise would make it. I don't see that happening through the courts. At the very least, it would require an act of congress, probably followed with a lengthy court battle over the constitionality of such a requirement.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
This argument just doesn't add up to me. 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…
Monday, create a tool for phone A.
Tuesday, delete the tool.
Wednesday, recreate that same tool, but now for phone B.
Thursday, delete the tool.
Friday, recreate that same tool, but now for phone C.
...
What do you think is going to happen? Oh yeah, there's the git logs too.
This is not about one phone. It never was. It's about establishing a behavior.
Also, there's no master key. It does not exist. Apple does not have an "actual master key". Maybe Google does, but Apple has said quite clearly, that no such software or key to decrypt phones exists.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#205Apple should just build their sysyem so that it can not be backdoored. Make the TrustedZone non upgradable or give the signingkey to the use (Smartcard in the package of the phone). User can either keep or destroy the key, as they see fit.
More security for everybody. No backdoors. The FBI can as for speciak version all they want.
To be sure, they could still ask apple for a prober backdoor, but at least they can anker it to a individuel case.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
This argument just doesn't add up to me. 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…
You're thinking of this from the wrong angle. What the FBI is working to build is a legal master key to get information from modern smartphones. It's not difficult to determine this is their objective, as the director of the FBI has asked for as much from Congress.
If you didn't realize that, it's easy to see how you're caught up in the wrong argument.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#207I'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.
> while PRISM still is operating, Facebook and Apple are still cooperating with NSA.
[citation needed]
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they wouldn't just ask Apple.
And they wouldn't be limited to devices in their jurisdiction belonging to the dead or incarcerated. Governments can ask Apple or Microsoft to push updates that copy data to controlled cloud storage accounts. The unwitting target will just unlock their device in their home country like they usually do before the trojan security update starts working.
Yep. Imagine your flight through Asia making an unplanned outage in Thailand and finding yourself in prison as a result of the lese majeste laws[1]. Except instead of it being because of a public Facebook post you made[2] while in another country, it's because of a private text you sent.
[1] This is not an imaginary scenario. [2] This has actually happened.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#209I'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…
Somewhere in the middle, say point W, the image leaks and you wind up with the POTUS phone being tapped by Russia. Or by terrorists. Or a wanna-be POTUS assassin. It's worse than Pandora's box - once we open this box we will never be able to demonstrably prove that attempts to close it have succeeded, just like Ken Thompsons "cc hack"[1]. If and once Apple makes this image every Apple user on the planet, including the government, would be perpetually weary of it.
Basically, lim(consequences) = no guarantees that USA secrets are actually secret. If they can't keep the lid on one employee (Snowden) how on earth could they trust themselves with something this dangerous? 'Z' is inevitable.
The wording/example that Apple used really appeals to the common person, but you need to frame it for the government if you are talking to the government.
[1]: https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
My understanding was that the malformed update would allow them to bypass the 10-attempt limit and also the delays between attempts, allowing a brute force attack. Meaning a device with a sufficiently strong password would still be capable of being secure, barring any secret government technology that we don't know about that can crack 64 character random passwords(which probably does exist). HOWEVER, if I'm not mist…
You're correct. Each attempt takes 80ms as a hardware limitation.