Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by JupiterMoon » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:17 AM UTC

vectorjohn wrote: post #123

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.

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…

> All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it.

(Emphasis added)

Just wondering how they can manage to produce something that will only run on this phone?

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

#212

Post by XorNot » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:17 AM UTC

stephenboyd wrote: post #148

altitudinous wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Foreign countries do not need legal precedent to ask Apple to do things.

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

#213

Post by XorNot » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:20 AM UTC

altitudinous wrote: post #142

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…

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…

This is step by step slippery slope fallacy.

You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or refusals.

Which is why it's a fallacy.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #209

altitudinous wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by Iv » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

Ok, a few question for someone who has been a bit too depressed to follow the latest evolutions since the Snowden revelations:

- If the NSA approached Apple to ask for the same, would it be legal for Apple to talk about it? To refuse it?

- Hasn't the NSA already done that?

- Would the Chinese government allow a non-backdoored iPhone on their market?

I am sorry but I really do not see any reason to believe that Apple's devices are not already rooted to the core. This one FBI issue seems to be a perfect PR occasion.

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

#216

Post by Zarel » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:26 AM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #135

Zarel wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell me about your problems with Dreamhost? I've had minor problems with Dreamhost, but nothing major yet.

They are pretty good with customer support and transparency. It's just that we have hundreds of sites, and about half are on a dedicated server. We asked that it be moved to Portland when they opened up a new datacenter there, but they moved it to Virginia instead - I guess Portland wasn't ready or something. Anyway, our sites were in Virginia and our database was in Portland, and the latency between the two got out…

Yeah, that'd be the "minor problem" I mentioned. Their shared hosting is great for $10/month, but my site eventually grew out of it. Their dedicated servers were out of my price range so I never tried them.

I currently use OVH for dedicated servers. Low prices (starting at $70/mo), unlimited bandwidth use (most other hosts charge for bandwidth above a certain amount), DDoS protection as a standard feature (most hosts just threaten to kick you out when you get DDoSed or make you pay $15,000/mo for DDoS protection), and they've only been down once in the past few years I've used them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10494475

(And they automatically refunded me for that incident; didn't even make me open a support ticket or anything!)

I don't want to sound like a shill but I (and others I know) tried a few hosts before settling on OVH and OVH has just been so much better in every way than any other host I've tried...

On the other hand, if you're looking for a really cheap dedicated server, Oplink has a $35/mo dedicated server: https://www.oplink.net/dedicated.html

I used to use Oplink and still like them, but they were one of those hosts that kicked me off for getting DDoSed (related: if you run a popular game, expect to get DDoSed).

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

#217

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:28 AM UTC

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #196

haberman wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by timr » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:32 AM UTC

aljones wrote: post #133

timr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to." No, there really aren't. From the article: "The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government ser…

but it wasn't a brute force attack those 70 times so how is it the same thing?

This is also a brute force attack. The terrorist had a four-digit passcode. They're going to try 0000-9999 and find the one that works. They just need Apple to disable the software that wipes the device after ten bad passcode attempts.

Everything that you've read about a "backdoor" or a "key" is totally uninformed commentary on the matter. The intarwebz are outraged (outraged!), but they don't even understand the debate.

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

#219

Post by XorNot » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:35 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #158

empressplay wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.

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

#220

Post by tlrobinson » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:35 AM UTC

JupiterMoon wrote: post #211

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…

> All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. (Emphasis added) Just wondering how they can manage to produce something that will only run on this phone?

Easy. Since iOS software must be signed by Apple they could simply hard code a check for a specific device ID, and immediately exit if it doesn't match. Then they sign that specific binary.