221–230 of 293 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
The problem with that thinking is that there is no firm definition of the "Good Guys", and the guys you think are good today, may not be so good tomorrow. > 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.
I believe they were just sloppy:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-pa...
"San Bernardino Shooter's iCloud Password Changed While iPhone was in Government Possession"
The information wasn't "awfully" secured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The only difference is that this time the software they install would also have to turn off the delete-after-ten-attempts thing.
(You're probably having a hard time with this because the debate sounds absoultely ridiculous when the facts are laid out plainly. Totally understandable. The technical debate is absolutely ridiculous. The legal debate is the only one that matters, but it's not technical at all.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
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…
Foreign countries do not need legal precedent to ask Apple to do things.
With regards to international politics, if the USA can demand that Apple unlocks devices for any reason, then the US government will have a hard time defending a decision to aid Apple in resisting a foreign power when it requests the same broad privilege.
Can somebody explain to me why Apple couldn't create this exploited OS and restrict it to only run on the specific device in question? If that's the case, then they could post the source code on Github and it wouldn't make any difference. Modifying the code to remove the device restrictions would invalidate the signature and any iPhone would refuse to run it. Isn't that the whole point of code signing? I'm finding it…
Apple has explicitly stated they can do what is asked at every opportunity. You ever been responsible for writing secure software? It isn't easy. Locking it down to a single device is in principle possible. No one wants to be responsible for really doing it though if they can avoid it. Especially not when it is obvious this is not a one time thing. Not at all. You think every device manufacturer can do it without err…
Here in Delhi, and even more so in rural parts of India, connectivity to services like internet,banking,healthcare etc. is still a luxury for the majority. Most people here wouldn't even understand this hot issue of iPhone unlocking request by FBI.
When I see folks on HN, indulge passionately in discussing the most minute detail of this Apple issue, I really wonder how long would it take for my country (or for that matter, the majority of the world population that still lives in poverty and distress) to come to a stage where we can start thinking about the next basic right that comes once you have achieved the food, water, shelter part of life, that being privacy.
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...
That's unsurprising. Didn't Snowden say AT&T was always willing to help the NSA? 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.
> 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.