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

241–250 of 293 posts

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

#241

Post by timr »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #238
timr wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

>this is also a brute force attack The other times weren't though. > they don't even understand the debate Look in a mirror lately?

Yes, they were. Apple installed software which brute-forced a four-digit PIN in those other cases, same as what's being asked here.

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

#242

Post by vectorjohn »

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 employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating.

Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish.

As in, Apple can't make this change and guarantee that nobody else will use it. In the same way that any software change (which they do regularly) could open up a security flaw. That doesn't mean it's likely, or any more likely than any other software update.

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

#243

Post by Falkon1313 »

What I'm not seeing people talk about is whether the FBI should be allowed to force someone to do something unethical, immoral, and/or criminal. Generally speaking, breaking into a system that you aren't authorized to access, or creating and distributing tools that allow other people to do so, is considered 'bad'. Shouldn't Apple have every right to say no, that's wrong, I'm not going to do that?

Governments have ordered people to do bad things before. How do you view those who justified their evil actions with excuses like "I was just following orders" or "just doing my job"? Is it right for our government to put people into that situation -- not just government employees or their targets/adversaries, but neutral 3rd parties?

If a policeman ordered you to do something repulsively bad that would harm your family, friends, and neighbors, would you not want to be able to say no?

That view doesn't require any great technical knowledge of cryptography or hardware/software/etc. Pretty much anyone could understand it. Yet no one seems to be mentioning it.

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

#244

Post by [deleted] »

Bud wrote: post #118
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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by adventured »

Bud wrote: post #122
tbabb wrote: post #23

What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?

The kind where we've allowed the GOP and Roger Ailes' propaganda apparatus to demagogue about terrorism and security for far too long without challenging the lies, and so now we have a population which has been thoroughly groomed to accept this kind of dangerous trespassing on our privacy without objection. So Apple is all we've got left. The top-rank leftists in our politics today—Hillary, Sanders, and Obama—are all…

Failing? No, Hillary and Obama are giddy participants, eager to push forward the exact same agenda you're talking about. They are the political creators after all, directly responsible. Hillary couldn't be more of a hawk and Obama has pushed forward on spying at every opportunity. Ailes? Laughable compared to real political power in DC; Obama is the head of the US military and NSA, he's the one choosing to push the actual programs forward. You might as well try blaming Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, they're sideshow clowns next to real power.

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

#247

Post by vectorjohn »

intrasight wrote: post #154
wildmusings wrote: post #80

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…

Yes, Apple does have a "thing". And the thing is the signing certificates. The fact that some work is involved in using the thing makes no difference. Every demand requires some work. The fact that they're being asked to do thing A instead of thing B to get some outcome seems to be a weird place to draw the line. If it took hundreds of man hours to collect and properly separate out data for a single person to hand over to the FBI as evidence, they would be expected to do it. And they will even be compensated for it.

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

#248

Post by romanovcode »

Iv wrote: post #215

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'…

It's really is a win-win situation for both parties:

Apple gets to be shown as a customer-knight in shining armor defending their customers to the bone.

Government gets to convince public that they don't already have the data.

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

#249

Post by Mikho »

Falkon1313 wrote: post #243

What I'm not seeing people talk about is whether the FBI should be allowed to force someone to do something unethical, immoral, and/or criminal. Generally speaking, breaking into a system that you aren't authorized to access, or creating and distributing tools that allow other people to do so, is considered 'bad'. Shouldn't Apple have every right to say no, that's wrong, I'm not going to do that? Governments have ord…

Actually FBI has device owner permission to access the information. There is nothing immoral here. Immoral here is Apple reaction and time wasting while there could be information to stop next terrorist attack.

The situation is like owner of a device forgetting his code and ask a phone maker to help unlock the device the user owns to get info. FBI does not ask for some backdoor or unique access key. FBI does not ask to get access to unauthorized private information.

FBI ask for Apple to not brick the phone and not erase all information while FBI tries different device locking codes—FBI does not want to crack the encryption. It is not about cracking encryption at all.

In this particular case Apple is doing wrong and it looks like a PR show. It is not about encryption, it is not about backdoor, it is not about universal key to access private information, it is not about surveillance, it is not about privacy, and it is not about unauthorized access. It's about getting to potentially life saving information that FBI has official permission to get from the device owner.

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

#250

Post by vectorjohn »

karmelapple wrote: post #50
pcurve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a complicated topic but we can't just ignore general public that takes on position without realizing its implications. For decades, general public had opposed marijuana, even when half of them have used them before.

Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level. Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place…

A condescending attitude won't go far though.

Not everyone will agree with you, even if you use itty bitty words they can understand. I understand the issue, even when explained in grown up words. And I don't agree.

In this case, Apple already was not "keeping good security practices in place" because they made a weak system. If they had actually made a phone that kept good security practices in place, it wouldn't be possible for them to help the FBI.

They should comply with this and then fix their crap. Then you can worry about explaining the importance of fighting any law that would undermine strong security.

Post reply on HN