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

261–270 of 293 posts

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

#261

Post by Angostura »

XorNot wrote: post #213
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…

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.

Alternatively, it may be an example of an actual slippery slope - and therefore not a fallacy.

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

#262

Post by vehementi »

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…

> So no, Apple should absolutely not destroy the security of hundreds of millions of individuals

Wait, how did you get to that point?

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

#263

Post by vehementi »

cft wrote: post #152
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…

Theoretical question: can the FBI create the modified OS without Apple, and simply command Apple to sign it with Apple's private key, so that it can be installed on this phone without entering the passcode? Granted without the source code it would be quite difficult, but in theory, is signing the software with Apple's bootloader private key which is the same for each class of phones the only thing required?

Yes that would be possible.

It's weird to me that the phone will accept updates while locked...

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

#264

Post by vehementi »

citizensixteen wrote: post #237
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…

>I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. If the government hacks the iPhone themselves, they don't get the legal precedent they are so desperate to establish in this case. This paves the way for legislation that forces technology companies to install backdoors in software/hardware. This case is not about the data on the phone itself, the government…

The government is not capable of hacking the phone themselves.

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

#265

Post by mr_luc »

vectorjohn wrote: post #225
mr_luc wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious changes.

That's just silly. The "pedestal," as you call it, that they're defending is a non-insane interpretation of writs.

If the government wants to go past that, pass a law, and hope it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution.

For instance, there's also a law that compels telecom providers to give the government cooperation in installing monitoring equipment in their pipes. But that's an exceptional situation, which is why they had to pass an additional law: it does not just follow from All Writs.

It'd be the same if Apple was building a sewer system:

---

FBI: "Hey, company building a sewer system!"

Apple: Hi.

FBI: "We have an ongoing investigation, and need your cooperation."

Apple: Rock on. I'll comply with the law! I have access to the system at all of these points. If you need access to that, just ask.

FBI: "No, we need access to a specific toilet bowl in a specific house."

Apple: ... I don't have access to that. They haven't flushed it; it's still in their house.

FBI: "Yeah, but you designed the system. So to comply with our request for information, we need you to come up with an easy way for us to break the system."

Apple: Break it how? Gee, FBI, this sounds a lot more involved than just giving you access to some information.

FBI: "No, this is just like turning over some papers. Now, we need your engineers to drop everything and immediately come up with a foolproof way of suddenly, and violently, reversing the flow and pressure of any arbitrary customer's toilet so that we can use it to propel an FBI Fecal Trawler drone into their house."

Apple: Whoa. You're asking us to develop, for you, a massive new operational capability. But there's not a law that compels us to suddenly spend our time being FBI contractors! Also, if we develop this the way you are asking us, that means many of our engineers will be working on, and learn how to, turn our toilet connections literally into deadly weapons! That's just ... gross, and immoral! And probably a breach of our duty to our customers!

FBI: No. It's law. Turn over our writs.

Apple: This is insane. You got laws passed to make telecom companies do this kind of thing -- I'm sorry, but until you get a similar law passed, and have to take it before the public in the way that will entail, I really think this is government overreach! ... Why are you even talking to me about this? Go in through the front door or something.

FBI: We threw the key away.

---

And yet the reporting on this story continues to be "Oh, Apple, why you can't be like those good nerds on who know how to help their country?"

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

#266

Post by vehementi »

noelsusman wrote: post #121
AlexanderRB wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't any fool proof way to single out this device from any other. There are certainly ways they could try and build something that relied on checking the serial number, or something of the like reported by the hardware. But then someone could just build a hardware level hack, to make any other device report it's serial number as if it was this phone.

Surely there must be a way to securely identify an iPhone by more than just its serial number. If that's not the case then isn't that a security issue on its own?

Not if nothing really relies on that serial number, right?

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

#267

Post by sieveoferos »

rodgerd wrote: post #208
stephenboyd wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe you, but cite please

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

#268

Post by vehementi »

yyyuuu wrote: post #228

I really wonder sometimes about the great gap there lies between the problems that we face in third world v/s the problems that are faced by people in first world countries. 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 FB…

Yeah, but you probably don't want to advance and arrive at the first world (forgive my butchering) to find that we've fucked it all up

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

#269

Post by tlrobinson »

chopin wrote: post #258
tlrobinson wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that hard? Just make the very first thing executed a check for the specific device ID and crash immediately if it doesn't match. Since the code is signed the check can't be removed or changed.

How would you do the check? One must ensure that the ID can't be spoofed on the way to the code. This would only be the case with very special hardware. AFAIK this isn't the case here.

The UID is fused into the processor itself: https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/UID_key.

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

#270

Post by noelsusman »

wfo wrote: post #189
noelsusman wrote: post #103

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…

There is a way in but it's a lot of work. They have to create a new weird custom build of an OS with modifications and try to ensure it only works on a specific device (and that the code that makes it work on one specific device and not others can't be circumvented). To do it once? Sure. For San Bernadino terroists? Sure. But there are hordes of prosecutors across the country who have already reported in that they ha…

Correct me if I'm wrong but Apple would be allowed to charge law enforcement a reasonable fee for the service, right?
Post reply on HN