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

271–280 of 293 posts

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

#271

Post by sieveoferos »

acqq wrote: post #186

Don't forget, one of the issues is: on which legal basis is Apple requested to help: The question is, is this act (the whole text follows): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act "(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative writ or rul…

I agree there's a legitimate question about the legal basis for the FBI's request. But assume rational behavior on the part of the FBI here: if they had a more solid legal basis for the request, why wouldn't they use it? The fact they didn't provide one implies the key issue in the debate is the extent to which private companies should legally have to provide help for investigations (bear in mind the FBI is fairly budget-constrained). I actually find it difficult to see a lot of malice in the FBI's actions. They've forced a "public" debate (really just within the tech industry, but I think that's the useful definition of "public" for this issue). I think it's disingenuous to complain about national security letters, then turn around and whip the FBI for bringing an issue more into the public consciousness. (I think they've taken advantage of the San Bernardino shootings to force the debate, but that's exactly how you force a debate.) Finally - I see the FBI's behavior as a sign of progress. This isn't the bad old days of Skipjack and NSA backdoors in Official Windows - times have changed, the tech has changed (and improved), but I see the government's behavior on the whole trending toward being more democratic, not less.

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

#272

Post by EdHominem »

tlrobinson wrote: post #220
JupiterMoon wrote: post #211

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.

That isn't really easy.

99% of the phone can be tampered with when running, after the signature is checked at install. They'd need to put that check in the secure enclave to make sure that it wasn't simply bypassed. That might not even be possible on that model.

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

#273

Post by notthegov »

throwawayukcyb wrote: post #81
notthegov wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like you are saying truth is relative. Isn't there one best way to serve the people? Which is by protecting tenets of classical liberalism and natural rights; and ideally promoting and defending these ideas elsewhere to prevent such things as terrorists. I am weary of this idea that no man is wrong except the man who says he is right. The FBI is an institution that was built by a seriously flawed megaloma…

> Isn't there one best way to serve the people? No. Not unless you are omniscient and all-powerful. And even then, still no, because different people are different and want different things. No one is claiming that the FBI is without fault or even that its actual goal is serving the people. But there are plenty of people out there who have a sincerely held -- and in a few cases even informed -- belief that the FBI is…

That's a distortion of what I meant.

So respecting natural rights and popular sovereignty are not the right way to serve people? Your perspective on this was the point of Professor Bloom's book, The Closing of the American Mind.

I don't personally care what ill-informed people who are victims of the American Historical Association think about classical liberalism and human freedom.

The FBI will not exist in the future, solely because it is a threat to human freedom and in a better world, such a powerful authoritarian organization won't be needed.

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

#274

Post by cft »

vehementi wrote: post #263
cft wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

I suppose this was left there to be able to reset the phones to the factory state after 10 wrong attempts to enter the code.

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

#275

Post by acqq »

sieveoferos wrote: post #271
acqq wrote: post #186

Don't forget, one of the issues is: on which legal basis is Apple requested to help: The question is, is this act (the whole text follows): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act "(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative writ or rul…

I agree there's a legitimate question about the legal basis for the FBI's request. But assume rational behavior on the part of the FBI here: if they had a more solid legal basis for the request, why wouldn't they use it? The fact they didn't provide one implies the key issue in the debate is the extent to which private companies should legally have to provide help for investigations (bear in mind the FBI is fairly bu…

> They've forced a "public" debate

Didn't Tim Cook force it this time?

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

#276

Post by tn13 »

Avshalom wrote: post #91
tn13 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think free market has always done a better job of protecting Individual liberties from the government. In fact a lot of Americans take for granted what these profit mongering corporations are doing for them. If this had to happen in China or India the corporations would bend over and grease up because there you wont succeed without government's approval at every step. I really wonder what Apple would do if Chinese…

When has this free market existed? And how has it not been explicitly provided by the government; what markets we've had at various points in history have always been fought for and defended from others by their parent governments.

That is the only job governments are supposed to do. Protect freedom of its subjects from outsiders. You cant credit the Bank's security guard for the wealth that the bank builds.

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

#277

Post by lern_too_spel »

oldmanjay wrote: post #202
lern_too_spel wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the standard build does not have the capability to bypass the lock screen and extract data.

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

#278

Post by aljones »

timr wrote: post #241
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This is not true. Such tools exist, but are not what Apple used. They just extracted data. It wasn't encrypted so that was all they needed to do.

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

#279

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #277
oldmanjay wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get the idea Apple made a special build to extract unencrypted data?

Because the standard build does not have the capability to bypass the lock screen and extract data.

What makes you think such a build has been used before?

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

#280

Post by oldmanjay »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #277
oldmanjay wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get the idea Apple made a special build to extract unencrypted data?

Because the standard build does not have the capability to bypass the lock screen and extract data.

I can't find any statements indicating this required a special build, just normal access to the storage. If you have some citation for this I'd appreciate it.
Post reply on HN