Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 314 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#91

Post by froo »

jondubois wrote: post #89

What's wrong with the letting the government get access to the phones of a few potential criminals/terrorists?! I don't get what all the fuss is about. I don't fully trust the government, but I trust it far more than I trust Apple. Sometimes I feel like the whole Snowden thing is just an excuse for big corporations to keep all their data and analytics practices to themselves outside of the scrutiny of the government.…

It's not about the government getting access to a tool like this, Apple specifically doesn't want to create a tool that can easily defeat its own security, to then hand over to the FBI. The government has, on numerous occasions, shown it has some pretty horrible practises in securing information, and this kind of tool being let out into the wild is bad for For everyone (not just Apple).

Why risk opening that Pandora's box? If the tool doesn't exist, it can't be exploited by bad actors

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#92

Post by nindalf »

jhardcastle wrote: post #32
cft wrote: post #19

Note how Android unlocking demands never came up in this discussion. That's because the phones are vulnerable. I am a Nexus user.

I'm under the impression that Android devices have had optional full disk encryption[0] for a long time, and that encryption isn't dependent upon cloud synchronization. [0] https://source.android.com/security/encryption/

The plan was to have it enabled by default but that decreased disk performance drastically because of limitations of the encryption hardware. So they scrapped that plan, and its now only an option. Since it was optional, I doubt a majority of users looked at it, let alone enabled it. That's probably why Android doesn't figure in these discussions at all.

Having said that, high-end devices [1] from Marshmallow onward (6.0+) are supposed to have encryption enabled by default, according to the Android Compatibility Definition Document [2] so we'll probably see Android playing a bigger role in the encryption debate in the future. Budget phones are exempt from the requirement.

[1] - For device implementations supporting full-disk encryption and with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) crypto performance above 50MiB/sec

[2] - http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/source.android.com... Full Disk Encryption (section 9.9)

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#93

Post by ktRolster »

edraferi wrote: post #73
jrapdx3 wrote: post #65

The article describes the Justice Dept. doing exactly what has been so widely predicted on HN and elsewhere. Doesn't seem like good timing on the government's part to publicly announce the intention to seek numerous iPhone "unlockings". Rather it plays into Apple's argument about unleashing a torrent of court-ordered demands which will have adverse consequences for security. Legal minds should weigh in, but I'm think…

It makes total sense that the givernment would use it's forensic capabilities whenever the need arises. The question at hand is: "can the All Writs Act compel a company to proactively defeat its own security measures?" The answer will apply to all cases. The more important question is "Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without comprom…

The best way (IMO) is to make it unbreakable, and off by default. Then the people who care about privacy can have it, and the justice department can be happy most of the time.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#94

Post by nickfromseattle »

Between this and the on-going case with Microsoft Ireland, would anyone like to speculate on the impact to US tech companies ability to compete internationally if the US Justice Department wins?

There may not be a foreign equivalent for US companies working on complex or enterprise problems.

Europe is often times the second highest revenue generating region outside of the US for US tech companies. Do European businesses care about this? Would this cause them to adopt a lesser alternative? Does this comply with EU Model Clauses that govern regulated verticals like defense, finance, academia, healthcare, etc?

I am not a lawyer, but I can't imagine the EU Model Clauses would allow for something like this.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#95

Post by stock_toaster »

pcwalton wrote: post #40

> The judge has indicated skepticism over the government’s demands. Initially, Apple agreed to a formal order to help the Justice Department gain access to Mr. Feng’s phone, but Judge Orenstein balked, questioning whether the All Writs Act could be used that way. He invited Apple’s lawyers to raise objections. This is curious, because I was under the impression (due to the lawyers on HN) that this is basically an ope…

from wikipedia[1], apparently there is already quite a bit of existing caselaw for the All Writs Act:

"In the case U.S. v. New York Telephone Co. 434 U.S. 159 (1977), the Supreme Court established a three-factor test for the admissible application of the All Writs Act: the party ordered to perform an action cannot be too far removed from the case, the government's request cannot impose an undue burden on that party, and the party's assistance is necessary."

My guess would be that "undue burden" is probably what the judge is pondering. Possibly "the party's assistance is necessary" (it doesn't say "convenient"!) seems interesting in this case as well, if there are other means to break into the phone (NSA, John McAfee[2]).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act

[2]: https://www.rt.com/news/333326-mcafee-interview-fbi-apple/

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#96

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

jondubois wrote: post #89

What's wrong with the letting the government get access to the phones of a few potential criminals/terrorists?! I don't get what all the fuss is about. I don't fully trust the government, but I trust it far more than I trust Apple. Sometimes I feel like the whole Snowden thing is just an excuse for big corporations to keep all their data and analytics practices to themselves outside of the scrutiny of the government.…

>What's wrong with the letting the government get access to the phones of a few potential criminals/terrorists?!

Not much wrong with the FBI ruining guilty peoples' lives; it's all the innocent people they'll inevitably fuck over.

edit: Not to mention there's no such thing as a "back door for law enforcement only".

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#97

Post by lowpro »

ktRolster wrote: post #93
edraferi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes total sense that the givernment would use it's forensic capabilities whenever the need arises. The question at hand is: "can the All Writs Act compel a company to proactively defeat its own security measures?" The answer will apply to all cases. The more important question is "Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without comprom…

The best way (IMO) is to make it unbreakable, and off by default. Then the people who care about privacy can have it, and the justice department can be happy most of the time.

But does that imply that the technically inept don't deserve privacy, even if they want it? I think it does, and is therefore an unviable solution.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#98

Post by davidw »

Laaw wrote: post #43
merpnderp wrote: post #17

Apple does have a point. I probably won't own a device with a known vulnerability even if it was at the behest of the government.

Do you own a home? Do you own a car? The executive branch can obtain warrants from the judicial branch to "exploit vulnerabilities" and gain access to these "devices".

This is exactly the argument that the 'man on the street' is going to think of. There are reasonable checks and balances in most cases for searching things like houses or wire tapping phones, so people need some good arguments as to why it shouldn't apply to a phone's data as well.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11160748

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#99

Post by jMyles »

arca_vorago wrote: post #79

Here is my take on the recent apple vs justice saga: Being the cynical fuck I am, a former action arm of the darkside, I have been telling friends and family for years that they should assume anything with a cellular modem in it is potentially comprimised by a nation state or above actor (yes, "above" nation state exists... Its called the deep state you fool). I automatically assume that such publicity is actually cl…

> Its called the deep state you fool

You... that's where you lost me.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#100

Post by ubernostrum »

vectorjohn wrote: post #85
ubernostrum wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal question here is really whether the All Writs Act can be used to compel development of new products with specific features law enforcement desires, because that's what it boils down to: they want a custom iOS build with custom security-bypass features that can be loaded onto any phone they want to snoop into. And when framed like that -- government ordering a private company, without negotiation or contract…

How is it different than getting a phone company to install a wire tap? What you describe is not what's being asked for. What the FBI wants is a tool to get into this phone. They will definitely want to get into more phones in the future, but that's not the same as a single tool that gets into any phone. It can be a new one every time. If it wasn't possible to make such a tool, I'd be a lot more outraged. But it is.…

The difference is that tools and equipment for wiretaps already exist. Tools that bypass the security features of more recent versions of iOS don't. Hence the FBI's desired insecureOS would be a new product, developed under compulsion from the FBI and the courts.
Post reply on HN