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

211–220 of 314 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#211

Post by rlpb »

cturner wrote: post #175
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…

I wonder if there's a way of using software licensing to bypass the issue. Consider this. What if there was a piece of encryption software where the copyright was held in the UK (i.e. not in the US). The key thing about this encryption library: it has a special license. One of its clauses says that it may not be edited, it may only be compiled by clang, may only be distributed in the form that results from a good-fai…

A US court can order Apple to do what it likes inside US jurisdiction, including things that would normally be illegal in the US.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#212

Post by newjersey »

huuu wrote: post #127
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…

We also will wind up (already have) with more smart terrorists who hide data in better places. So the only people who lost are we (again).

As a devil's advocate, couldn't we say the same thing about guns?

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#213

Post by trelltron »

atmosx wrote: post #177
orionblastar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superman vs. Batman, they are making a new movie about that. Superman caused a lot of damage in The Man of Steel movie and many people died as a result of his fight with Zod that ended up with him breaking Zod's neck and killing him. The movie could have gone a different way if he asked his Father's hologram about Zod, and any weaknesses he might have during the 24 hours he had to think over. Then use the craft he ca…

Given the powers these two characters have, Superman would kill Batman while watching a movie with Lois Lein and eating pop-corn - without Lois realising he was gone for a split of a second. ps. Not big on DC/Marvel comics/movies, they're all the same to me but keep some f*cking consistency plz.

Read the post you're replying to plz.

"But anyway Batman always has a plan in taking down any super powered being in case they go rouge or mind controlled. He stores them on his computer and makes technology or finds items that can weaken them or take away their powers."

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#214

Post by mhaymo »

tdsamardzhiev wrote: post #161

"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case" --Bill Gates Have something to say, Bill?

They are asking for 10 particular cases, each of which requires a warrant. The point stands that this is not an incident of mass or unwarranted surveillance.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#215

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Laaw wrote: post #52
wongarsu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the FBI drops a confiscated laptop and the hard drive breaks, can they compel Seagate to recover data from the drive?

Not the same. This is more like if the FBI wanted access to investigate a space murder and demanded Virgin Galactic to build a special shuttle to allow the FBI's equipment to the station, something only Virgin Galactic can do because they're the only ones who have the key to the space station.

and Space Station Technical services had a key to the space station but the FBI ordered them to throw it away some time before contacting Virgin Galactic and saying put people to work building us this special shuttle because otherwise we can't get in.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#216

Post by tobylane »

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…

>a former action arm of the darkside

That one is new to me. What does it mean?

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#217

Post by CPLX »

msbarnett wrote: post #105
newman314 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, also interesting is the fact that Apple originally agreed and it was the judge that suggested for raising an objection...

I think that's a misunderstanding on the part of the author. The judge's initial order was issued ex parte -- meaning the judge issued it to the justice department without Apple lawyers being present to argue against the order. Instead, as it was issued ex parte, the judge invited Apple lawyers to respond to the order after the fact by offering reasons it was an undue burden. Essentially, Apple wasn't there to agree…

Precisely, and it's worth mentioning that ex parte filings are where a lot of dubious things happen, as that format by definition doesn't really have a traditional adversarial format. Civil forfeiture is the other big example.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#218

Post by BuildTheRobots »

awesomepantsm wrote: post #128
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…

>Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? I don't think that's a good question at all. Regardless of the ruling, they aren't going to up and declare encryption illegal. You can't throw a legal requirement at math to stop working.

> You can't throw a legal requirement at math to stop working.

Well, it's not stopped them trying in the past [1] - and we now live in a world where hilariously/terrifyingly certain numbers are just flat out illegal [2]

In my mind, a large part of the problem comes from the fact that the people making these rules not only have no understanding of the underlying science, but they aren't even expected to _try_ and understand it, even at a cursory level.

Which in itself might not actually be so bad, except we've seen examples time and time again (especially in the UK) where ministers feelings or beliefs trump expert opinion and/or hard science [3]

[1] Indiana Pi Bill (an attempt to legislate math): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[2] Illegal Numbers, see also Illegal Primes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

[3] Medical science vs war on drugs, see David Nutt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt

[3a] Current "Snoopers Charter" discussions where industry experts still don't understand what's actually being legislated.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#219

Post by Aissen »

4ad wrote: post #207
Aissen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, Secure Enclave is updateable, even Apple said so.

Do we know what can the software running on the secure enclave do exactly? If the software itself doesn't have access to the master key (a.i. can't read it directly), and if the slow authentication is inherent from running the algorithm on the chip, rather than a having been slowed down artificially, then even an update to the secure enclave would not compromise the security of the system. Do we know exactly what the…

It does not matter for the case at hand, which is FBI wanting to bruteforce the code without 10-try erase.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#220

Post by amatix »

ascorbic wrote: post #148
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 other question is if it's legal for a company to design their devices so that it is technically impossible for them to comply. Is there any practical reason why the secure enclave could not be programmed such that any firmware update to the enclave requires the PIN, and if not it erases the key. That way Apple is still able to make updates to the enclave, but cannot be compelled to bypass security restrictions on…

Pure speculation: I wonder if v2 of the Secure Enclave was going to do just that, but Apple wanted to make sure there weren't glaring software flaws in v1 before they lock themselves out of the chip for good.
Post reply on HN