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

221–230 of 314 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#221

Post by mtgx »

awongh wrote: post #72
kareemm wrote: post #23

This sounds exactly right. From an article I posted earlier[1]: > In interviews with BuzzFeed News Wednesday, the former officers with the FBI and NSA acknowledged that U.S. intelligence agencies have technology that has been used in past intelligence-gathering operations to break into locked phones. The question, they added, was whether it was worthwhile for the FBI to deploy that technology, rather than setting a p…

This makes a lot of sense since the government could issue an order through FISA and afaik apple would be required to comply with it. The fact that they can resist the order and in a such a public way feels a little bit theatrical, given what we know about how these things work. I wonder how much of what's happening between apple and the fbi / rest of the government is the tip of the iceberg.

FISA should apply only to foreigners' data. That's why it has "Foreign" in its name.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#222

Post by studentrob »

caf wrote: post #197

Here's what I wonder. Suppose Apple loses and tells its engineers to produce this update. What happens if those engineers all refuse? Can they be found individually in contempt of court?

I don't think so. But Apple could face some hefty fines, and they would offer engineers more money to avoid such fines.

If every engineer refused to do it at any price, Apple would cease to exist.

Around 2007-2008, Yahoo faced a $250,000 per day fine for non-compliance with the NSA's Prism program [1], according to documents released in 2014 [2]

Note also that the CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang left his position at the end of 2008, after which time, it seems, they became compliant and the orders stopped.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#223

Post by runholm »

erkkie wrote: post #69
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.

Explain? My locked + encrypted android (nexus 5) did initiate a self-erase after too many failed unlock attempts.

Yes, but it is opt-in and require the user to have the phone fully charged and plugged in for an hour while the process is performed. Few people bother doing it. The encryption hardware in most Android phones is also not as fast as the iPhone, so there is a performance hit by encrypting.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#224

Post by upofadown »

mattlutze wrote: post #168
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 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 compromising the general security of the device? The government already does have access to these citizens' data. That data simply has the quality of having been encrypted. If I have printed encrypted text and lock it in my home safe, when the government gets…

I think a better analogy for this sort of thing is an unknown location. It's like you took some unencrypted text and hid it in a tree in a national forest. Everyone strongly suspects that the unencrypted text existed in the past. It's just that only one person knows how to access that text in the present.

The problem with the locked box analogy is that it implies that the cypertext is in some way equivalent to the plain text. In practice that isn't really true. If you don't have the key you don't actually have the plain text. Nothing says you can't look for it if you want. You could even hire a company to help you look. Can you force a company to look if that search would be against their business interests?

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#225

Post by stormbuilder »

caf wrote: post #197

Here's what I wonder. Suppose Apple loses and tells its engineers to produce this update. What happens if those engineers all refuse? Can they be found individually in contempt of court?

IANAL, but I believe the burden is on Apple, not individual employees.

Apple will have however to show that they are doing their best effort, and so will be forced to fire/transfer them to other positions and hire engineers willing to do the job.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#226

Post by studentrob »

FrankyHollywood wrote: post #188
shkkmo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a ridiculous and misleading argument and Bill Gates should be ashamed of having made it. The difference is that ribbon isn't hard to cut and so the bank wouldn't have to develop a whole new type of scissors to cut it and doing so doesn't weaken the security of a bunch of other bank records secured with similar ribbon.

so if a phone can be cracked in 1 hour it is allowed, but if it takes a month the government can't? this discussion is not about complexity!

Apple isn't an arm of military intelligence. They shouldn't be compelled to act as one, particularly when the task would take a month, yes.

It's not just about time. Part of Apple's product is security. The DOJ is asking them to weaken their product. This could cost Apple their business in the long run as foreign companies enter the fray and offer a secure product that Apple is no longer allowed to produce.

Keep in mind that there's a black market where hacks and exploits for various systems are sold by hackers and bought by intelligence agencies. If this software is created by Apple, there's a chance it could get out there and end up in the wrong hands.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#227

Post by sp332 »

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…

It's not actually his phone. It was his "work phone" and it belongs to the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, who is very willing for the FBI to read the data.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#228

Post by studentrob »

exodust wrote: post #165

Might criminals, paranoids and privacy extremists wishing for their phones never to be cracked, just choose an 11 digit passcode? I hear this would take too long for a computer to crack. Everyone else can choose a 4 digit code, and still enjoy very good security up until the point they are wanted by the FBI. People are confusing the fight for unbreakable encryption with this new fight to keep manufacturer-specific pa…

The question at hand is whether or not the DOJ can use the AWA to compel a company to weaken its product. It's unclear as yet whether the court will consider this too burdensome for Apple, or too expensive for the FBI to be able to reimburse Apple for any costs.

Apple's argument is that this will set a precedent, and the FBI will ask to unlock many phones in the future, possibly even to the point of preventing Apple from creating a phone that is not unlockable. Further, that the creation of the proposed hack will by its very nature put the whole iPhone ecosystem at risk if and when it gets out into the wild. The more requests that the FBI makes, the more people Apple will need to train to service such requests, and the more risk that there is a leak.

The analogy here, although dramatic, would be the atom bomb. Hillary even alluded to the need for a Manhattan-like project to circumvent encryption, although I don't think she thought that would be received as a bad thing.

The FBI's argument is that they're only asking Apple to unlock a single iPhone. The DOJ is unwilling to comment on how many iPhones law enforcement across the country would like to use this on, and defers to local officials to answer that question. They are pretending to focus on this one phone while knowing full well the value of what they're after. They wouldn't call up the AWA for a single phone.

Obama is unwilling to draw up legislation with congress about this issue given the nature of the public's attitude about mass surveillance, particularly during an election year. They're probably terrified this issue would fracture the public vote and then there's no telling who we will elect as the next President. So, they directed the FBI to use the AWA.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#229

Post by apricot »

diskcat wrote: post #167
orionblastar wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you studied history they passed prohibition that banned alcohol. It did not work as bootleggers and gangsters would make their own alcohol and sell it at hidden clubs. Stores would sell fruit juice next to sugar and yeast and all the customer had to do was find a way to mix them to make alcohol. They eventually had to repeal Prohibition. When they banned drugs, they did the same thing. It is prohibition all over a…

Maybe if normals care enough about privacy to make a big deal out of any attempt to breach privacy it would be different. but as it is they just shrug and say "i got nothing to hide" smh

Not just "I got nothing to hide", but "You shouldn't be able to hide anything", which is scarier.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#230

Post by kabdib »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #184
ascorbic wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be difficult to design a law in a Napoleonic system that disallowed that(designing their devices so that it is technically impossible for them to comply), although in the American system I guess it would be possible.

We've come close to this already (mandated Clipper chip). Which would have been a disaster, in many areas.

IIRC, the ITAR rules even prohibited systems that lacked crypto, but that had pluggable APIs which permitted crypto to be added later (e.g., by the end-user). It's hard to see how legislation to the same effect would pass constitutional muster, but it's a gamble, and the administration has little to lose.

Post reply on HN