Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#161

Post by pooper » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

idle_zealot wrote: post #152

avn2109 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strikes me as a great opportunity to use the "think of the children" argument against the government. Headlines should read like this: "FBI wants ability to steal dick pics from any iPhone, including children's phones! "

Sure, but that goes both ways. It could easily be said that the FBI needs to be able to look through the phones of predators in order to convict.

I think they're talking something similar to GCHQ's intercept.

For those who are new, previously on hacker news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312212

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#162

Post by odbol_ » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:18 AM UTC

biturd wrote: post #142

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

What about other large semi tech companies. Starting with Tesla, but GE, paypal, Asus, Linksys, Cisco, Sun, Bay Networks, Coca-Cola, IBM, FedEx, Starbucks, Procter and Gamble and all medical HIPAA institutions, schools and Universities, McDonalds, Disney, Pixar, Amex, Visa, MasterCard, Costco, Caterpillar, Target, Nike, UPS, USPS, Exxon, Pepsi, Samsung, AT&T, t_mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Oracle, General Mills, Wells Fa…

I wonder if they could make a case that it violates the HIPAA, since your heartbeat/activity tracker info is on the device? Kind of a weak argument, but HIPAA is a pretty contentious subject.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#163

Post by d0m » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:19 AM UTC

mythz wrote: post #127

d0m wrote: post #120

Couldn't Apple give the data of the terrorist's phone without creating a backdoor? I.e. making it an exceptional case rather than something that could easily be done again and again? To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. I guess it's bad PR from them to say so though. I'm also very surprised at how transparent the FBI is about their incapa…

> To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows electronic brute forcing? Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-…

What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone.

To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to that phone for exceptional reasons? If the FBI wants to get other phones opened, they'd have to get a court order by the law and that would be handled on a case by case basis. Similarly to how the FBI could get a court order to come in my house if they suspect criminal activities?

(Edited for clarity)

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#164

Post by odbol_ » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:26 AM UTC

callmeed wrote: post #146

chishaku wrote: post #138

What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate? Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0] The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement…

Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?

Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until Apple has 0 employees?

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#165

Post by Veratyr » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:29 AM UTC

chishaku wrote: post #138

What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate? Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0] The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement…

I'm not a lawyer but the powers of Federal court are very broad when it comes to contempt:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401

http://www.bafirm.com/publication/federal-contempt-of-court/

From the law: "A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion [contempt of court]"

From the article:

- "While § 401 specifies neither the minimum nor maximum penalty that may be imposed, it does prohibit a federal judge from legally imposing both a fine and a sentence of imprisonment."

- "Although there is no statutory maximum limit regulating the amount of time a contemnor can be ordered to spend in confinement, the requirement that a jury trial be granted in criminal contempt cases involving sentences over six months in jail acts as a check on this power."

- "In turn, Section 2X5.1 states that the court should apply “the most analogous offense guideline.” As a result, a court will be required to make a highly fact-specific inquiry when determining the appropriate punitive sentence. As an example, courts have equated the refusal of a witness to testify with all of the following: Obstruction of Justice; Misprison of Felony; and Failure to Appear by Material Witness."

While the powers of the court aren't unlimited, they could certainly damage Apple to force it to comply, since there's no hard limit on the penalties that can be imposed and Apple continually refusing to comply could justify harsher and harsher penalties.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#166

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:56 AM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #60

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll respo…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#167

Post by mythz » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 3:58 AM UTC

d0m wrote: post #163

mythz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows electronic brute forcing? Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-…

What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone. To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to that phone for exceptional reasons? If the…

> What does that even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me.

Tim's addressing the wider public (i.e. not tech professionals) and explains what he means in context, i.e. its bad software, something they would never write or should ever be forced to write.

> I've got a hard time believing that apple can't crack their own phone.

You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code it was encrypted with?

> do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack, but that would let other phones be crackable in the future?

No, it's been stated a number of times including being written in the Court Order that they can create a new version of iOS without software protections that allows the FBI to brute force the pass code electronically. This is the whole premise of the legal precedent, whether or not the FBI can compel Apple to write software that doesn't yet exist to create a new version of iOS with a backdoor that the FBI can exploit.

But they wont be able to do this with future iPhone's that are hardware protected by the secure enclave.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#168

Post by chflags » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 4:07 AM UTC

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

When what it's really about:

Are remote "software updates" to a buyer's phone, under the sole control of the seller of the phone, at any time (even after purchase), for any reason (e.g. the one being proposed here), a good idea?

Why? Why not?

Should Apple customers be given the option to flash the hardware they purchase from Apple with their own choice of software, whereby they might better control the HW and hence secure it from Apple and other third parties?

Or should Apple have the _exclusive_ right to flash the HW they sell, even _after_ purchase, without the customer's consent? As they do now.

Open hardware. Bad? Good? Necessary?

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#169

Post by regecks » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

odbol_ wrote: post #164

callmeed wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?

Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until Apple has 0 employees?

At some point Apple will act to protect their own employees...

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#170

Post by chakalakasp » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

chflags wrote: post #168

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

When what it's really about: Are remote "software updates" to a buyer's phone, under the sole control of the seller of the phone, at any time (even after purchase), for any reason (e.g. the one being proposed here), a good idea? Why? Why not? Should Apple customers be given the option to flash the hardware they purchase from Apple with their own choice of software, whereby they might better control the HW and hence s…

Heh. Open firmware would not solve this issue. If the firmware were open, the FBI would have already broken into the device. Apple's signing key (or, for the paranoid, the government's unwillingness to admit that they have obtained it through espionage) is primarily what is keeping the FBi's fingers out of the cookie jar.

A better question is how to further lock the phone down in future updates so that Apple can't comply even if they were compelled to, something Apple engineers are no doubt looking into right now. The optimal way would be to require a device to be unlocked to update the firmware, which would require the PIN, which Apple would not have.