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

U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 246 posts

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#91

Post by Balgair »

georgespencer wrote: post #3

One of three things is true: 1. The FBI is lying to save face, 2. Someone -- but probably needs to be some people -- from Apple is willing to help them, 3. There is an undisclosed vulnerability in iOS which Apple is unaware of. I find it really hard to believe that someone would disclose a zero day exploit to the FBI without charging significant $ for it. Am I missing something obvious?

Hanlon's Razor: "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice"

The possibility that the Bureau is just plain dumb is not on your list. They are on record, many times, and in front ofa very serious congress, being very very stupid. Though I do not believe they are being stupid here, the possibility is not an edge case and should be considered.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#92

Post by Bluestrike2 »

RichieAHB wrote: post #9
georgespencer wrote: post #3

One of three things is true: 1. The FBI is lying to save face, 2. Someone -- but probably needs to be some people -- from Apple is willing to help them, 3. There is an undisclosed vulnerability in iOS which Apple is unaware of. I find it really hard to believe that someone would disclose a zero day exploit to the FBI without charging significant $ for it. Am I missing something obvious?

4. They don't want to allow precedents to be set that aren't the precedents they were looking for.

The issue was never that the magistrate judge would be setting the precedent. No matter who prevailed, there is going to be an appeal and that's when precedent would be set. Even at that point, a negative ruling wouldn't necessarily be an insurmountable problem for the FBI as it wouldn't be binding until the issue has been decided by higher authority. It could still be cited as an example of persuasive authority (i.e. something other courts may follow) before then, but that's not the same as being binding.

So the FBI would have a lot of time before they had to worry about the consequences of a negative ruling, and they could drop the matter well before any precedent was set. Apple is in a trickier situation, in that once they've done the work, it becomes more likely that they'll face additional demands in other courts, or--and this is the worst case scenario--a few boneheaded legislators try to pass legislation on this issue. They've got a lot less room to work in, so if they could make this go away in front of a district magistrate without ever having to worry about setting any precedent (even if in their favor), they probably would.

0. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/le...

1. http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive...

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#94

Post by jamespo »

Johnny555 wrote: post #26
valine wrote: post #18

So basically they're saying, "This isn't going according to plan. Let's wait for another opportunity and try again."

And lets screw over Apple by claiming that we can crack the phone after Apple claims that no one can. We'll never have to prove it, so we win, Apple loses.

Nah, now everyone knows if they want security they need to upgrade to the latest iphone. Win-win for Apple.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#95

Post by notatoad »

cageface wrote: post #61
ChuckMcM wrote: post #45

I suspect this is a "Strategic Retreat" on the Justice department. The ability to reflash the phone and avoid triggering the unlock erase was a pretty obvious workaround. So after investing a lot of time and money in trying to get case law to expand the DoJ's power over corporations to conscript them into the War on the 4th Amendment, it become possible that they would see a judgement against them (especially if the…

especially if the Supreme court becomes more liberal with the next appointment This is the only thing I'm not so sure about. This issue doesn't seem to divide neatly along liberal/conservative lines.

Specifically, the current appointee has a history of siding with the DEA.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#97

Post by a3n »

TillE wrote: post #23
bcook wrote: post #12

They could just contact geohot... In some ways I suspect that the FBI's arguments are a smoke-screen to keep us from talking about the fact that unknown 0-days exist and perhaps the NSA even has a few.

It's not a very good smoke screen, since the most probable interpretation of the filing is that the NSA has an exploit. At least one security expert reported they were rebuffed by the FBI when they offered to help, so I seriously doubt the "outside party" is outside the government.

> It's not a very good smoke screen, since the most probable interpretation of the filing is that the NSA has an exploit.

I've wondered if the NSA already had the phone cracked, and Apple's help was just parallel construction to not reveal capabilities.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#98

Post by jacquesm »

themartorana wrote: post #85
digitalchaos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The government is the moving party. If the moving party drops it, the court drops it.

Boo. IANAL so I can't quite see where the harm may lie in requiring the "moving party" to see through what they started (if the defending party wants it, of course).

That would be the end of a whole pile of legal strategies.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#99

Post by jacquesm »

wfunction wrote: post #58
r00fus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why did they push it so far? Was it really just a game of chicken where the FBI wanted to stare down Apple?

Would it be foolish to think they struck some kind of behind-the-doors deal with Apple?

Yes because it would open Apple up to someone leaking the details of that deal. After the stand Tim Cook took that would not go down well.

Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone

#100

Post by charonn0 »

digitalchaos wrote: post #73
themartorana wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly got a clue they weren't going to win - so can Apple now do anything to push the case forward for judgement?

No. The government is the moving party. If the moving party drops it, the court drops it.

Couldn't they seek something like a declaratory judgement?
Post reply on HN