There needs to be a constitutional amendment blocking the federal government from this type of business disruption in the future.
U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
101–110 of 246 posts
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#102May? That's rich. They've always had the ability to circumvent the encryption on Farook's phone since day one. They could have made a byte-by-byte copy of the encrypted drive and bruteforced copies over and over. It's just that they prefer to coerce Apple into making it easier for them by making GovtOS.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, I believe that ending a whole pile of legal strategies is the point of that suggestion.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be the end of a whole pile of legal strategies.
Yeah, I believe that ending a whole pile of legal strategies is the point of that suggestion.
I'm all for it. If you bring suit the other party should be allowed to cause you to have to continue if you feel like dropping it. There is some potential for abuse there though, this is not a simple matter.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#105I suspect that the intelligence and law enforcement communities are afraid that if this case goes to the Supreme Court the All Writs Act may be scaled back or ruled unconstitutional. The All Writs Act goes back to 1789 and is used for all sorts of things, like wire tapping, obtaining call and ISP records, etc., and now trying to force Apple to make malware for their own phone. It's definitely a risk for the FBI to fi…
So why did they push it so far? Was it really just a game of chicken where the FBI wanted to stare down Apple?
To set a legal precedent. Sort of a set it and forget it kind of law.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#106There needs to be a constitutional amendment blocking the federal government from this type of business disruption in the future.
This sounds to me like the type of law that appears to solve a problem in this particular case but would open a can of worms in other cases that involve legitimate investigation into faulty business practices.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#107Earlier 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?
It's a game they have never lost before, it doesn't seem so far fetched. Apple pushed back hard .
This one time, this specific case, Apple pushed back. They need to be commended for that, but let's not forget all the other times (and there are very many) when they (and all tech companies) just handed over the data when given a valid warrant.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you prefer that they try to force Apple's hand anyway, even though they might have found another way that makes the issue moot? Yes, very much so. That way we can put this behind us rather than to wait for the inevitable re-run with conditions carefully arranged to be more favorable in order to set precedent.
Their legal reasoning heavily relies on Apple being the only party capable of assisting with unlocking the phone. They are talking about compelling someone, so if there's a possibility that it's not necessary, they have a duty to find out. Also, US courts don't rule on abstract ideas or hypothetical cases. No "case or controversy", no judicial standing. If the FBI can unlock the device without compelling Apple, there…
> Their legal reasoning heavily relies on Apple being the only party capable of assisting with unlocking the phone.
That has been known to be false since day one, as methods of bypassing the reset have long been known that don't require Apple's help. The problem for the FBI is that these methods can't be used on a large scale, or without the targets' knowledge.
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#109One 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?
>Am I missing something obvious? John McAfee did promise to do it for free. /½ s The guy is eccentric but I don't think he's an idiot and I do think he is likely talented, or at least rich enough to hire those who are. That being said - he admits he was full of shit [0] and then claims that he has a proper method that isn't full of shit but which he didn't want to disclose. Chances are he's probably full of shit on t…
In a later statement, McAfee explained that he'd do it in "a half an hour" by finding the location in flash where the passcode is stored. (Never mind that the passcode is used as an encryption key, not as a password.)
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/john-mcafee-better-p...
Re: U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supposedly it's not possible to reflash the phone without the new code being signed by Apple, which is why the FBI needed Apple to do it in the first place.
The GP isn't talking about flashing an unsigned image. They're talking about physically connecting to the NAND flash chip, making a disk image, and then every 9 attempts, resetting the state of the flash back to its initial state. The image as the phone currently exists is already signed by Apple, so no cooperation from Apple is necessary. The major weakness with this model of iPhone is that it keeps the number of fa…
Isn't it pretty possible to mess up this and brick the device though?