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

111–120 of 246 posts

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

#111

Post by oldmanjay »

DanBC wrote: post #107
jonknee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?

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

#112

Post by ysv2 »

DanBC wrote: post #107
jonknee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Companies will always comply with valid warrants for data in their possession, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to do otherwise.

What made this case different was that it was not about a simple warrant for data held by Apple.

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

#113

Post by DanBC »

ysv2 wrote: post #112
DanBC wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Companies will always comply with valid warrants for data in their possession, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to do otherwise. What made this case different was that it was not about a simple warrant for data held by Apple.

Sure, but watch how the message will change from "Company obviously hands over data when given a warrant" to "company doesn't hand over data when given a warrant; they really care about privacy".

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

#114

Post by zaroth »

geekam wrote: post #76

Can someone explain to me why is it wrong (cynical) to think they didn't have this capability all along?

It's not, and they did. What I don't understand why so-called "reporters" are regurgitating the blatant trash from "unnamed FBI sources" as if it's fit to print. I would hope at least to see front page NYT and WP editorials blasting the FBI for their obvious failed attempt here to capitalize on a mass murder for their own legal/policy purposes.

A few weeks ago they couldn't figure out how to unlock the phone, when it's blatantly obvious the security weaknesses of the 5c, and today they suddenly have seen the light but it just needs more testing? Department of Homeland Security has been funding research into NAND-blockers for at least 6 years now.

In a fair and adversarial system, the court would somehow sanction the FBI for their prior sworn testimony that they couldn't do this themselves. But of course when Federal agents lie under oath, it's not a crime, just a misunderstanding.

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

#115

Post by rst »

vectorjohn wrote: post #70
msbarnett wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I 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. It's not that the act is unconstitutional, it's that the interpretation of it that the DoJ has been selling to magistrate judges in ex parte hearings is extremely broad and would never survive appeal. The Supreme Court has made it very…

What powers would you say the AWA grants, then?

The non-controversial part (that even Apple concedes in its briefs) is that the AWA grants courts the power to issue one of several particular forms of writs (court orders) that existed in British Common Law prior to the American Revolution, when it's necessary to do so in service of some other order that the same court has already issued.

The controversial part is what the AWA authorizes (if anything) beyond those pre-existing types of writs. Apple's position was "not much, if anything". The government's was, in effect, "anything not specifically denied by a law passed by Congress" -- which attracted heavy criticism, not only from Apple's lawyers, but also from many highly qualified lawyers who submitted amicus briefs.

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

#116

Post by tux1968 »

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?

Perhaps the FBI has long had an exploit and this is all just an elaborate ruse to make unsuspecting targets feel safe using iPhones. Quite unlikely, but it's in the realm of possibilities.

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

#117

Post by InTheArena »

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…

You seem to be unaware, but just FYI, the strongest justice on this kind of privacy right and limited search and seizure is the one who just died, and the candidate being considered to replace him has a well deserved record of cozying up to law enforcement agencies - in particular in the way that the guy who just died found unconstitutional.

This doens't make sense to me. The FBI wants this precident, and they want it badly. I don't buy for a moment that they would back down here.

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

jsolson wrote: post #57
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…

> The ability to reflash the phone and avoid triggering the unlock erase was a pretty obvious workaround. Or just replace one of the off-chip AHB/AXI devices and inject code via DMA. It won't work beyond the iPhone 5C, but I have yet to come up with a plausible reason why it wouldn't work there.

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by niels_olson »

jacquesm wrote: post #104
philipov wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, in-so-far as any binary decision fails to capture all the nuances, there will be someone who exploits those nuances.
Post reply on HN