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

121–130 of 246 posts

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

#121

Post by ChuckMcM »

Angostura wrote: post #54
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. Could you explain that a little for me?

It was discussed in detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11248320 but the TL;DR version, you desolder the NAND flash component (its holding all the secrets) and you copy the contents out. Then you attempt to unlock the phone 9 times, then recopy the contents of the NAND flash chip back into the chip, and do that again, and again. Until the phone unlocks and you have a look around.

Is it possible to screw that up and lose everything? Sure. Would they? No. Could you just send the data from the NAND flash to the NSA and have them brute force it? Maybe. Could you compel Apple to give you a copy of the source code to IOS so that you could write a simulator for yourself? Probably.

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

#122

Post by msmith »

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?

It doesn't even have to be an undisclosed vulnerability.

iOS 9.3 was released today and included several fixes to vulnerabilities which allowed arbitrary code execution, including one with "kernel privileges" [1]

Now that these vulns are out in the open, maybe someone has offered to help the FBI use them to gain access to the phone.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206166

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

#123

Post by ChuckMcM »

InTheArena wrote: post #117
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 i…

I am aware.

   > The FBI wants this precedent, and they want 
   > it badly. I don't buy for a moment that they 
   > would back down here.
They do, they are also very cognizant of the ramifications if their motion is overturned. There is a constant calculus that goes on weighing the odds. It is very common to withdraw when that calculus indicates a possible loss.

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

#124

Post by kabdib »

panarky wrote: post #51
nostromo wrote: post #27

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. 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…

This needs to be decided once and for all. A savvy judge would not allow the Department of Justice to cancel the hearing just to avoid setting a precedent.

It's a procedural thing, not really up to the judge.

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

#125

Post by wool_gather »

rewrew wrote: post #62
nostromo wrote: post #27

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. 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…

Last week the former US "cyber czar" Richard Clarke called the FBI out directly for doing it solely for legal precedent, and stated that virtually no one even in the gov't were on their side: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/former-cyber-czar... >>Clarke noted that Comey and the Justice Department were not getting support in their case from the defense and intelligence communities. "The Justice Department a…

I find it more likely that this is simply a tactical decision: they already knew about this "new method", and were holding it in reserve so that they could cancel the proceedings if necessary (i.e., if Apple put up too much of a fight). They will keep trying until they get the precedent.

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

#127

Post by adventured »

abecedarius wrote: post #75
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."

"Heads I win, tails we flip again" -- how can we counter this? How does it become a game they can lose?

For one, you have to try to go after the All Writs Act.

If I were Apple, I'd deploy a billion dollars and buy everyone in DC as necessary. Not exaggerating. Defense contractors, conglomerates, energy companies, etc. spend in the mere millions to get their way on things. Apple should purchase the entire Congress, aggressively, and destroy the All Writs Act as far as this type of situation is concerned, and push for favorable legislation that resolves the broader context of encryption and warrants in a rational way to preempt the FBI's next attempts.

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

#128

Post by uxp »

DanBC wrote: post #113
ysv2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

What is the alternative available to Apple, or any other technology company, when given a valid warrant for someone's data that isn't blatantly ignoring the law? I'm honestly not sure what you are suggesting.

Apple has already given them Farook's iCloud backups, just not recent ones since they don't exist. If Alice was murdered, and Bob was circumstantially implicated, but had an iPhone that had some kind of data recorded that placed him at the time and location of the murder, what law exists for Apple to protect Bob's data if that data was uploaded to Apple for backup purposes?

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

#129

Post by hellbanner »

I just want to point out that lots of HN recently has been saying "Apple would NEVER deal with the FBI, there's too much risk of a leak!".. and yet, with the example of what happened to Manning, Snowden (ETC) -- would you, with a 6 figure salary, want to tell the world of misdeeds when you could toil away comfortably?

"So obvious no one will ever notice"

Apple removed their warrant canary about a year ago timed with press releases about "revamping their privacy policy for better security and user happiness" and a bunch of marketing bullshit. What I saw was the guarantees that they had done everything they could to protect your data was gone, replaced by "we'll follow the law" AKA they will screw you over willingly if they need to.

---

Also, the FBI is NOT dumb. "Poor legal council" was mentioned in this thread. With their budget, why would you not assume they have Grade AAA legal council?

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11332377

Post reply on HN