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

171–180 of 246 posts

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

#171

Post by devsquid »

Nadya wrote: post #4
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?

>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…

McAfee is a confirmed idiot man. He's just rich, so people admire him for some dumb reason.

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

#172

Post by trill1 »

studentrob wrote: post #170
trill1 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the big tech companies had an inside look at the growing surveillance state far before the average citizen did. I think an argument can be made that the should have done more to inform the public.

Are you suggesting they go out of business like Lavabit? That is the stand you're taking when you disobey orders to keep government requests secret. And, I'm not sure a large corporation has that option. How could shareholders accept a fine for which they're not permitted to know the details? Remember when Snowden first revealed the Prism program? All the tech companies issued similar statements saying they want to t…

I'm only suggesting that Apple and others could have taken a stand in favor of privacy much earlier, and that their decision to do so now likely has more to do with their bottom line than any genuine concern for public welfare. BTW, hi Rob! You know me from the PPUA :)

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

#173

Post by mgalka »

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…

Hilarious. Since when does the FBI announce when it finds a new vulnerability to exploit?

It's up against the biggest companies in the world, the US public, and the international community. And now it's backing down with its tail btw its legs, and telling a silly story to save face.

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

#174

Post by willvarfar »

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.

Surely it will come out in court if they couldn't crack the phone after all?

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

#176

Post by kristopolous »

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…

Also, the FBI would have to be able to sell something (their story) better than ... Apple Computer Inc.

If you are in the game of trying to sell something better than Apple, you better have a pack of actual wizards casting spells on your side ala Bewitched.

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

#177

Post by brisance »

rst wrote: post #115
vectorjohn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

But the FBI reports to Obama and Obama being an ex-law professor surely would've told them that their plan would be doomed to failure. Unless Obama wanted them to fail…?

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

#178

Post by danenania »

oldmanjay wrote: post #111
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.

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?

At a certain point, civil disobedience becomes a moral responsibility.

Plus, extremely large and powerful companies do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. You aren't going to see the government risk serious economic damage just to enforce some laws. Wall Street is a case in point. When huge companies decide whether to fight unjust laws or acquiesce, their choices have a major impact on the political equation.

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

#179

Post by studentrob »

trill1 wrote: post #172
studentrob wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting they go out of business like Lavabit? That is the stand you're taking when you disobey orders to keep government requests secret. And, I'm not sure a large corporation has that option. How could shareholders accept a fine for which they're not permitted to know the details? Remember when Snowden first revealed the Prism program? All the tech companies issued similar statements saying they want to t…

I'm only suggesting that Apple and others could have taken a stand in favor of privacy much earlier, and that their decision to do so now likely has more to do with their bottom line than any genuine concern for public welfare. BTW, hi Rob! You know me from the PPUA :)

Hi! =). Apple is free to design products as they wish, right? If their products still have security issues, the tech community will call them out on that. I bet the public will pay more attention to such critiques on Apple's security now too.

My understanding is people who are serious about security do not currently depend on Apple. Those folks use open source software and build it themselves. That said, I'm still interested in defending Apple's position (and not necessarily Apple) because I want our government to understand how to maintain public safety. Relying on access to people's phones, going forward, is not the right way to do that. You could argue that I am advocating privacy, but I'd say I am more in support of security.

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

#180

Post by baldajan »

What's interesting about this case is, when it started, the sides were split 50/50 between Apple and the FBI. But as time went on, and Apple's PR, legal, and executive machine spoke and educated more people on the issue, the side tipped towards Apple.

Then the congressional hearing happened, where Issa (R - Calirfornia) knew more about the technical details of the phone than Commey. Given that Commey didn't bring a technical aide with him, and him saying things like 'this software would be obsolete because of newer iPhones, and wouldn't work on the 6 and 6S' were completely false and hard to imagine were made with merely negligence (i.e. He was very clearly lying).

And after all that, and the FBI and DOJ PR machine trying to fight back, it became clear that media was starting to side with Apple (Morning Joe on MSNBC is a perfect example of what a 2-3 week time span can do to an opinion).

I even suspect the Judge would have also sided with Apple and the FBI would be fighting for the appeal, and they would have known that. It's smart for the FBI to drop the case, but timing + intentions to bring up the case in the first place were scummy.

Let's remember that Commey, the director of the FBI, was a NY prosecutor. Given that the current NY prosecutor wanted to unlock phones with ease (as they don't have the resources of the FBI and access to the NSA), Commey was "simply" trying to help a friend by deceiving the public and forcing Apple to do something it didn't want to, that Apple knew it shouldn't. It simply wasn't worth the fight, and I do believe it put the FBI in their place, as even a terror attack couldn't even get them the mandate they sought. This is likely not the end, and the FBI knows that any company that has the reach they need will likely set a precedent against them, so it'll be interesting to see what they do next.

All in all, what the FBI got out of this mess: making a whole lot of devices and services more secure.

Post reply on HN