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

221–230 of 246 posts

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

#221

Post by wahsd »

Let's realize something here that I can attest to being 100% correct; the US government is abysmally behind the curve ball on anything and all things technology. I really even hate stating that because we are operating on a kind of inertial perception of America's cyber might that partially was conjured through movies and perception, but reality is that we are really bad off. We're not just behind the curve ball, we're on a short bus trying to figure out how to get to the damn ballpark.

The problem is a systemic one too, a lack of actual leadership, a personnel problem if you will.

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

#222

Post by criddell »

jacquesm wrote: post #99
wfunction wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the start of this Apple-FBI episode, didn't Apple initially ask the FBI to submit their request for unlocking software under seal? Doesn't that imply that Apple was willing to assist? Why else would Apple want to keep the request secret?

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

#223

Post by dekhn »

philipov wrote: post #103
jacquesm wrote: post #98

Earlier 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.

Yes, but it would probably also cause a bunch of other problems.

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

#224

Post by dekhn »

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.

In this case, moving party didn't drop it so much as stall for time. But, the judge also stayed the order that Apple had to help the FBI which telegraphs her intent. I think the FBI knows it lost this round and needs to find a face-saving way to get out of it.

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

#225

Post by Klathmon »

xxs wrote: post #184
mikeash wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they're willing to consider attacking the hardware now. If you desolder the flash memory then you can bypass the brute force limitations. Just block writes, or equivalently back up the contents and reload them, and the device has no way of knowing that you previously tried any passcodes. This will allow you to make perhaps 2-5 attempts per minute, which worst case will take three or four days to brute force a f…

replacing the flash w/ an FPGA would remove the need to solder/replace (or even restore).

hell pulling ground on the flash's write-block pin might even do it.

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

#226

Post by ascagnel_ »

criddell wrote: post #222
jacquesm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the start of this Apple-FBI episode, didn't Apple initially ask the FBI to submit their request for unlocking software under seal? Doesn't that imply that Apple was willing to assist? Why else would Apple want to keep the request secret?

Apple said they would assist in unlocking the phone, not the software, under seal. Apple very well could have said they would not modify the software, prompting the FBI to go public and take the fight to the court of public opinion.

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

#227

Post by criddell »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #226
criddell wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the start of this Apple-FBI episode, didn't Apple initially ask the FBI to submit their request for unlocking software under seal? Doesn't that imply that Apple was willing to assist? Why else would Apple want to keep the request secret?

Apple said they would assist in unlocking the phone, not the software, under seal. Apple very well could have said they would not modify the software, prompting the FBI to go public and take the fight to the court of public opinion.

Why would Apple want that under seal?

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

#228

Post by zepto »

DanBC wrote: post #199
uxp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rec…

Apple got a valid warrant here! But they fought back against this one. I'm not saying they're wrong to obey court orders. I'm saying that people will be saying that Apple fight against court orders when in fact they don't usually fight the court orders. They normally give out the information.

No - in this case it was clear to Apple that the warrant was not legal, which is why they chose to fight.

When warrants are clearly legal, there is nothing they can do to fight them.

They only give out the information they are legally forced to do, and are doing everything in their legal and technical power to reduce that as much as possible.

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

#229

Post by rmc »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #218
rmc wrote: post #185

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. Remember, the requirement for a warrent doesn't apply to non-US persons outside the USA. Us europeans have no protection from the 4th amendment for data held in US servers. And in fact, the US gov is trying to claim we don't have protection if it's held in a non-US server run by…

The XIV amendment says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which sounds like all people should have the same protection from unlawful searches ... as I'm a conditional law novice can someone briefly outline why this doesn't stand, what removed the protections for "all peopl…

This could be a good starting point for research: A 2015 study from the European Parliament - "The US legal system on data protection in the field of law enforcement. Safeguards, rights and remedies for EU citizens"[1]

Specifically it says:

> With regard to EU citizens, the [US] Supreme Court has held that foreign citizens resident abroad are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

It appears to be based on this Supreme Court case[2]: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/51921... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...

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

#230

Post by scott00 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #218
rmc wrote: post #185

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. Remember, the requirement for a warrent doesn't apply to non-US persons outside the USA. Us europeans have no protection from the 4th amendment for data held in US servers. And in fact, the US gov is trying to claim we don't have protection if it's held in a non-US server run by…

The XIV amendment says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which sounds like all people should have the same protection from unlawful searches ... as I'm a conditional law novice can someone briefly outline why this doesn't stand, what removed the protections for "all peopl…

The 14th amendment is not relevant to actions taken by the FBI. It's an arm of the federal government, and the 14th amendment serves mostly to clarify that state governments (in addition to the federal government) must refrain from violating rights granted to US citizens through the constitution.

However, the FBI must abide by the 4th amendment, which specifies that warrants are needed for searches. The issue of whether data of foreigners located on US soil is subject to warrant-less search/inspection is a matter of interpreting the 4th amendment.

Post reply on HN