Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#101

Post by snowwrestler »

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point.

Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill.

We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a reflection of our cultural values--today--which we continually discuss and reinforce.

We could abolish the EPA, or the IRS, or the NSA. We don't because these have enough supporters who value what they do, today. The 2nd Amendment remains strong today because millions of Americans work every day to keep it that way.

So, the long-term solution for strong encryption must be a cultural one. We have to be prepared to fight the crypto wars forever, like unions are still fighting the labor wars a century later. Like civil rights activists are fighting racism even today--and will be for the foreseeable future.

Is that depressing? Not to me; I find it inspiring, much better than a world in which government decisions are truly final. Beware that level of power IMO.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#102

Post by anigbrowl »

bradhe wrote: post #13

This claim seems dubious at best. There's no proof that they got access, and it's in their best interest to claim they did. On one hand, I'm not totally sure we should assume that they're not capable of gaining access to iPhones willy-nilly. On the other hand, I'm re-evaluating my security posture...

Well if they got access and there is any data that helps them bring prosecutions (eg against the neighbor who;s charged with helping the alleged terrorists) they'll have to say where that evidence originated.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#103

Post by GraemeLion »

pavornyoh wrote: post #90
GraemeLion wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The government does not have to disclose investigative techniques. If Apple wanted to help the government, they could have, but they chose not to take that tact. Expecting the government to help Apple now is folly.

What about Cellebrite thus www.cellebrite.com. This article seems to suggest it is them - http://gizmodo.com/the-company-helping-unlock-the-san-bernar...

Why would the company used have any responsbility? Remember, the phone is owned by San Bernadino county. They wanted it cracked. The holder was the San Bernadino Sherrifs', they want it cracked. The FBI wants it cracked. The judge issued a warrant covering the data on it, and then the all writs act compelling companies to assist if they can.

Apple could not.

Cellebrite could.

I get what you're saying, but this is having your cake and eating it too. Apple chose not to assist. The FBI found someone who could. Why would that company then have to disclose to, basically, a third party (even a third party inventor of the phone) their standard work product and trade secrets?

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#104

Post by downandout »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #98
downandout wrote: post #15

I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…

The hearing was before a federal magistrate judge and was largely administrative. Binding precedent wouldn't have been set until the case hit a higher court on appeal (which would have been inevitable regardless of who won as both sides had significant incentives for appeal). The DOJ could have dropped the case at any point before then to avoid an undesirable precedent. Until that point, a negative ruling wouldn't ha…

>a negative ruling wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem

It was setting them up for a precedent-setting legal decision in a higher court that may very well have not gone the government's way.

>they couldn't proceed without lying to the court

You're assuming that this mysterious third party that showed up the day before the initial hearing with a method to crack the phone actually exists, and that this method was successful. That is certainly a possibility, but it is also possible that they never intended to see this through and hoped that they could intimidate Apple into doing exactly what they wanted.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#106

Post by mikeash »

airza wrote: post #69
cmurf wrote: post #52

Who wants to take bets on how? My bet is they copied the flash, and are iterating passcode guesses until it slows down too much (or implodes, however it's configured) and then they reflash and iterate again. And it was only a 4 digit passcode, so it was pretty easy to do this. The next bet is whether they find anything relevant? My bet is no. Next bet after that is whether they admit it? My bet is they won't. But the…

that's not how the security enclave works as far as i know, you can't copy that part off and so you can't copy off + bruteforce the drive?

The secure enclave doesn't have separate storage, so even if this phone had one, the attack would still work.

I'd wager that this will no longer be true in the iPhone 7.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#108

Post by JustSomeNobody »

adriancooney wrote: post #2

Congratulations Apple and encryption. A precedent has be set. The FBI can't just bully companies into complying with their requests. Hopefully companies in future will have the integrity and courage to stand up like Apple did.

I'm not so sure the results are as you say.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#109

Post by Someone »

downandout wrote: post #15

I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…

As to the possible lying, English isn't my native tongue, but I found the use of the phrase "without compromising any information on the phone" in this statement:

“Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” Eileen Decker, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

at least curious. Googling "no data was compromised" gives me only links that use that in the meaning "third parties did not get access to the data".

So, if that really is what Eileen Decker said, what exactly did she mean?

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#110

Post by syshax »

snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

>We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that.

Actually, I think this is the genius of the amendment system.

You are correct that it could happen. But unlike laws that can be passed or revoked by Congress by political whim, the barrier to creating or overturning Constitutional amendments is much higher and more difficult to pass.

Post reply on HN