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

Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 261 posts

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#181

Post by parenthephobia »

chakalakasp wrote: post #170
chflags wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When what it's really about: Are remote "software updates" to a buyer's phone, under the sole control of the seller of the phone, at any time (even after purchase), for any reason (e.g. the one being proposed here), a good idea? Why? Why not? Should Apple customers be given the option to flash the hardware they purchase from Apple with their own choice of software, whereby they might better control the HW and hence s…

Heh. Open firmware would not solve this issue. If the firmware were open, the FBI would have already broken into the device. Apple's signing key (or, for the paranoid, the government's unwillingness to admit that they have obtained it through espionage) is primarily what is keeping the FBi's fingers out of the cookie jar. A better question is how to further lock the phone down in future updates so that Apple can't co…

Open doesn't mean it's an unlocked door.

Open means that the owner of the device can replace the firmware. There's nothing not-open about requiring that the owner authenticate first.

It's only not open if the vendor, rather than the owner, is the only one who the device will permit to replace its firmware.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#182

Post by switch007 »

roywiggins wrote: post #144
teambob wrote: post #75

I thought it was an alleged terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven guilty gone out the window?

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. The man in question died in a shootout with police; he will never be proven guilty, because you can't put a dead man on trial. You can't libel or defame a dead man, from the point of view of the law. There has to be a point where media can call someone a terrorist short of conviction in a court of law. You can argue that that point hasn't been reached i…

As a very general comment as I do not know anything about the San Bernardino case, I think we need to apply extreme caution when using the word "terrorist" because of extreme, far-reaching legislation based on the broad definition of terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legisla...

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#183

Post by vonklaus »

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

Twitter, Yahoo and LinkedIn aren't imperatives as their beacon data is likely the most important piece and the rest already cover that, and twitter is the only one that will be a company in a year.

Amazon, Google, MS and Apple are the real players, but Facebook is closing in as well. Google is the main linchpin, within 1-2 degrees everything clears through it: CA, DNS, Search, mx, analytic beacons, OS, hosting, etc.

They believe data should be used to solve problems and it should. But the consolidation risk is too high now, they own the whole stack and all the connections hopefully they have integrity here.,

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#184

Post by microtonal »

regecks wrote: post #169
odbol_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until Apple has 0 employees?

At some point Apple will act to protect their own employees...

I am not sure how realistic this is, but couldn't they move relevant parts of their business overseas? E.g., hardware and software development still happens in the US, but updates are vetted and signed by a separate entity in a privacy-friendly country?

The US could block iPhone sales, though I think the probability of that happening is extremely low, since it would have a major economic impact.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#185

Post by johansch »

multinglets wrote: post #136

So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it. The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance. If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufa…

Exactly. The backdoor already exists - what Apple are being asked to create is a specific exploit.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#186

Post by parenthephobia »

rtpg wrote: post #176
studentrob wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." > you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress. This case is so unprecedented that there's a…

>This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignore the digital nature of things. Apple has keys to a safe (digital signage key for iOS updates), FBI has warrant to search safe, court orders keys to safe. Fourth amendment doesn't apply because Apple can't incriminate themselves by giving signage keys. There is…

The precedent you reference doesn't really apply because, as you say, the FBI isn't actually asking for the signing keys.

The big difference between what's being asked and the signing keys is that Apple already have the signing keys. There is certainly plenty of precedent for a court to ask Apple to produce something they already have, but less precedent for a court to ask Apple to make something that doesn't exist yet.

In the analogy, the FBI doesn't have a warrant to "search the safe". What is protected by the signing keys is the ability to distribute iOS updates, but the court wants the data on the phone, which is protected by a different key Apple don't have.

A more correct non-IT analogy is to imagine that the safe has two locks: one pickable, the other unpickable. Apple don't have a matching key for either, but knows how to cut a key for the unpickable one. The FBI has asked Apple to set up a key-cutting facility, definitely only for use on this one occasion, so they can make a key for the unpickable lock.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#187

Post by microtonal »

Johnny555 wrote: post #130

Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack? I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they caved to FBI demands immediately.

I found this surprising as well. There is some information in this article:

https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardow...

To be honest, I think for non-Nexus phones, the situation is pretty bad. Even if a device vendor would not cooperate, security updates are so glacial (if they happen at all) that a state actor probably won't have much trouble finding attack vectors.

(I am pretty frustrated by the lack of updates for my Moto X. Motorola used to be pretty good at is. Now I have Marshmallow, but they didn't roll out any security updates beyond November. It seems that they just want to tick off the Marshmallow box and that's it.)

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#188

Post by microtonal »

potatolicious wrote: post #76
tintor wrote: post #39

Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.

Is it even possible to tweet without touching products from any of the above companies? I guess Trump will have to buy one of the discontinued BB10 devices...

Hey, our prime minister (Mark Rutte) still uses a Nokia from the pre-smartphone age.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#189

Post by sbuk »

timr wrote: post #113
mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes" , with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'" , added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't…

Justice Scalia, 1987; “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#190

Post by sbuk »

dang wrote: post #98
ComputerGuru wrote: post #11

Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…

Bloomberg changed their title, so we changed it too.

Thank. I must admit I thought the original title a little inflammatory. The key point is the amicus brief supporting Apple, which in hindsight should have formed the title.
Post reply on HN