Holder wants backdoor to iOS8. Its for the children

[The Merg]

So that last paragraph is the typical "think of the children excuse".

I used that example since it had been brought up, but it could be for any crime.

- Merg

 

[Zodiark1593]

I'll have to check, but I thought that the new encryption prevented Apple from even bypassing the passcode, which is how law enforcement is currently accessing iPhones. Or rather, how Apple is accessing the phone and then providing the results to law enforcement.

- Merg

If there was any encryption used before, Apple probably had a Master Key, or kept the password on their servers. If Apple speaks the truth, that is probably no longer the case.

 

[The Merg]

If there was any encryption used before, Apple probably had a Master Key, or kept the password on their servers. If Apple speaks the truth, that is probably no longer the case.

Yup. I think that's the case. I posted what I found out in post #48. (Can't multi-quote in Tapatalk)

- Merg

 

[werepossum]

I wonder what the celebrities who got hacked think of this request to backdoor their phones.

Security holes / exploits are unacceptable.

This, exactly. A backdoor for cops is a backdoor for everyone.

A password can always be broken by brute force coupled with clever cryptography. This is simply an intrusion on our rights for their convenience.

 

[The Merg]

This, exactly. A backdoor for cops is a backdoor for everyone.



A password can always be broken by brute force coupled with clever cryptography. This is simply an intrusion on our rights for their convenience.

Not exactly. The door the police have now is not directly accessible by them. Only Applehas the ability tobypass the lock code on an iPhone 4S or newer.

- Merg

 

[werepossum]

Not exactly. The door the police have now is not directly accessible by them. Only Apple has the ability to bypass the lock code on an iPhone 4S or newer.

- Merg

That isn't saying that the encryption itself can't be broken by the police, it's just saying that it's a hell of a lot easier to simply go to Apple to have it unlocked than to crack the encryption. That's a pretty convenient thing for the cops and in a perfect world would continue, so if there was a case where the importance of breaking into the phone exceeded the importance of the Fifth Amendment the cops could go to Apple to save the day. Unfortunately the cops go to Apple every time they want to search a phone, which not only takes up Apple's time but puts them in the unenviable position of being their customers' Fifth Amendment watchdog, on pain of having the full might of the government come down on Apple. Not a comfortable place for Apple to be.

 

[pcgeek11]

What makes the above comment even funnier is that Holder is not very pro-police to begin with and this point of view of allowing access to the device for law enforcement would be considered to be a conservative point of view from a very liberal Attorney General.

- Merg

Well I am a conservative and I disagree with Holder. First comes the back door then everything else will follow. Quite a slippery slope IMO.

 

[mnewsham]

I understand the technical problem, but there's a matter of principle and rights here. The government has taken a position that information available electronically is not the same as written documents. Frankly I find that absurd in that it is what is stored on whatever media which is important. That it isn't written on paper is clearly not what mattered to Founders or ourselves today. That those with power disregard what properly passes a common sense test is my concern. My information is mine. If I should be served with a proper warrant for any of it, it becomes my obligation to provide the material. If I do not comply, yes they can break into my home and take whatever they want, and so I expect you or someone to say this is a difference. Yes, it is, however that does not mean I have to give them all combinations to all safes because someone might be hiding something in them. What would you say if Holder asked for those? I'd say piss up a rope

Does that mean that I can deny a warrant with impunity? By no means. If I refuse I can be put away for as long as I do not comply and/or financially destroyed, which brings us to another issue. Trust. The sole reason this level of encryption exists is because the government has shown time and again that it will go through considerable contortions to justify or outright lie about what it does or will do. They have broken trust repeatedly. If police have access and abuse it then what? Do they suffer the same proportional penalties as one who stands before a judge and doesn't unlock their phone when served with a warrant? Will they be locked up or ruined as easily? Hardly.

Now I'm not naive to think that the new encryption won't be problematic to legitimate needs but this really isn't about a phone OS, it's about abuse done with impunity and I object to the latter. Holder nor anyone else I can think of is willing to even discuss this larger problem much less properly address it. Obama lies when he says that information gathered won't be used against us. It has in the form of parallel construction. An untrustworthy government who shows it does not trust its citizens gets little sympathy or support as far as I'm concerned and so I say Apple and others are showing a similar level of "trust". It's too bad that it has come to this but so be it.

Best post in the whole thread and of course the main person defending backdoors refuses to reply to it.

 

[The Merg]

That isn't saying that the encryption itself can't be broken by the police, it's just saying that it's a hell of a lot easier to simply go to Apple to have it unlocked than to crack the encryption. That's a pretty convenient thing for the cops and in a perfect world would continue, so if there was a case where the importance of breaking into the phone exceeded the importance of the Fifth Amendment the cops could go to Apple to save the day. Unfortunately the cops go to Apple every time they want to search a phone, which not only takes up Apple's time but puts them in the unenviable position of being their customers' Fifth Amendment watchdog, on pain of having the full might of the government come down on Apple. Not a comfortable place for Apple to be.

I think we might be seeing things in regards to what the cops can and can't do right now a little differently.

Currently, if an iPhone is locked, the police cannot access the data. If the phone is unlocked or the police have the lock code, the data on the phone can be downloaded off the phone. There are tools out there for the police to use to download the data, if the phone is unlocked. There are no tools out there that will bypass the lockcode.

If the phone is locked, only Apple has the ability to bypass that. Their legal department will only do that with a court order (and it is a very small department that deals with these types of orders). This is not a convenient solution, but rather the only option.

And I think you meant to say that Apple is becoming a customer's Fourth Amendment watchdog (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures). I don't think that is the case. If Apple receives a court order (and it's valid), Apple has to respond to it just as any other company that receives a court order about a customer's account.

With the new encryption, Apple is saying that you shouldn't even bother sending the court order as even when they bypass lock code the data they will have will be encrypted. From Apple's point of view, that makes sense to me.

Since I confirmed that the issue is the encryption of the data and not the accessibility of the data (which is what my understanding was at the beginning), I don't necessarily have an issue with this.

My biggest issue would be that Apple not providing even the encrypted data for law enforcement to at least attempt to decrypt, if they so choose.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Best post in the whole thread and of course the main person defending backdoors refuses to reply to it.

See post 59.

- Merg

 

[DCal430]

What makes the above comment even funnier is that Holder is not very pro-police to begin with and this point of view of allowing access to the device for law enforcement would be considered to be a conservative point of view from a very liberal Attorney General.

- Merg

I strongly disagree that is a conservative point of view.

Years ago it was liberals on the California Supreme Court who ruled people who ride bicycles without identification could have their possessions subject to search without a warrant. It was the conservative Justices who dissented.

 

[The Merg]

I strongly disagree that is a conservative point of view.



Years ago it was liberals on the California Supreme Court who ruled people who ride bicycles without identification could have their possessions subject to search without a warrant. It was the conservative Justices who dissented.

I'm not sure about that. Privacy issues have generally been a liberal point of contention. Justlook at the ACLU. The number of a lawsuits that they bring with regards to invasion of privacy certainly appears to make this a liberal point of view (not that I'm saying that it is not without merit).

So to have a liberal Attorney General that is not very pro-law enforcement to argue an issue that appears to be invading on people's civil rights while supporting law enforcement is very ironic to me.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

I strongly disagree that is a conservative point of view.



Years ago it was liberals on the California Supreme Court who ruled people who ride bicycles without identification could have their possessions subject to search without a warrant. It was the conservative Justices who dissented.

Oh, and that was California... Do they actually do anything there that makes sense?

- Merg