Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[realibrad]

I addressed that. It remains unconstitutional even for future devices. They do not have the authority to compel Apple to remove a security mechanism that can be used to break into my and everyone else's phones. That is akin to denying us our constitutional rights in the same way as general warrants, which is exactly what that right was intended to protect us from.

Well the argument is that they are not removing code just making part of it inactive. They are not removing anything just adding.

 

[realibrad]

No. They don't. There are far more iPods and iPads connecting over unregulated WiFi than cellular. Even then, the spectrum slices are sold for commercial use by corporations entitled to the same constitutional rights to do with as they please as long as it does not infringe on someone's use of another slice they have paid for. It is not comparable at all.

WiFi is regulated.

 

[CZroe]

Well the argument is that they are not removing code just making part of it inactive. They are not removing anything just adding.

By making it inactive they are removing a security feature. That security feature is one they created and marketed and used to attract buyers. They are now being denied that expression in direct contradiction to what their buyers wanted. DENIED EXPRESSION. "Feature?" "Code?" Why are you so hung up on the terminology?

 

[CZroe]

WiFi is regulated.

Thought you had a point there?
Read the edit.

 

[realibrad]

By making it inactive they are removing a security feature. That security feature is one they created and marketed and used to attract buyers. They are now being denied that expression in direct contradiction to what their buyers wanted. DENIED EXPRESSION. "Feature?" "Code?" Why are you so hung up on the terminology?

You mean the same way a warrant removes the feature of a lock on a door?

 

[Bowfinger]

So how is your argument better when mine addresses the much bigger issue of not forcing them to do it at all? Yours just delays it for a short time.

I'm not saying it's better for Apple, or for us as customers. I'm simply saying that's what makes the two situations different. Congress can regulate commerce. This potentially includes requiring all encryption products to include backdoor access for law enforcement. As I said, I would not agree with such a law.

 

[realibrad]

Thought you had a point there?
Read the edit.

Wifi is regulated. The frequency that WiFi opperates on is regulated.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not saying it's better for Apple, or for us as customers. I'm simply saying that's what makes the two situations different. Congress can regulate commerce. This potentially includes requiring all encryption products to include backdoor access for law enforcement. As I said, I would not agree with such a law.

They can regulate a lot more than commerce.

 

[Bowfinger]

They can regulate a lot more than commerce.

of course. ???

 

[Darwin333]

Well, that depends.

Imagine my home is ordered to be searched by a court order. Further imagine I set traps around my home before the police arrive. Am I being forced to involuntary servitude if the court orders me, upon being informed of the traps, to remove the traps so that the police can execute the warrant? Or was it me "forcing" the police to take difficult precautions? Whose fault is it if a rookie policeman gets killed in the course of entering my house?

Setting deadly booby traps even in your own house is already illegal. If one of your booby traps kills a cop it is considered murder, I'd bet that you'd still be charged with murder if they didn't have a warrant or probably cause to enter your home.

There is nothing currently illegal about designing secure software nor is there a legal requirement to build a backdoor into said software. That would require Congress to pass new legislation either directly requiring it or giving some regulatory body the authority to require it by regulation. Seat belts keep getting brought up as an example but car manufacturers weren't required to install seat belts in the cars they sold by an order from a judge or magistrate. They also weren't required to invent them, the product already existed at the time they were required to include them.

Your example is apples and oranges.

 

[Darwin333]

There is no law forcing any company to produce iPhones. You still haven't answered how this is any different than cars being required to have seat belts.

While I'm not sure about the whole 1st amendment thing I'm also not a big time lawyer making who knows how many thousands an hour.

With that said, the difference is rather big, quite literally an act of Congress. Congress does have the authority, assuming it's signed by the president or veto proof, to require software companies to add backdoors into their software if they want to sell their products in the US. The judicial system does not have the power to require a company or a person, who has committed no crime, to create something that has never existed.

 

[Darwin333]

So the better argument is that Apple has to do it retroactively vs seatbelts that were grandfathered in? All that argument does is give a reason to not do it for past OS's. The next upgrade would have to include it.

If Congress passes a law requiring it, yes they could be forced to include it in future upgrades. The judicial branch of our government simply doesn't have the authority that Congress does, our system of government was set up this way quite purposely.

Frankly Congress is "punting" this issue because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the majority of them want this to happen. It seems to me like they are hoping that the justice department wins this so they aren't forced to take any action. Then again while they might be sitting back and judging public support to see if they have the balls to pass a law requiring software developers to install this on future products.

I'm curious if such a regulation or law would automatically make things like PGP and Bittorrent Beep illegal as they, to my knowledge, can't possibly have backdoors built in. Well maybe certain commercial PGP programs can be updated with a backdoor in it but there are way to many programs without one in the wild already.

 

[Ichinisan]

You mean the same way a warrant removes the feature of a lock on a door?

No. The feature of destroying sensitive information when someone tampers with the lock on the door. That's a VERY IMPORTANT feature. If an American company is not legally allowed to sell a secure device, you can bet a company in some other country will do it...and that country will welcome the revenue it generates.

Why is it illegal for an American company to sell a properly-secured device?

 

[Darwin333]

You mean the same way a warrant removes the feature of a lock on a door?

A warrant to retrieve something behind a lock gives the government the ability to compel the owner to produce a key (something that already exists) or to hire a locksmith to defeat the lock. It does not give them the authority to compel the manufacturer of the lock to create some sort of master key, which doesn't yet exist, that will work on all of the locks they make.

In reality no features have been removed, the features of the lock are defeated and it's always done by a 3rd party who willingly sells their services to the government or by the owner being compelled to turn over the key.

A better analogy would be a manufacturer somehow creates a lock or safe that can not be defeated or forced open and the judicial system forces the manufacturer to create a master key that will very likely find its way into the wild. The very existence of the master key and it's likelihood of getting into the wild would mean the lock is no longer secure. IMHO there is a branch of the government that could require lock manufacturers to create such a device on a forward basis but Justice isn't that branch of government. The only say the courts would have is if such a law was constitutional or not.

 

[CZroe]

Wifi is regulated. The frequency that WiFi opperates on is regulated.

*facepalm*

You have a comprehension problem.

 

[CZroe]

You mean the same way a warrant removes the feature of a lock on a door?

What warrant removes the locks from millions of unrelated doors? That would be a GENERAL warrant, which is something the constitution and this country were created to oppose. This isn't small potatoes. It's supposed to be one of our CORE principles.

 

[Paratus]

What warrant removes the locks from millions of unrelated doors? That would be a GENERAL warrant, which is something the constitution and this country were created to oppose. This isn't small potatoes. It's supposed to be one of our CORE principles.

I don't agree with you that this is a backdoor into the phone. The data is still encrypted and useless without the complex key that unlocks it. The complex key is still hidden in hardware that would require acid baths and electron microscopes to attempt to read.

The users passcode is the front door that allows access to the complex key. The changes the FBI wants don't provide direct access to the key or the data which is what a backdoor truly is.

I think a better metaphor is Apple has provided, in software, a guard to watch the front door. If someone tries to pick the front door the guard warns them. If they continue he destroys the data.

The FBI wants Apple to fire the guard. The front door is still locked however. If the user used good password hygenie then it can still take years to crack the front door. If he used a four digit pin then it's hours to crack.

While I agree if Apple is forced to make the software than all Apple phones are less secure. I don't agree that it makes all their phones insecure. Security of the phone will rest more on the user to create long alphanumeric pass codes instead of relying on Apple to protect weak passwords.

Regardless this is a huge overstep in authority by the government.

 

[CZroe]

I don't agree with you that this is a backdoor into the phone. The data is still encrypted and useless without the complex key that unlocks it. The complex key is still hidden in hardware that would require acid baths and electron microscopes to attempt to read.



The users passcode is the front door that allows access to the complex key. The changes the FBI wants don't provide direct access to the key or the data which is what a backdoor truly is.



I think a better metaphor is Apple has provided, in software, a guard to watch the front door. If someone tries to pick the front door the guard warns them. If they continue he destroys the data.



The FBI wants Apple to fire the guard. The front door is still locked however. If the user used good password hygenie then it can still take years to crack the front door. If he used a four digit pin then it's hours to crack.



While I agree if Apple is forced to make the software than all Apple phones are less secure. I don't agree that it makes all their phones insecure. Security of the phone will rest more on the user to create long alphanumeric pass codes instead of relying on Apple to protect weak passwords.



Regardless this is a huge overstep in authority by the government.

Incorrect. "Key" in relation to "backdoor" and "security mechanism" does not always mean "encryption key." You are confused because there are more than one security measures at work. This removes the key to one of them, completely circumvents it instead of going through that "door," so to speak. That is a backdoor. It's a very important security measure too, as evidenced by the fact that it's the only one they need to have removed.

It is UNDENIABLY a back-door around the self-destruct/lockout mechanism designed to prevent brute-force attacks. It is undeniable that this could be used on anyone's iOS device if it could be used on these particular phones. They are literally asking Apple to open the locked doors to millions of innocent customers. It's not OK. That is like having a general warrant. Even if they leave control of it in Apple's hands, Apple will have been forced to circumvent the very security they worked hard to create and it will affect the potential business success they had gone through the effort to obtain.

 

[Rakehellion]

There is no law forcing any company to produce iPhones.

This isn't a case of free speech.

You still haven't answered how this is any different than cars being required to have seat belts.

I don't follow. Are you saying cars should not be required to have seatbelts?

Look at the FCC ID on the back of your iPhone. Is Apple's right to free speech being impeded because they have to comply with government regulations?
If your right to free speech being infringed because you're not allowed to threaten to kill someone?

Again, this is a bad ruling for many reasons, it's just not a bad ruling because all software is protected speech under the first amendment, and certainly every product created is not protected speech. That's stupid.

It's irrelevant whether your product is considered speech or not when safety is involved. Free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for having an opinion. "Free" speech has to obey the law.

And it's irrelevant to the iPhone case as their freedom of speech isn't being attacked. The FBI doesn't have a problem with the software Apple has already written. This is a case of compelled speech as the FBI wants Apple to write new software.

 

[CZroe]

This isn't a case of free speech.

Apple: "We believe that customers are entitled to a platform with protection against brute-force attacks that not even we can circumvent and our code was written to express this."

Judge: "This form of expression is not allowed because I say so."

Remember when 2600 magazine got slapped for simply linking to the DeCSS code? I still remember people wearing the code on T-Shirts and singing it in songs to demonstrate code as free speech. The EFF disagrees with you.

 

[CZroe]

It's irrelevant whether your product is considered speech or not when safety is involved. Free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for having an opinion. "Free" speech has to obey the law.

Absolutely WRONG. It's a misunderstanding that it is the government's job to keep us safe. It's their job to ensure our continued freedom/liberty. Safety only factors in when you threaten someone else's life/liberty while expressing your own. That is the only limitation on your Liberty that the US government is supposed to have the authority to regulate. It's why you can smoke and harm your own health but you can't force someone else to breathe your smoke.

NO ONE even for a second thought it was the government's job to ensure safety when this country was founded. Not even one. You can't have 100% freedom and 100% safety. We chose freedom and we routinely give up our safety to protect said freedom.

 

[Ichinisan]

I don't agree with you that this is a backdoor into the phone. The data is still encrypted and useless without the complex key that unlocks it. The complex key is still hidden in hardware that would require acid baths and electron microscopes to attempt to read.

The users passcode is the front door that allows access to the complex key. The changes the FBI wants don't provide direct access to the key or the data which is what a backdoor truly is.

I think a better metaphor is Apple has provided, in software, a guard to watch the front door. If someone tries to pick the front door the guard warns them. If they continue he destroys the data.

The FBI wants Apple to fire the guard. The front door is still locked however. If the user used good password hygenie then it can still take years to crack the front door. If he used a four digit pin then it's hours to crack.

While I agree if Apple is forced to make the software than all Apple phones are less secure. I don't agree that it makes all their phones insecure. Security of the phone will rest more on the user to create long alphanumeric pass codes instead of relying on Apple to protect weak passwords.

Regardless this is a huge overstep in authority by the government.

Disabling a feature that is meant to keep someone from guessing the password, allowing them to crack the password by bruteforce, is a backdoor. It is. Period.

 

[Ichinisan]

... The FBI doesn't have a problem with the software Apple has already written. ...

Yes they do have a problem with it. They have a problem with the fact that it's designed to be secure and wipes your sensitive personal data when someone guesses your password incorrectly too many times. That's an important security feature. Apparently, the government wants it to be illegal to sell secure devices that can stay secure.

 

[lopri]

I'll answer.

Seatbelts are a direct safety measure. If you get into an accident they offer a big improvement in the likelihood of reducing injury. The downside of seatbelts are so mild that they become worth the mandate. There is some increased cost and some very narrow risk increases in some very limited situations. This the cost benefit is weighed in favor.

Cracking the iPhone OS is a huge risk. You don't need me to go into all the implications but the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs. It would be bad if just the gov had is, but if it got out into the wild holy shit. The gov could not keep its Iran nuke virus from getting out.

This seems to me the most coherent and agreeable answer.

 

[Rakehellion]

Apple: "We believe that customers are entitled to a platform with protection against brute-force attacks that not even we can circumvent and our code was written to express this."

Judge: "This form of expression is not allowed because I say so."

Secure OS platforms are not violations of the law. Do you not understand what this case is about at all?

Remember when 2600 magazine got slapped for simply linking to the DeCSS code? I still remember people wearing the code on T-Shirts and singing it in songs to demonstrate code as free speech. The EFF disagrees with you.

Free speech isn't free. Free speech must obey the law.