Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[boomerang]

Sounds like a compromise is in the making. Apple will remove the self destruct feature at their facility, retain the methodology and can keep it or destroy it, whatever pleases them.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/2...are-to-help-fbi-hack-iphone.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Although the judge instructed Apple to create the software for the FBI, she said it could be loaded onto the phone at an Apple facility. The Justice Department made explicit Friday that Apple could retain custody of the software at all times.

That's a good "compromise position" because "they're giving all the power to Apple," Jason Healey, a former director on cyber policy at the White House, told the Associated Press.

"They're telling Apple, 'You hold the software, we're not asking you to put a backdoor in the encryption, we just want to be able to brute force this thing,'" Healey said. "If the precedent is this, that they deliver the phone to Apple and Apple does it, I think that's a pretty good precedent that can't be done en masse on the next thousand iPhones."

Authorities want Apple to bypass a self-destruct feature that erases the phone's data after too many unsuccessful attempts to guess the passcode. Apple has helped the government before in this and previous cases, but this time Apple CEO Tim Cook said no and Apple is appealing the order.

It appears a common sense solution will be reached after the expected political posturing. If in fact Apple has cooperated in similar cases before, this one obviously got a lot of press because of a leak. Therefore, the posturing was deemed necessary by Apple.

 

[Monk5127]

So Apple loads the new firmware onto said iPhone. Then they give the FBI the handset with the new/special firmware loaded? Meaning Apple gets to keep this new firmware, only they don't?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's a government owned phone and the rightful owner wants access to their information on it to aid in a terrorism investigation. If Apple isn't willing to accommodate then the government needs to stop buying their phones to issue to their employees.

God knows if this phone had Hillary's emails on how many OMGPRIVACY!!1 types would be chomping on the bit for access to it.

 

[boomerang]

A new wrinkle? I'm not going to read through 150+ anxiety ridden posts to find out.

San Bernardino Shooter's iCloud Password Changed While iPhone was in Government Possession

 

[FrankRamiro]

For those that are in favor of no access to Apple data by the terrorist task force to prevent terrorist from killing us,hope one day you will not be sorry,
and the terrorists appreciate this support so they can keep planing their next terrorist attack on us using Apple communications save haven.

 

[Kwatt]

Some things I am wondering about.

1 Does any gov. agency use these phones because of the security features? If so it is kinda of hypocritical to ask them to develop code to bypass it.

2 Once the software is developed how hard would it be to modify it for another phone?

3 Is this the first time the fed wanted access to a phone like this? I would not think so but I don't know.

4 If it is not why push this case?

Regardless of why, a government forcing someone to make something is unsettling to me.

.

 

[LPCTech]

For those that are in favor of no access to Apple data by the terrorist task force to prevent terrorist from killing us,hope one day you will not be sorry,
and the terrorists appreciate this support so they can keep planing their next terrorist attack on us using Apple communications save haven.

 

[Fenixgoon]

For those that are in favor of no access to Apple data by the terrorist task force to prevent terrorist from killing us,hope one day you will not be sorry,
and the terrorists appreciate this support so they can keep planing their next terrorist attack on us using Apple communications save haven.

this is precisely the line of thinking that leads to an oppressive government.

when you live in a reasonably free society, the potential for any sort of terror attack ALWAYS EXISTS. it's because you let people be people, and you accept the consequences. when you start controlling people - what they say, do, and think - by laws, you're no longer free. forcing backdoors on encrypted systems, which is poor security practice no matter who you are, is a step in that direction. because now there is no safe method of communication for *anyone*.

do you know why the State Department sponsors Tor? because they want people to have a secure method of speaking out against oppressive governments. remove the security, whatever device may be, and people will be less likely to speak out.

and in our case - that would be completely contrary to the 1st amendment.

either you have security, or you don't. there is no such thing as a backdoor that only one party has access to. if it exists, it's there for everyone.

and for the sake of argument, let's suppose apple goes ahead and makes this special version of iOS for the FBI. don't you think every state with a three letter agency will pay billions to get their hands on that code? it wouldn't be a matter of if it leaked, but when (and whether people know about it)

basically what you've said is, "if we don't give up liberty, the terrorists are sure to get us!"

 

[Kwatt]

For those that are in favor of no access to Apple data by the terrorist task force to prevent terrorist from killing us,hope one day you will not be sorry,
and the terrorists appreciate this support so they can keep planing their next terrorist attack on us using Apple communications save haven.

For those that are in favor of forcing Apple to break the security of these phones. I hope you never send a message jokingly or that is taken out of context to someone who is on the "watch list".


.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

For those that are in favor of forcing Apple to break the security of these phones. I hope you never send a message jokingly or that is taken out of context to someone who is on the "watch list".


.

It's a government phone. What if this was an FOIA request they were holding up?

 

[SP33Demon]

this is precisely the line of thinking that leads to an oppressive government.

when you live in a reasonably free society, the potential for any sort of terror attack ALWAYS EXISTS. it's because you let people be people, and you accept the consequences. when you start controlling people - what they say, do, and think - by laws, you're no longer free. forcing backdoors on encrypted systems, which is poor security practice no matter who you are, is a step in that direction. because now there is no safe method of communication for *anyone*.

do you know why the State Department sponsors Tor? because they want people to have a secure method of speaking out against oppressive governments. remove the security, whatever device may be, and people will be less likely to speak out.

and in our case - that would be completely contrary to the 1st amendment.

either you have security, or you don't. there is no such thing as a backdoor that only one party has access to. if it exists, it's there for everyone.

and for the sake of argument, let's suppose apple goes ahead and makes this special version of iOS for the FBI. don't you think every state with a three letter agency will pay billions to get their hands on that code? it wouldn't be a matter of if it leaked, but when (and whether people know about it)

basically what you've said is, "if we don't give up liberty, the terrorists are sure to get us!"

This is hilarious. If Apple creates the backdoor, then stop using Apple products' encryption if you want privacy. There are thousands of other products on the market without backdoors that offer as good if not better encryption. The government isn't asking apple to break encryption for every digital product in the world, only their (Apple) product for this specific case - and its technically not even breaking "encryption" per se but allowing brute forcing for a pw.

As far legal precedent, what are you talking about? This happens every day with these companies: samsung, motorola, and even apple in the past but you just don't hear about it. Calm down, your rights aren't being trampled on anymore than they were before (if you are on the terror watch list). You should be using your energy to fight how people are placed on such a list (which is why their rights are stripped) if this upsets you. We are talking about a terrorist who gunned down a room full of unarmed citizens. Of course he deserves zero rights and Apple is trying to milk this for publicity and faux outrage regarding rights.

 

[Fenixgoon]

This is hilarious. If Apple creates the backdoor, then stop using Apple products' encryption if you want privacy. There are thousands of other products on the market without backdoors that offer as good if not better encryption. FFS quit the crybaby act, the government isn't asking apple to break encryption for every digital product in the world, only their (Apple) product for this specific case. Apple can even change their encryption after this to assuage their fans' fears.

i don't even own any apple products. what this does is create a precedent that the government can force companies to make backdoors for existing products, or worse, include them from the beginning in future products.

 

[Kwatt]

It's a government phone. What if this was an FOIA request they were holding up?

If the phone was purchased by the user would that be different?

.

 

[Jaskalas]

Brute force?
Physically dismantle and remove the data card.
Copy the encrypted data to a cloud network.... clone virtual machines that simulate an Iphone so the software loads and thinks its legit. Enter in the password as many times as necessary until you crack it. Its protections to limit brute force are meaningless in a virtual environment.
/thread.

 

[Darwin333]

And just what part of the Constitution do you think you would be throwing out? I assume you are talking about the 4th Amendment so I am quoting it in full. I do not see what is being violated or thrown out.

Thirteenth amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Forcing someone to develop and produce a product that does not exist against their will by force of law is the very definition of involuntary servitude. Unless of course Apple has been convicted of some related crime that I am not aware of?

And while there are no Fourth amendment issues with this particular case you are foolish if you think that it doesn't have future implications. It would be akin to the government requiring cameras that they have access to in everyones house but they promise to only turn them on after you have been accused of a crime. You may trust them with that kind of power but I sure as hell don't and history has shown time and time again that they will abuse it. Regardless of the Fourth amendment concerns which I am sure you will argue, how do you circumvent the Thirteenth?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If the phone was purchased by the user would that be different?

.

Yes I think that would be different. And I answered yours so you answer mine. What if this was a FOIA request they were holding up?

 

[Kwatt]

Yes I think that would be different. And I answered yours so you answer mine. What if this was a FOIA request they were holding up?

Maybe I have not been clear.

I do not think it is correct for the government to force someone to create something.

Even for a FOIA request.

If I filed a FOIA request for something on a secured phone. What are my chances for getting a judge to force someone to create a way to bypass the security.

.

 

[Darwin333]

No argument there at all, it's just odd to me that this case is supposed to be somehow different. To me it's almost like Apple wants to litigate the features of their now phone using an old model. In the end it's going to be whatever the courts decide (if technically feasible), not Apple or the feds.

I'm betting that Apple loses this case.

Did they have to develop entirely new software by order of the government in the past or did they use tools/software that they already had in order to comply? There is a huge difference between the two. Hell even if they voluntarily worked for the government and did develop new software in the past unless they are contractually bound to continue working for them they have the power to decline. I have ran many construction projects for the .gov before but that doesn't mean they can force me to work on their next project. I completed my contractual requirements and as such they can no longer compel me to do additional work for them on a separate project. They can entice me by offering me more money but they have no legal basis to force me.

It's like the government compelling a lock manufacturer to give them specific details on a specific lock, like the key code or it's design so they can hire a locksmith to exploit the vulnerabilities versus compelling the same lock manufacturer to design and make a master key that will unlock all of the locks they make. In the former they are demanding something that already exists and in the latter they are demanding the company to design and produce something that does not exist which is literally forced labor. Forced labor was abolished when the Thirteenth amendment was ratified and adopted. Its irrelevant how many times the company previously helped the .gov. They are allowed to hire Apple, or any other company, to develop new software but using the force of law to compel them to do so is, and should remain, beyond the scope of the judicial systems power.

 

[Darwin333]

Sounds like a compromise is in the making. Apple will remove the self destruct feature at their facility, retain the methodology and can keep it or destroy it, whatever pleases them.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/2...are-to-help-fbi-hack-iphone.html?intcmp=hpbt2



It appears a common sense solution will be reached after the expected political posturing. If in fact Apple has cooperated in similar cases before, this one obviously got a lot of press because of a leak. Therefore, the posturing was deemed necessary by Apple.

I'm not sure, has Apple responded to this compromise? The reason I am unsure is because Apple had the ability from day one to respond with this exact "common sense" compromise. Since they didn't and instead flat out refused I'm going to wait for Apple's reply.

 

[Darwin333]

It's a government owned phone and the rightful owner wants access to their information on it to aid in a terrorism investigation. If Apple isn't willing to accommodate then the government needs to stop buying their phones to issue to their employees.

God knows if this phone had Hillary's emails on how many OMGPRIVACY!!1 types would be chomping on the bit for access to it.

I assume that the government also wants phones that have very good encryption... It's kind of tough to have it both ways. Not that I am a fan of Apple or anything but if the .gov decides to use smart phones that can rather easily be "hacked" by a tool/software that is obviously their choice. Personally I don't trust any entity, especially one that huge with so many potential security leaks, to only use the tool when I ask AND to keep said tool completely secure. The friggen NSA can't secure it's own files from being leaked but I'm going to trust some huge private company to secure something that could potentially break the encryption on all smartphones that my entity uses???

Besides, this was a local government that bought the phone not the Federal government who I am pretty sure use blackberries because they are more secure.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Maybe I have not been clear.

I do not think it is correct for the government to force someone to create something.

Even for a FOIA request.

If I filed a FOIA request for something on a secured phone. What are my chances for getting a judge to force someone to create a way to bypass the security.

.

If that's your option I can respect it for being consistent even if I disagree.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I assume that the government also wants phones that have very good encryption... It's kind of tough to have it both ways. Not that I am a fan of Apple or anything but if the .gov decides to use smart phones that can rather easily be "hacked" by a tool/software that is obviously their choice. Personally I don't trust any entity, especially one that huge with so many potential security leaks, to only use the tool when I ask AND to keep said tool completely secure. The friggen NSA can't secure it's own files from being leaked but I'm going to trust some huge private company to secure something that could potentially break the encryption on all smartphones that my entity uses???

Besides, this was a local government that bought the phone not the Federal government who I am pretty sure use blackberries because they are more secure.

My ideal scenario is Apple/gov would use encryption on government phones, entirely separate from civilian products, that specifically wouldn't need to be cracked by law enforcement because they'd have access available to them that's just a warrant away to begin with. Does anyone arguing against Apple stepping in here really want government phones used by government employees/officials for government business to be one password change away from the reach of the courts and law enforcement?

 

[Kwatt]

My ideal scenario is Apple/gov would use encryption on government phones, entirely separate from civilian products, that specifically wouldn't need to be cracked by law enforcement because they'd have access available to them that's just a warrant away to begin with. Does anyone arguing against Apple stepping in here really want government phones used by government employees/officials for government business to be one password change away from the reach of the courts and law enforcement?

I would like clarification:

2 separate systems. Gov phones in which the gov could access?
Civilian products which the gov can't access?

.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I would like clarification:

2 separate systems. Gov phones in which the gov could access?
Civilian products which the gov can't access?

.

Yes. Honestly, with what I'm sure are big contracts on government purchases of phones, I don't know how this has apparently not been addressed in some fashion already.

 

[zinfamous]

For those that are in favor of no access to Apple data by the terrorist task force to prevent terrorist from killing us,hope one day you will not be sorry,
and the terrorists appreciate this support so they can keep planing their next terrorist attack on us using Apple communications save haven.

sweet! another Frank Ramiro post! Misses the target by ~30 miles, yet again.