The problem is that our governments have been repeatedly caught lying to us and they are far more interested in silencing whistleblowers to cover their crimes than to protect us against "terrorists" that they often create themselves. The FBI has 15,000 employees working around the clock to manufacture threats. For a start, search Ted Gunderson, Mike German (both ex-FBI staff), Operation Gladio, and Trevor Aaronson (The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism, 2014). https://youtu.be/pv7D_t7zDiw
Then you'll understand why they want to confiscate guns and make it known that everyone is spied on 24/7. Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson can only think of one solution and it won't be pretty https://youtu.be/zOagQ_nfCes
The problem is that our governments have been repeatedly caught lying to us and they are far more interested in silencing whistleblowers to cover their crimes than to protect us against "terrorists" that they often create themselves. The FBI has 15,000 employees working around the clock to manufacture threats. For a start, search Ted Gunderson, Mike German (both ex-FBI staff), Operation Gladio, and Trevor Aaronson (The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism, 2014). https://youtu.be/pv7D_t7zDiw
Then you'll understand why they want to confiscate guns and make it known that everyone is spied on 24/7. Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson can only think of one solution and it won't be pretty https://youtu.be/zOagQ_nfCes
I can't figure out whether people who peddle these, and other, conspiracy stories, are just hopelessly gullible or if, in as in that memorable quote, they just want to believe and so suspend all effort at critical thinking. It's great fiction material, but bears no resemblance to reality. Nice one, anyway.
It's a non issue, people in general don't care unless they know they have to (use encryption). When all alternatives fail its relatively easy to write the software yourself and share the public key(s) via an unprotected channel. No big deal. I don't think the public will allow a ban on all computers, or being able to program on it. Altough they did succeed to ban the human right to defend yourself by making weapons (even defensive ones) forbidden in Europe. I believe the penalty of having a weapon exceeds that of killing someone (at least in the Netherlands). So, maybe this is possible.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-GW a.k.a. "My Main Man"
That's a good quote, but Washington never said it.
Okeeeey...but why did we need a Harvard University study and a cryptography expert to tell us something this obvious?
...The Harvard people aren't terrorists OR selling hardware....
You sure about that? Universities have external, contractual, commercial links with Defence Departments. I know, my University dept was regularly in conference with Defence Department staff, and myself subject to many NDA's.
Furthermore, the logic has been known since the days of Colossus and Enigma.
Thankfully, there are heroic whistleblowers, such as Snowden, interspersed throughout time, to keep those who care about Human Rights informed of such profound governmental abuse, the consequence for which, triggers headaches for themselves.
Government Agencies are created for your inconvenience, they don't take kindly to being inconvenienced themselves.
Something doesn't make sense. Is there already a back door installed on the iPhone, or isn't there?
If iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist is already protected by strong encryption and a strong password, then it should be impossible for anyone, *even Apple*, to recover the data.
However, if Apple is saying, no, we are not going to help the FBI to unlock the cell phone of the San Bernardino terrorist, because cooperating with the FBI would be bad policy, this would mean that Apple already has a back door installed, but Apple is refusing to let the FBI enter.
So what's really going on?
Something doesn't make sense. Is there already a back door installed on the iPhone, or isn't there?
If iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist is already protected by strong encryption and a strong password, then it should be impossible for anyone, *even Apple*, to recover the data.
However, if Apple is saying, no, we are not going to help the FBI to unlock the cell phone of the San Bernardino terrorist, because cooperating with the FBI would be bad policy, this would mean that Apple already has a back door installed, but Apple is refusing to let the FBI enter.
So what's really going on?
Encryption can be broken by brute-forcing (guessing) the pass key because that's all you put in to unlock it. Some keys are long enough that this is too time-consuming but typically they are short so they are easy to type in. Apple put in prevention methods to optionally erase the data and delay the password input after so many unsuccessful attempts. The government wants Apple to remove those features in a custom version of iOS to allow them to brute force the device. Presumably they'd run this version of iOS externally and target the locked phone's storage.
They want a version of iOS that has auto-erase and password input delay removed and allows them to input password attempts via one of the data inputs (port, wifi, bluetooth). This would of course allow them to brute-force any device in future, possibly remotely and there's the possibility of the software being misplaced to allow criminals to unlock stolen devices.
So it's not that Apple has a backdoor, they just have the ability to weaken security by making custom software allowing brute-force guessing of pass keys. If they didn't hand over a custom version of the software after making it, another way would be for Apple to brute-force the devices themselves but this would happen for every request, which could become thousands of requests and Apple has no obligation to set a precedent for this nor could they check if every request was justified.
People who really want to cover their tracks will change their communication methods (terror groups have internal documents on what is secure) so it just weakens security for everyone while not solving the problem. The FBI and NSA wouldn't allow their own people to use products that knowingly had backdoors or weakened security in them and the reasons they wouldn't want security flaws are the same for everyone else.
We saw with the iCloud security breach what people are using their devices for and it's very personal and intimate communication, photos and videos shared between partners. If there was an investigation that swept up a dozen suspects and the authorities decided they wanted to unlock a dozen devices, they've violated the personal privacy of a lot of people to get to the criminal and they don't have that right. They've overstepped their authority before when they had the opportunity:
At the end of the day, they are people like everyone else with corrupt interests and they make mistakes. That site notes that wilful privacy violations were uncommon but they can't be that uncommon if they have a code word for it, which suggests they don't have full records of it and there were thousands of accidental violations every year.
Tim Cook is right to take a stand against the government here. The government is using the age-old tactic of drawing a line between good guys and bad guys and suggesting that if someone doesn't behave as offensively towards the bad guys as they do then they are supporting them. They always pick examples like terrorism and threats to children to win the public over and they're always vague on the details. In the Bernadino case, they're looking to find out what the shooters did and where they went right after the event, which was a short space of time of about 4 hours before they were killed. They might simply have been hiding in their vehicle and done nothing. They might have contacted someone else within the terrorist organisation. There are cameras, cell towers and eyewitnesses that can probably determine where they went. Authorities can withhold the evidence they do have and make up the fact they don't know anything until Apple gives them what they want because they've been asking for this for a while and this situation gives them leverage.
There really ought to be legal action taken against the government spreading propaganda like this, especially against the vocal members of the government agencies. They are employed by the public and it's not their job to manipulate people this way. Products with security vulnerabilities put people at risk too. An innocent party having a phone stolen and unlocked or unlocked remotely could lead to their abduction/murder as much as a malicious party having a locked phone can cover some of their tracks.
People have likened being able to unlock a device with being able to break into your home but it's more like being able to break into your home and undress you. There is a boundary to government authority and they need to learn to respect that.
Comments
Then you'll understand why they want to confiscate guns and make it known that everyone is spied on 24/7. Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson can only think of one solution and it won't be pretty https://youtu.be/zOagQ_nfCes
When all alternatives fail its relatively easy to write the software yourself and share the public key(s) via an unprotected channel. No big deal.
I don't think the public will allow a ban on all computers, or being able to program on it.
Altough they did succeed to ban the human right to defend yourself by making weapons (even defensive ones) forbidden in Europe. I believe the penalty of having a weapon exceeds that of killing someone (at least in the Netherlands).
So, maybe this is possible.
Peace!
-kpluck
They want a version of iOS that has auto-erase and password input delay removed and allows them to input password attempts via one of the data inputs (port, wifi, bluetooth). This would of course allow them to brute-force any device in future, possibly remotely and there's the possibility of the software being misplaced to allow criminals to unlock stolen devices.
So it's not that Apple has a backdoor, they just have the ability to weaken security by making custom software allowing brute-force guessing of pass keys. If they didn't hand over a custom version of the software after making it, another way would be for Apple to brute-force the devices themselves but this would happen for every request, which could become thousands of requests and Apple has no obligation to set a precedent for this nor could they check if every request was justified.
People who really want to cover their tracks will change their communication methods (terror groups have internal documents on what is secure) so it just weakens security for everyone while not solving the problem. The FBI and NSA wouldn't allow their own people to use products that knowingly had backdoors or weakened security in them and the reasons they wouldn't want security flaws are the same for everyone else.
We saw with the iCloud security breach what people are using their devices for and it's very personal and intimate communication, photos and videos shared between partners. If there was an investigation that swept up a dozen suspects and the authorities decided they wanted to unlock a dozen devices, they've violated the personal privacy of a lot of people to get to the criminal and they don't have that right. They've overstepped their authority before when they had the opportunity:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/
At the end of the day, they are people like everyone else with corrupt interests and they make mistakes. That site notes that wilful privacy violations were uncommon but they can't be that uncommon if they have a code word for it, which suggests they don't have full records of it and there were thousands of accidental violations every year.
Tim Cook is right to take a stand against the government here. The government is using the age-old tactic of drawing a line between good guys and bad guys and suggesting that if someone doesn't behave as offensively towards the bad guys as they do then they are supporting them. They always pick examples like terrorism and threats to children to win the public over and they're always vague on the details. In the Bernadino case, they're looking to find out what the shooters did and where they went right after the event, which was a short space of time of about 4 hours before they were killed. They might simply have been hiding in their vehicle and done nothing. They might have contacted someone else within the terrorist organisation. There are cameras, cell towers and eyewitnesses that can probably determine where they went. Authorities can withhold the evidence they do have and make up the fact they don't know anything until Apple gives them what they want because they've been asking for this for a while and this situation gives them leverage.
There really ought to be legal action taken against the government spreading propaganda like this, especially against the vocal members of the government agencies. They are employed by the public and it's not their job to manipulate people this way. Products with security vulnerabilities put people at risk too. An innocent party having a phone stolen and unlocked or unlocked remotely could lead to their abduction/murder as much as a malicious party having a locked phone can cover some of their tracks.
People have likened being able to unlock a device with being able to break into your home but it's more like being able to break into your home and undress you. There is a boundary to government authority and they need to learn to respect that.