I'm thinking that there is a way for Apple to maybe "image" a device and run it on an emulator, since there had to be a way to get the firmware on the device in the first place. But I'm thinking this isn't something non-destructive to the device. The best option would be taking it apart and intercepting the devices RAM like you would with a mod-chip on a game console, since no device encrypts the RAM. Alternatively, dump the flash memory and run a flash emulator read-only with an image of the device against the device's secure enclave. Like I can think of a few ways that it could be defeated, but they're all destructive.
This is utterly bullshit. Apple can by court order give law enforcement access to a customer's iPhone in special situation like this one but hand over the software for backdoor access.
It makes you wonder what's been going on. I'm sure the FBI got a subpoena shortly after the terrorist attack. I'm wondering if Apple said they can't access the phone so now, the FBI is getting a court order to force Apple to give backdoor access.
I understand how encryption works, but somehow I doubt that Apple does not have a way to get into that phone. Either through the access to the stored encryption keys or backdoor, or something. On the assumption that they have that ability, I think they should render assistance to the FBI without giving them the tools to access any phone they want in the future. These are terrorists at war with out country. That would be the moral thing to do while still protecting the rights of others not to have their phones unreasonably searched. The FBI has a warrant, signed by a judge, in a very high priority case of terrorism on our own soil from ISIS. So, Apple gets a little egg on their face. I could forgive Apple for not being entirely truthful about them not having the capability. I pretty much expected them to have the capability.
If they truly can't, then hey need to show why they can't and still provide whatever assistance they can without giving the FBI a road map on how to do it on their own in the future, if possible.
I have no problem with them making a device that even they cannot break into if that truly is the case. We do not owe it to the government to make it easy for them to get around the 4th amendment and read our phones at will. I think it would be bad form and hard to support Apple if they just told the Government to go pound sand, we are not helping you even if we could. We are under lethal attack from a large group of radicalized religious zealots.
If Apple truly can't break in, then the FBI should go back and waterboard the suspects until they give them the code.
... but somehow I doubt that Apple does not have a way to get into that phone. ... If Apple truly can't break in, then the FBI should go back and waterboard the suspects until they give them the code.
Reply #16 on page 1 provided an excellent tutorial on why Apple really doesn't have access to the data. (The court seems to acknowledge that Apple doesn't have the ability to break the encryption. They are asking Apple to disable the "self destruct" system so that the FBI can just keep trying passwords over and over... and it's entirely possible that Apple doesn't have the ability to provide that either.)
Waterboarding doesn't work very well on dead people.
I understand how encryption works, but somehow I doubt that Apple does not have a way to get into that phone. Either through the access to the stored encryption keys or backdoor, or something. On the assumption that they have that ability, I think they should render assistance to the FBI without giving them the tools to access any phone they want in the future. These are terrorists at war with out country. That would be the moral thing to do while still protecting the rights of others not to have their phones unreasonably searched. The FBI has a warrant, signed by a judge, in a very high priority case of terrorism on our own soil from ISIS. So, Apple gets a little egg on their face. I could forgive Apple for not being entirely truthful about them not having the capability. I pretty much expected them to have the capability.
If they truly can't, then hey need to show why they can't and still provide whatever assistance they can without giving the FBI a road map on how to do it on their own in the future, if possible.
I have no problem with them making a device that even they cannot break into if that truly is the case. We do not owe it to the government to make it easy for them to get around the 4th amendment and read our phones at will. I think it would be bad form and hard to support Apple if they just told the Government to go pound sand, we are not helping you even if we could. We are under lethal attack from a large group of radicalized religious zealots.
If Apple truly can't break in, then the FBI should go back and waterboard the suspects until they give them the code.
First, waterboard doesnt work and that was proven many years ago. Those terrorists, just like those russian spies during Soviet era, are trained to withstand any type of torture, and second, those people who carried out the attacks were shot on site by the police. Maybe if the police had tranquillizer guns and shot darts to put them to sleep rather than kill them they would still be alive and could be interrogated. But then again,if they kill ordinary americans without any reason, I can't really imagine with those terrorists being anything different.
First, waterboard doesnt work and that was proven many years ago.
That's going slightly off topic, but I disagree. I haven't seen any scientific evidence or an overwhelming consensus of evidence proving that it doesn't work. I believe that it works and it can be very effective, and it will actually be reinstated soon, just you wait and see.
It's running the latest OS but is it a Touch ID phone or an earlier model without the secure enclave etc. of the new models?
if it's been explained fully to the judge there's no secure enclave so once the try counter is defeated brute force won't wipe the phoneniw whether they'll get in before the next millennia? Qien sabe.
As a warrant would be for that one phone to be 4th Amendment consistent: turning over software tools to breach any phone is a stretch.
Does this mean that the terrorist did not use Touch ID?
The FBI could obviously just use the dead terrorist's finger, couldn't they?
Does this mean that a code is actually more secure than Touch ID?
Older iPhones don't have Touch ID, or iirc, the secure enclave. Oh and the try counter also counts touches does it not? If so guess the wrong finger and they risk wiping the phone.
Does this mean that the terrorist did not use Touch ID?
The FBI could obviously just use the dead terrorist's finger, couldn't they?
Does this mean that a code is actually more secure than Touch ID?
The phone in this case is the iPhone 5c. It has no Touch ID hardware.
Was that an advantage for the terrorist, because it seems that if the terrorist had used a newer model iPhone and if they had used Touch ID, then the FBI possibly wouldn't be pulling their hair out for months on end trying to get into the phone?
First, waterboard doesnt work and that was proven many years ago. Those terrorists, just like those russian spies during Soviet era, are trained to withstand any type of torture, and second, those people who carried out the attacks were shot on site by the police. Maybe if the police had tranquillizer guns and shot darts to put them to sleep rather than kill them they would still be alive and could be interrogated. But then again,if they kill ordinary americans without any reason, I can't really imagine with those terrorists being anything different.
Care to provide sources on how torture doesn't work? Granted, it's not reliable but let's assume they were alive and still subject to torture -- do you think they were anywhere close to being highly trained in resisting it? Verification of a truthful or fake passcode would be easy and immediate. Also, would you like to have been a member of the police firing tranquilizer darts against two subjects firing semi automatic rifle bullets at you? Just to note: tranquilizers don't act instantaneously like they do in most movies.
The other thing that occurs: iirc the judge had asked for submissions from Apple so I'm suspecting Apple explained why they don't want to do this but did NOT state unequivocally that they couldn't.
The phone in this case is the iPhone 5c. It has no Touch ID hardware.
Was that an advantage for the terrorist, because it seems that if the terrorist had used a newer model iPhone and if they had used Touch ID, then the FBI possibly wouldn't be pulling their hair out for months on end trying to get into the phone?
Take phone to morgue, or dig them up if they're already buried ...press finger to phone
I try and use TouchID on my wife's 5s and it works about 1 in 8 attempts. Most of the time it locks out the TouchID and requires a passcode. Last time I checked I was alive -- it might be harder with a dead finger.
Comments
If they truly can't, then hey need to show why they can't and still provide whatever assistance they can without giving the FBI a road map on how to do it on their own in the future, if possible.
I have no problem with them making a device that even they cannot break into if that truly is the case. We do not owe it to the government to make it easy for them to get around the 4th amendment and read our phones at will. I think it would be bad form and hard to support Apple if they just told the Government to go pound sand, we are not helping you even if we could. We are under lethal attack from a large group of radicalized religious zealots.
If Apple truly can't break in, then the FBI should go back and waterboard the suspects until they give them the code.
Reply #16 on page 1 provided an excellent tutorial on why Apple really doesn't have access to the data. (The court seems to acknowledge that Apple doesn't have the ability to break the encryption. They are asking Apple to disable the "self destruct" system so that the FBI can just keep trying passwords over and over... and it's entirely possible that Apple doesn't have the ability to provide that either.)
Waterboarding doesn't work very well on dead people.
The FBI could obviously just use the dead terrorist's finger, couldn't they?
Does this mean that a code is actually more secure than Touch ID?
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=b7f8d608b96427f27378d179f19148a9
if it's been explained fully to the judge there's no secure enclave so once the try counter is defeated brute force won't wipe the phoneniw whether they'll get in before the next millennia? Qien sabe.
As a warrant would be for that one phone to be 4th Amendment consistent: turning over software tools to breach any phone is a stretch.
Care to provide sources on how torture doesn't work? Granted, it's not reliable but let's assume they were alive and still subject to torture -- do you think they were anywhere close to being highly trained in resisting it? Verification of a truthful or fake passcode would be easy and immediate. Also, would you like to have been a member of the police firing tranquilizer darts against two subjects firing semi automatic rifle bullets at you? Just to note: tranquilizers don't act instantaneously like they do in most movies.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/16/why-a-disembodied-finger-cant-be-used-to-unlock-the-touch-id-se/
I try and use TouchID on my wife's 5s and it works about 1 in 8 attempts. Most of the time it locks out the TouchID and requires a passcode. Last time I checked I was alive -- it might be harder with a dead finger.