The media siding with the government. Why am I not surprised.
its not just about this one phone. Are people really that naive to think once Apple does this they'll never be asked to do it again? Also can the government force a private company to create a product that currently doesn't exist in order to comply with a court order? What specific law gives the government that power?
Exactly. What the government is doing is essentially forcing a private company to be R&D for the FBI. This judge that ruled in the FBI's favor completely went over her legal authority. What's making matters worse are articles like the one I posted. Lets face it, the majority of people aren't versed in encryption and other technology. That's why we see articles and comments from people who say "it's just one phone". What they fail to realize is it's a lot more than just one phone. Everyone should be on the side of Apple if they care about keeping their information private.
The government wants Apple to create a tool to defeat the 10 attempt limit. Once that software is in their hands it can be used on ANY iPhone. So while they say "just this phone" it would actually apply to ALL phones from Apple.
Do we know for a fact that it's not possible to create a method which would affect only a specific phone? Yes, that method would be repeatable; but it doesn't necessarily mean that the method itself has to be in the hands of the government. Regardless, the courts don't (shouldn't) deal with hypothetical future cases.
And to be clear, I'm not on the side of the government...not on anyone's side, really. Just trying to add to the conversation without the emotion and paranoia often associated with topics like this. If I look at this from a purely practical standpoint, Apple itself has done far more to promote easy access to our iPhones by the authorities when it comes to the vast majority of Americans. What's more likely? That the authorities specifically target you and gain possession of your iPhone and spend enormous resources to brute force crack it after Apple has removed the 10 attempt limit? Or that some joe-bag-of-donuts local cop takes possession of your iPhone during a route traffic stop and "compels" you to place your finger on the Touch ID sensor to unlock your phone? You have the choice to not use Touch ID. You also have the choice to not use a weak 4-digit pin to lock your phone. You can use an alphanumeric passcode which could render the FBI's request to remove the 10 attempt limit irrelevant.
You clearly do not have a clue about what is going on. You are naive or willfully ignorant.
The court wants Apple to create software to bypass the 10 try limit and turn it over to the FBI...THAT is the issue. They are not giving the phone to Apple and asking for help. They want to be able to do it themselves.
If Steve was alive he would have done exactly same as what Tim is doing. I am sure he is smiling in his grave. And now DOJ pulling their stunt, the fight must go on. Bravo to Tim and Apple. This is not just about one phone. FBI and many law enforcement has tried to get Apple to have backdoor access to iMessage. Government has many other data on these two individuals. Government had lots of data before 9/11 happened and we still know what happened.
This really isn't a 4th Amendment question. The FBI is operating well within those bounds in wanting to access the data on the phone. The search is reasonable and even has the support of the owner of the phone. It comes down to if Apple can be required/compelled to assist in those efforts, which would seem to fall more under freedom of speech (or in this case, freedom to refuse speech...in the form of computer code).
For those who are worried about their privacy should a tool be created which would allow brute for attacks on iPhones, the solution is simple. Use the alphanumeric passcode option and don't use a stupid password. And don't use Touch ID, either.
The owner is dead. I guess that is giving support since he can't refuse.
The tool requested by the FBI has nothing to do with TouchID since they requested it to be able to turn off the number of failed attempts before the data is erased. TouchID is simply another way of inputting the passcode using biometric fingerprint detection. The so-called news reports about a fingerprint workaround are all but bogus and Apple has continued to improve the security of using it with each new iPhone model as well as new versions of iOS.
By creating a software tool (which doesn't exist) the FBI is asking Apple to modify the security of the iPhone and iOS. The capability to erase the contents of the iPhone with failed attempts (as well as to remotely erase the data) was the subject of hearings and news conferences by lawmakers. They were the impetus for Apple to create the features in the first place. If Apple complies with the FBI what precedent will that set for future backdoor security tools? The leaders of other countries that have few privacy laws could use this as a case to compel Apple to create or use the FBI code to create additional security bypass tools. Once the hacker community is able to get this code they can and will exploit it. I am not convinced that the FBI is able to keep this tool secure and a one time use as they say.
A fine point but the owner isn't dead, the owner of the phone is the California agency the creep worked for and they have already given the FBI permission to enter the phone. The issue is whether or not Apple can be compelled to write a new OS which gives the FBI the power to brute force passwords and whether they can compel Apple to use their ability to load that software onto this phone. I'm with Apple on this one.
Do we know for a fact that it's not possible to create a method which would affect only a specific phone? Yes, that method would be repeatable; but it doesn't necessarily mean that the method itself has to be in the hands of the government. Regardless, the courts don't (shouldn't) deal with hypothetical future cases.
And to be clear, I'm not on the side of the government...not on anyone's side, really. Just trying to add to the conversation without the emotion and paranoia often associated with topics like this. If I look at this from a purely practical standpoint, Apple itself has done far more to promote easy access to our iPhones by the authorities when it comes to the vast majority of Americans. What's more likely? That the authorities specifically target you and gain possession of your iPhone and spend enormous resources to brute force crack it after Apple has removed the 10 attempt limit? Or that some joe-bag-of-donuts local cop takes possession of your iPhone during a route traffic stop and "compels" you to place your finger on the Touch ID sensor to unlock your phone? You have the choice to not use Touch ID. You also have the choice to not use a weak 4-digit pin to lock your phone. You can use an alphanumeric passcode which could render the FBI's request to remove the 10 attempt limit irrelevant.
You clearly do not have a clue about what is going on. You are naive or willfully ignorant.
The court wants Apple to create software to bypass the 10 try limit and turn it over to the FBI...THAT is the issue. They are not giving the phone to Apple and asking for help. They want to be able to do it themselves.
You clearly have not read the court order. The bolding is by me to highlight the points relevant to your comments above.
"The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis."
And yes, there is a HUGE question about whether that "unique identifier" is something that can be easily changed to make it work on another phone. However, the court order does, in fact, allow for the phone to be physically turned over to Apple, contrary to your statement, and for it to be in Apple's possession during the data recovery.
The order also says the that software package it to only be loaded into RAM. The OS and any other contents of the flash memory are not to be altered. So theoretically, once the "recovery" is completed and the phone is powered down, the contents of RAM including the special software package are gone when the phone is turned back over to the FBI.
I don't know if any of that is technically feasible, and I'm not saying Apple should agree to do it. There definitely needs to be limits to the All Writs Act, and it's very possible that this is beyond those limits. And I'm also well aware of what kind of precedent this could set. But before you call someone naive and willfully ignorant, you may want to double-check your facts. I'm more that willing to listen to any factual information you or anyone else wants to put forth to broaden, clarify, or correct my understanding on this or any other topic. But your statement is clearly not factual.
You clearly do not have a clue about what is going on. You are naive or willfully ignorant.
The court wants Apple to create software to bypass the 10 try limit and turn it over to the FBI...THAT is the issue. They are not giving the phone to Apple and asking for help. They want to be able to do it themselves.
You clearly have not read the court order. The bolding is by me to highlight the points relevant to your comments above.
"The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis."
And yes, there is a HUGE question about whether that "unique identifier" is something that can be easily changed to make it work on another phone. However, the court order does, in fact, allow for the phone to be physically turned over to Apple, contrary to your statement, and for it to be in Apple's possession during the data recovery.
The order also says the that software package it to only be loaded into RAM. The OS and any other contents of the flash memory are not to be altered. So theoretically, once the "recovery" is completed and the phone is powered down, the contents of RAM including the special software package are gone when the phone is turned back over to the FBI.
I don't know if any of that is technically feasible, and I'm not saying Apple should agree to do it. There definitely needs to be limits to the All Writs Act, and it's very possible that this is beyond those limits. And I'm also well aware of what kind of precedent this could set. But before you call someone naive and willfully ignorant, you may want to double-check your facts. I'm more that willing to listen to any factual information you or anyone else wants to put forth to broaden, clarify, or correct my understanding on this or any other topic. But your statement is clearly not factual.
I will concede your point. It does come down to Apple even having the ability to do what they ask and what door will it open n the future.
The order was still written by someone without much knowledge about how the phones work. More like a wish list in someones imagination.
Comments
The court wants Apple to create software to bypass the 10 try limit and turn it over to the FBI...THAT is the issue. They are not giving the phone to Apple and asking for help. They want to be able to do it themselves.
"The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis."
And yes, there is a HUGE question about whether that "unique identifier" is something that can be easily changed to make it work on another phone. However, the court order does, in fact, allow for the phone to be physically turned over to Apple, contrary to your statement, and for it to be in Apple's possession during the data recovery.
The order also says the that software package it to only be loaded into RAM. The OS and any other contents of the flash memory are not to be altered. So theoretically, once the "recovery" is completed and the phone is powered down, the contents of RAM including the special software package are gone when the phone is turned back over to the FBI.
I don't know if any of that is technically feasible, and I'm not saying Apple should agree to do it. There definitely needs to be limits to the All Writs Act, and it's very possible that this is beyond those limits. And I'm also well aware of what kind of precedent this could set. But before you call someone naive and willfully ignorant, you may want to double-check your facts. I'm more that willing to listen to any factual information you or anyone else wants to put forth to broaden, clarify, or correct my understanding on this or any other topic. But your statement is clearly not factual.
The order was still written by someone without much knowledge about how the phones work. More like a wish list in someones imagination.