The real question is, "can it be done". Apple is no more capable than anyone else when it comes to breaking strong encryption. The court may not order Apple to cease using strong encryption because it cannot produce a key. That's an entirely different situation. The proposal Cuban makes assumes some sort of capability to perform the operation of breaking into the phone under the conditions described (and I won't bother critiquing those conditions), but it can't be done under any conditions if strong encryption is used.
I agree with this. In the past Apple has said in court filings that even they cannot break the encryption. Furthermore, although I don't know much about the inner workings of iOS, I fail to understand how they can load special software on to this particular iPhone if it is locked, at least not while preserving the data. That is something that should not be possible because if it was, Apple would have been deceitful when describing the security aspects of iOS.
The government wants Apple to build an external cracking tool that brute-forces the storage over the port, wifi or bluetooth, the software wouldn't be loaded onto the phone itself. In order to unlock any storage, there has to be software external to the encrypted volume otherwise there would be no executable to open it. This small piece of software has restrictions in the number of passcode attempts.
In OS X's FileVault 2, the OS resides on the encrypted volume so it's not accessible until the volume is unlocked but there's some EFI software to do this and it seems to use something from the recovery volume. It similarly has restrictions for brute-forcing the key:
The government wants those restrictions removed from the custom iOS version as well as additional functionality to be able to apply the brute-forcing over a data input. This would give them an external tool able to crack any iOS device. If it was designed to work over wireless, they could do this outside someone's home, have a look at all their Snapchats and they'd never know it happened.
If Apple held onto the software but still made it, all that would happen is the FBI would inundate them with unlock requests for other suspected criminals, including innocent parties and people who the government just decides are traitors. These requests would always be forced by law knowing they have the software to do it.
The FBI is trying to slander Apple by suggesting they are on the side of the terrorists by not building them a cracking tool and people are siding with the government based on this perception that Apple is protecting terrorists. This is no different from saying that people who don't apply restrictions to other things the terrorists used to carry out their actions are also on the side of terrorists.
People do bad things when they have the freedom to do so but there should only be restrictions on that freedom where it doesn't adversely impact everyone else. When you look at oppressed countries around the world, they have only retained their freedom of speech because of encryption, which led governments to shut down their entire internet access. The FBI and NSA have always tried to be a law unto themselves unaccountable to anyone, there have been as many incidents going back decades that show this to be the case, illegally spying on civil rights activists and even presidents they didn't agree with.
Apple is a Corporation which is considered a person. Apple sold the device with a key to lock the safe with or set the alarm on their house. This request is the equivalent to forcing the salesman of a secure house to find a way to break into it or else.
I agree with this. In the past Apple has said in court filings that even they cannot break the encryption. Furthermore, although I don't know much about the inner workings of iOS, I fail to understand how they can load special software on to this particular iPhone if it is locked, at least not while preserving the data. That is something that should not be possible because if it was, Apple would have been deceitful when describing the security aspects of iOS.
The government wants Apple to build an external cracking tool that brute-forces the storage over the port, wifi or bluetooth, the software wouldn't be loaded onto the phone itself. In order to unlock any storage, there has to be software external to the encrypted volume otherwise there would be no executable to open it. This small piece of software has restrictions in the number of passcode attempts.
In OS X's FileVault 2, the OS resides on the encrypted volume so it's not accessible until the volume is unlocked but there's some EFI software to do this and it seems to use something from the recovery volume. It similarly has restrictions for brute-forcing the key:
The government wants those restrictions removed from the custom iOS version as well as additional functionality to be able to apply the brute-forcing over a data input. This would give them an external tool able to crack any iOS device. If it was designed to work over wireless, they could do this outside someone's home, have a look at all their Snapchats and they'd never know it happened.
If Apple held onto the software but still made it, all that would happen is the FBI would inundate them with unlock requests for other suspected criminals, including innocent parties and people who the government just decides are traitors. These requests would always be forced by law knowing they have the software to do it.
The FBI is trying to slander Apple by suggesting they are on the side of the terrorists by not building them a cracking tool and people are siding with the government based on this perception that Apple is protecting terrorists. This is no different from saying that people who don't apply restrictions to other things the terrorists used to carry out their actions are also on the side of terrorists.
People do bad things when they have the freedom to do so but there should only be restrictions on that freedom where it doesn't adversely impact everyone else. When you look at oppressed countries around the world, they have only retained their freedom of speech because of encryption, which led governments to shut down their entire internet access. The FBI and NSA have always tried to be a law unto themselves unaccountable to anyone, there have been as many incidents going back decades that show this to be the case, illegally spying on civil rights activists and even presidents they didn't agree with.
A couple of additions to this useful line of discussion. The FBI is also outrageously trying to slander Apple by saying that the company's resistance is coming from PR and marketing motives alone, when we know that there is a tremendous principle of our personal information security involved — which stands at the top of Apple's decision-making here.
Second, I doubt that there was a single president that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI did NOT spy on, and I seriously doubt that the apparatus he put in place was ever completely rooted out after Watergate, or his death, or the ethics of "transparency" that have evolved (ha ha) in recent years. Excuse me for being skeptical that the figureheads we elect have final say over our state spying institutions, the machinery of which grinds on no matter the public political winds blowing.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
Apple is a Corporation which is considered a person. Apple sold the device with a key to lock the safe with or set the alarm on their house. This request is the equivalent to forcing the salesman of a secure house to find a way to break into it or else.
Not exactly. Apple did not provide a key. They provided the lock and the ability for the user to make their own key. Since the user created the key themselves, why does the government expected that Apple would have a copy of it? This is the way it *should* be. When I buy a house, why would I want the builder to keep a copy of my key?
Can anyone imagine the FBI compelling any one of the top 10 Banks to create a backdoor to their systems so that International bad guys'crimes could be tracked and not by rote freely allowed to pay a few Billion and no corporate humans damaged or bonuses confiscated? Scientists and Silicon Valley are just us government mules to be beaten into compliance and be conscripted on their own hook an repitation-impairment for daring to protect individual and First Amendment rights and not Wall Street rights which are on a whole 'nother level of self-congratulation and mutual protection. Like the broken Criminal Justice system? Watch it in action right here in the Valley in real time.
In this case the ends don't even come close to justifying the means. A few days worth of probably redundant and useless data. When a hydrogen bomb is hidden in NYC on a countdown timer with the kill switch hidden in an encrypted iPhone, the issue will have legs.
It won't have legs even then! The odds are no matter what the bomb would go off. Like these Terrorists, it would have been better to keep them or that bomb out of the country in the first place!!! It was piss poor background checking. Basically what you expect form the government in these cases.
Any terrorist with a Nuke, do you really think they would trust Apple's Encryption? Let alone use any from the U.S. because of back Doors? They would use cheap Android phones where they can throw on any 3rd party encryption they wanted with no back door. Not under the U.S. Government control. Hell they can create their own, it's only math.
Well, it is strange ~ 'open 'a door for this info the FBI wants for THIS case only - hummmmm
ONCE that BELL has been rung it CANNOT be UNRUNG................
IF Apple can 'unlock' THIS phone THEN give the FBI the info ? but then again, do it once <>
It will NEVER stop 'needing' to be done again, again, again
Comments
In OS X's FileVault 2, the OS resides on the encrypted volume so it's not accessible until the volume is unlocked but there's some EFI software to do this and it seems to use something from the recovery volume. It similarly has restrictions for brute-forcing the key:
http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/374.pdf
The government wants those restrictions removed from the custom iOS version as well as additional functionality to be able to apply the brute-forcing over a data input. This would give them an external tool able to crack any iOS device. If it was designed to work over wireless, they could do this outside someone's home, have a look at all their Snapchats and they'd never know it happened.
If Apple held onto the software but still made it, all that would happen is the FBI would inundate them with unlock requests for other suspected criminals, including innocent parties and people who the government just decides are traitors. These requests would always be forced by law knowing they have the software to do it.
The FBI is trying to slander Apple by suggesting they are on the side of the terrorists by not building them a cracking tool and people are siding with the government based on this perception that Apple is protecting terrorists. This is no different from saying that people who don't apply restrictions to other things the terrorists used to carry out their actions are also on the side of terrorists.
People do bad things when they have the freedom to do so but there should only be restrictions on that freedom where it doesn't adversely impact everyone else. When you look at oppressed countries around the world, they have only retained their freedom of speech because of encryption, which led governments to shut down their entire internet access. The FBI and NSA have always tried to be a law unto themselves unaccountable to anyone, there have been as many incidents going back decades that show this to be the case, illegally spying on civil rights activists and even presidents they didn't agree with.
Second, I doubt that there was a single president that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI did NOT spy on, and I seriously doubt that the apparatus he put in place was ever completely rooted out after Watergate, or his death, or the ethics of "transparency" that have evolved (ha ha) in recent years. Excuse me for being skeptical that the figureheads we elect have final say over our state spying institutions, the machinery of which grinds on no matter the public political winds blowing.
Scientists and Silicon Valley are just us government mules to be beaten into compliance and be conscripted on their own hook an repitation-impairment for daring to protect individual and First Amendment rights and not Wall Street rights which are on a whole 'nother level of self-congratulation and mutual protection.
Like the broken Criminal Justice system? Watch it in action right here in the Valley in real time.