He is implying that if Apple modifies the phone to allow unlimited, rapid attempts, then that will not permit them, or anyone else, to use that on any other phone. Great in principle except, as pointed out before, at a minimum it sets a precedent to make a court-sanctioned request for more than just information, would demonstrate that this vulnerability exists, and sets the bar much higher for the level of assistance LE can expect from third parties in an investigation. In the worst case, he is wrong, and it does become a master key.
It's also a blatant lie as what is demanded with the current court order is for the DELIVERY of masterkey software to disable iPhone security features TO the FBI. At which point they pinkie swear to "only" use it on the one ipHone? Believe that and I've a bridge to sell you.
You might want to actually read the court order before you say anything else:
What are Apple Iphone users so defensive about ?? Are you techies all buying drugs or watching child porn or something????????
Apple users are sick , terrorist supporting commie lib drug dealing child porn watching sickos.....
im not an apple user. and i think this should never happen. just think about it. if they get apple to this then what happens to our privacy. ur gona sit there and say you have never sent a dirty pic or anything of the sort. dont act like ur perfect and all righteous. because we all know the ppl that act like you actually have more to hide than the rest of us.
If that limited goal was true they would not have demanded, via their magistrate, the DELIVERY of the software masterkey to open iPhones.
There would still be All Writs Act of 1789 issues had they really been focused on the one phone as seen by placing the phone in Apple's possession under FBI continuous supervision to maintain the evidence trail, but they didn't, they went the mastery demand.
Possibly panicked by the skepticism voiced by Judge Ornstein in the Brooklyn, Feng case on a similar issue (opening an iPhone).
Apple is specifically permitted to retain control of the phone and the modified software. They can supervise the entire operation. The FBI can be restricted to remote access sufficient to mount the passcode attack. Apple is also permitted to restrict the operation of the modified software to this one phone via it's UUID.
Bullshit. The scope isn't limited. It sets a precedent. If Apple complies, the FBI and other countries will demand to use it as well. Apple should not be in the business of hacking its customers.
That is the point Apple is making it they do it one they will be required to do it every time and for any police agency in the world or government agency otherwise they run the risk of being shut out of the market place. Also it just mean if people know they can not trust apple they will go to some other source outside the US government control. But they could do like they did for year not allow certain technology to be exported, they will just no allow certain technologies to be imported to the US.
How will they do that? Check even cell phone, chip and line of code that crosses the border; the very though they think this is even viable makes them seem delusional.
"The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve."
Nice try Mr. Comey. The unverbalized follow through to the statement is of course "And when the technology evolves then we can easily get another court order rubber-stamped because the precedent has been set."
Let's steer this discussion away from Apple. The San Bernardino terrorists did not use iphone to kill Americans but used freely available Guns.So, before messing up with privacy,security,civil rights, freedom and liberty, let's put better Gun control laws that would not allow any Muslim to possesses gun in this country.
Yes, but no. The iPhone killed no one, and was most likely just used for business. One's religion, or lack of, should not be a determinate to gun ownership. However, the ease of amassing an arsenal with assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo should not be so easy. Purchases like that should raise flags and trigger a closer look at whom is making them.
Encryption must work for everyone or it works for no one. Encryption is what stands between you, everything you own and every hacker on Earth.
The worldwide end of encryption isn't in play here. Apple can't decrypt the phone and isn't being asked to. It's being asked to allow the FBI to mount a passcode search.
Let's say Apple agrees and the FBI opens the phone. What then? The US gov't may well ask for this again. But they have a legal warrant for the information. There are due process protections in place, whether you want to believe it or not.
It's also plausible that countries without the same legal oversight will ask Apple based on this precedent. What then? It may be that Apple will be forced to withdraw from or change the products they sell in countries like China. Again, that's a commercial argument, not a privacy argument.
I understand that the US government has lost the trust of many people on this issue. But for all of the Snowden-incited hysteria about government overreach (and I agree that the NSA did overreach) there hasn't been any documented harm to anyone as a result. Why not? Because there actually is an oversight system. Snowden's original concern (and it was valid) was that the data collection was in excess of what was authorized by law and that eventually there might be harm. Since then he's gone off the deep end and apparently believes that Putin's Russia is a more open and democratic society than the US. Good luck with that, Ed.
There's a totally different set of issues at play here. Tim Cook and Apple are playing on people's valid fears and concerns to protect their own commercial interests. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric.
The US isn't in a vacuum. Nefarious countries will confiscate iPhone of dissenters or political enemies and basically force Apple to comply with local laws.
The FBI says it's just for one iPhone. That may be true now but it won't be for long. Information is like a drug. They will never stop finding new ways to use the master key again and again.
The worldwide end of encryption isn't in play here. Apple can't decrypt the phone and isn't being asked to. It's being asked to allow the FBI to mount a passcode search.
Let's say Apple agrees and the FBI opens the phone. What then? The US gov't may well ask for this again. But they have a legal warrant for the information. There are due process protections in place, whether you want to believe it or not.
It's also plausible that countries without the same legal oversight will ask Apple based on this precedent. What then? It may be that Apple will be forced to withdraw from or change the products they sell in countries like China. Again, that's a commercial argument, not a privacy argument.
I understand that the US government has lost the trust of many people on this issue. But for all of the Snowden-incited hysteria about government overreach (and I agree that the NSA did overreach) there hasn't been any documented harm to anyone as a result. Why not? Because there actually is an oversight system. Snowden's original concern (and it was valid) was that the data collection was in excess of what was authorized by law and that eventually there might be harm. Since then he's gone off the deep end and apparently believes that Putin's Russia is a more open and democratic society than the US. Good luck with that, Ed.
There's a totally different set of issues at play here. Tim Cook and Apple are playing on people's valid fears and concerns to protect their own commercial interests. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric.
The US isn't in a vacuum. Nefarious countries will confiscate iPhone of dissenters or political enemies and basically force Apple to comply with local laws.
The FBI says it's just for one iPhone. That may be true now but it won't be for long. Information is like a drug. They will never stop finding new ways to use the master key again and again.
First, there is no master key. It doesn't exist. You need to read more about what's being requested and how it would work.
You may be right that other countries will try to force Apple to comply. That's a commercial argument not a privacy argument. Apple can simply withdraw from such countries if they do not feel there is sufficient due process. That includes withdrawing from the US if they so choose. No one forces Apple to sell in China, Russia or the US. That's a business decision.
All a search warrant does is to allow the government to ATTEMPT to open a safe, or read your mail, etc. it doesn’t mean that you have to cooperate. It means that if necessary, the government has to do the work.
That’s no different here. If the government want to try this themselves, no one is saying that they shouldn’t. But requiring Apple to do so is putting everyone on edge. A problem is that a company is only required to do this if it doesn’t present an undue burden.
While the FBI is saying that it’s only one phone, that’s nonsense, and they know it. If Apple does this one phone, they will get thousands of requests from US law enforcement for every imaginable offense. Then Apple will get thousands of “requests” from every foreign government. They will need to open a department of programmers and manage to, as well as a legal team to evaluate every request, and to implement those that they consider legal, which itself will lead to some possible court action.
This is both improper, and impossible.'
I'm not sure where the "undue burden" criteria comes in. Is there precedent for that?
But it's really beside the point. I agree that others will ask for the same help and that Apple will suffer as a consequence. But this is a commercial argument, not a privacy argument. I have (surprisingly) found myself agreeing with the DOJ on this. There is no Orwellian threat to privacy here. But there is a commercial threat to Apple and its brand. MHO, that is not grounds for refusal.
You think that if other countries (and in the US) can just ask to have backdoors in any phone they like it's not an issue other than commercial? What's their argument to stop notoriously corrupt Russian autorities from having access?
That his has all the marking of a very bad fishing expedition (likelyness of there being nothing there nearly 100%) they had to instigate through their incompetence seems to not trouble you at all
Writing the software (and if this case was about the 5s and later phone, hardware!!) itself is not the issue all by itself, it's the legal precedent it sets, especially because this case doesn't sit in a vacuum, there has been a lot of things brewing around encryption and privacy over the last two years..
That the fact that they can't keep this so called promise (coming from the court ordeR) of one off or that this won't get out (read about it from link from Apple security specialist on this thread about how the legal system works) and because of how the law works in the US, that doesn't trouble you at all.... Read up on that before spouting your garbage since you love to "read" so much.
That people in local enforcement say they got hundreds of phones waiting to be unlocked (when questioned about this thing) and the former NSA director blames Paris on encryption despite having no proof at all (so again emotional appeal using the dead), and the Senate wants to use this fishing expedition to pass a law giving access in all case, well hey that's all in Apple's head isn't it.
No sir, all it's all handwaves and unicorns in your world.
Oh, and shootings and crimes occured in the 1990s without encryption (even more so, the crime rate was much higher than before) and it will occur after everything is encrypted (as many things have been in the last few years) . Encryption is not the limiting factor for crime.
Well, hey, you are part of those parachuted ones after all, so no surprise.
BTW, you seem to be the one who read just the FBI info and nothing around it.
I'm not sure where the "undue burden" criteria comes in. Is there precedent for that?
But it's really beside the point. I agree that others will ask for the same help and that Apple will suffer as a consequence. But this is a commercial argument, not a privacy argument. I have (surprisingly) found myself agreeing with the DOJ on this. There is no Orwellian threat to privacy here. But there is a commercial threat to Apple and its brand. MHO, that is not grounds for refusal.
You think that if other countries (and in the US) can just ask to have backdoors in any phone they like it's not an issue other than commercial? What's their argument to stop notoriously corrupt Russian autorities from having access?
No one asked for a backdoor. That's not in play.
If Putin asks Apple for the same sort of help that the DOJ is asking for, Apple can simply refuse to comply if it believes that there isn't sufficient due process. The likely result is that Putin bans the sale of Apple phones in Russia. That's why it's a commercial argument.
I'm not sure where the "undue burden" criteria comes in. Is there precedent for that?
But it's really beside the point. I agree that others will ask for the same help and that Apple will suffer as a consequence. But this is a commercial argument, not a privacy argument. I have (surprisingly) found myself agreeing with the DOJ on this. There is no Orwellian threat to privacy here. But there is a commercial threat to Apple and its brand. MHO, that is not grounds for refusal.
BTW, you seem to be the one who read just the FBI info and nothing around it.
Actually I've spent more time than I should reading as many points of view on this as I can find. Including yours, I might add. I just find most of the arguments against this to be unsupported by the actual facts of the case.
Let's steer this discussion away from Apple. The San Bernardino terrorists did not use iphone to kill Americans but used freely available Guns.So, before messing up with privacy,security,civil rights, freedom and liberty, let's put better Gun control laws that would not allow any Muslim to possesses gun in this country.
Yes, but no. The iPhone killed no one, and was most likely just used for business. One's religion, or lack of, should not be a determinate to gun ownership. However, the ease of amassing an arsenal with assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo should not be so easy. Purchases like that should raise flags and trigger a closer look at whom is making them.
But, in the US, the NRA doesn't want a centralised digital repository of info on guns... They don't even want the US gov to amass stats on gun violence, gun efficiency in repelling crime. They all think it's a big conspiracy to remove their guns. So, the US is left with a patchwork of really slow and incomplete verifications that lets anyone buy a go
You can't limit anything after you open the door. Once the door is open that's it. And it would also set a precedent that they could ask any company at anytime to do the same which means all privacy would be GONE! It's not just about 1 phone or one company. It's about all companies and all products would no longer have any privacy period. It would also mean that communist countries would have free rain of our information as well.
If that were the case, the FBI could just hack the OS binary and disable the password attempt lockout themselves. When the FBI says it is just for that phone, they literally mean it will only run on that phone. They want Apple to not only disable to password attempt lockout, but to make it so that OS version will only load on the iPhone with the specific hardware ID. The iPhone hardware prevents it from executing the OS if it isn't signed using Apple's key. If you modify the binary, the signature is no longer valid. The exact same security protection that prevent the FBI or anyone else loading a hacked version of iOS on the phone, would prevent Apple's modified version from being able to be used on any other phone.
Either that security feature works, or it doesn't, Cook can't have it both ways. If it doesn't work, then there is a huge, gaping security hole in iOS if you have the physical phone. If it does work, then the risk is limited to Apple not making sure the OS can only load on a phone with a specific hardware id.
Apple is also permitted to do this all at their site and can load the old OS back on the phone before allowing it out of their hands, which means that it will only get out in the wild if Apple screws up.
There is never zero risk, but the risks are no more significant that any other change to Apple's security software, and Apple maintains control over them.
The FBI director's demand is limited because he knows that's how you erase civil liberties: start with easily digestible violations, make it the "new normal," then later ask for a little more (using the All Writs Act judicial power, to make it legal) until our rights have been eroded away, and you can't go back.
The San Bernardino County iPhone, which the terrorists didn't bother to destroy (they destroyed their own phones, but if they hadn't, and it ran Android, we would never hear about it) is the phantom menace.
"We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land," Comey added.
The comment is a direct reference to Apple CEO Tim Cook's argument that creating a workaround for the FBI would also create a "master key" that could be used to break into any iPhone, not just Farook's, and undermine the security of all iOS devices.
They are absolutely out to break that phone's encryption. By disabling the protections against brute-forcing the lock code they are asking for the means for easy decryption. Also, they are creating a master key for any iPhone merely by legal precedent.
The FBI screwed up by publicizing this. If they had secretly come to Apple, they would probably have gotten what they wanted no questions asked. Frankly I find it difficult to believe that Apple would intentionally throw away a capability that they had in the past. They have previously unlocked iPhones for law enforcement. I suspect they recently did one for the Reeve Steenkamp iPhone in the blade runner case. I read the police from South Africa traveled to Cupertino for that purpose, although I never heard the result.
Bullshit. The scope isn't limited. It sets a precedent. If Apple complies, the FBI and other countries will demand to use it as well. Apple should not be in the business of hacking its customers.
That is the point Apple is making it they do it one they will be required to do it every time and for any police agency in the world or government agency otherwise they run the risk of being shut out of the market place. Also it just mean if people know they can not trust apple they will go to some other source outside the US government control. But they could do like they did for year not allow certain technology to be exported, they will just no allow certain technologies to be imported to the US.
The other nations of the world really aren't all that concerned about if the US courts will allow this or not. What they are concerned about is if it is possible to do, which it obviously is. If would set a precedent in our court system, though there are lots of precedents of the courts compelling the cooperation of third parties in executing a warrant. Apple is actually being unprecedented in how uncooperative it is being in regards to data on a phone. In previous versions of iOS Apple had and maintained tools to do such things. Once a warrant was issued, the phone was delivered to Apple, and they would use their software tools to retreive the data from the phone and provide law enforcement with that data.
The biggest difference here is that Apple intentionally didn't create the tools to easily copy the data from the phone. Not that they can't create such tools, but that they now think that having such tool poses an unacceptable risk to their customer's privacy.
I'm also not sure how this puts Apple at a competitive disadvantage. Any company operating in the United States is subject to US law and will be equally requires to comply with valid US warrants. People who are really, really concerned about their privacy will likely use third party encryption developed by people without a business presence in the US, so this doesn't solve the FBI's inability to access encrypted data when they have a warrant (I doubt there is a solution).
Apple shouldn't be helping law enforcement access phones? Apple should make an effort to prevent the government from accessing people's data without a valid warrant. However, we don't have a right to be free from reasonable searches that are supported by probable cause, and Apple does have an obligation to comply with a valid warrant. There is a question of if what is required of Apple places an undue burden on them. Not wanting to comply, or the fact that complying contradicts previously made statements isn't legally an undue burden. The fact that the OS image needs to be signed and unmodified for the iPhone to load it will keep the custom version of iOS locked to a specific phone.
That is the point Apple is making it they do it one they will be required to do it every time and for any police agency in the world or government agency otherwise they run the risk of being shut out of the market place. Also it just mean if people know they can not trust apple they will go to some other source outside the US government control. But they could do like they did for year not allow certain technology to be exported, they will just no allow certain technologies to be imported to the US.
The other nations of the world really aren't all that concerned about if the US courts will allow this or not. What they are concerned about is if it is possible to do, which it obviously is. If would set a precedent in our court system, though there are lots of precedents of the courts compelling the cooperation of third parties in executing a warrant. Apple is actually being unprecedented in how uncooperative it is being in regards to data on a phone. In previous versions of iOS Apple had and maintained tools to do such things. Once a warrant was issued, the phone was delivered to Apple, and they would use their software tools to retreive the data from the phone and provide law enforcement with that data.
The biggest difference here is that Apple intentionally didn't create the tools to easily copy the data from the phone. Not that they can't create such tools, but that they now think that having such tool poses an unacceptable risk to their customer's privacy.
I'm also not sure how this puts Apple at a competitive disadvantage. Any company operating in the United States is subject to US law and will be equally requires to comply with valid US warrants. People who are really, really concerned about their privacy will likely use third party encryption developed by people without a business presence in the US, so this doesn't solve the FBI's inability to access encrypted data when they have a warrant (I doubt there is a solution).
Apple shouldn't be helping law enforcement access phones? Apple should make an effort to prevent the government from accessing people's data without a valid warrant. However, we don't have a right to be free from reasonable searches that are supported by probable cause, and Apple does have an obligation to comply with a valid warrant. There is a question of if what is required of Apple places an undue burden on them. Not wanting to comply, or the fact that complying contradicts previously made statements isn't legally an undue burden. The fact that the OS image needs to be signed and unmodified for the iPhone to load it will keep the custom version of iOS locked to a specific phone.
Classic troll just joining this afternoon in order to spew rubbish.
The US isn't in a vacuum. Nefarious countries will confiscate iPhone of dissenters or political enemies and basically force Apple to comply with local laws.
The FBI says it's just for one iPhone. That may be true now but it won't be for long. Information is like a drug. They will never stop finding new ways to use the master key again and again.
First, there is no master key. It doesn't exist. You need to read more about what's being requested and how it would work.
You may be right that other countries will try to force Apple to comply. That's a commercial argument not a privacy argument. Apple can simply withdraw from such countries if they do not feel there is sufficient due process. That includes withdrawing from the US if they so choose. No one forces Apple to sell in China, Russia or the US. That's a business decision.
So US travelers to these countries have to "suck it up" if they're accused of spying or sowing dissent?
there will be a master key. The key is the software to disable the passcode security features.
Comments
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf
Apple is specifically permitted to retain control of the phone and the modified software. They can supervise the entire operation. The FBI can be restricted to remote access sufficient to mount the passcode attack. Apple is also permitted to restrict the operation of the modified software to this one phone via it's UUID.
Nice try Mr. Comey. The unverbalized follow through to the statement is of course "And when the technology evolves then we can easily get another court order rubber-stamped because the precedent has been set."
One's religion, or lack of, should not be a determinate to gun ownership. However, the ease of amassing an arsenal with assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo should not be so easy. Purchases like that should raise flags and trigger a closer look at whom is making them.
The FBI says it's just for one iPhone. That may be true now but it won't be for long. Information is like a drug. They will never stop finding new ways to use the master key again and again.
You may be right that other countries will try to force Apple to comply. That's a commercial argument not a privacy argument. Apple can simply withdraw from such countries if they do not feel there is sufficient due process. That includes withdrawing from the US if they so choose. No one forces Apple to sell in China, Russia or the US. That's a business decision.
You think that if other countries (and in the US) can just ask to have backdoors in any phone they like it's not an issue other than commercial? What's their argument to stop notoriously corrupt Russian autorities from having access?
That his has all the marking of a very bad fishing expedition (likelyness of there being nothing there nearly 100%) they had to instigate through their incompetence seems to not trouble you at all
Writing the software (and if this case was about the 5s and later phone, hardware!!) itself is not the issue all by itself, it's the legal precedent it sets, especially because this case doesn't sit in a vacuum, there has been a lot of things brewing around encryption and privacy over the last two years..
That the fact that they can't keep this so called promise (coming from the court ordeR) of one off or that this won't get out (read about it from link from Apple security specialist on this thread about how the legal system works) and because of how the law works in the US, that doesn't trouble you at all.... Read up on that before spouting your garbage since you love to "read" so much.
That people in local enforcement say they got hundreds of phones waiting to be unlocked (when questioned about this thing) and the former NSA director blames Paris on encryption despite having no proof at all (so again emotional appeal using the dead), and the Senate wants to use this fishing expedition to pass a law giving access in all case, well hey that's all in Apple's head isn't it.
No sir, all it's all handwaves and unicorns in your world.
Oh, and shootings and crimes occured in the 1990s without encryption (even more so, the crime rate was much higher than before) and it will occur after everything is encrypted (as many things have been in the last few years) . Encryption is not the limiting factor for crime.
Well, hey, you are part of those parachuted ones after all, so no surprise.
BTW, you seem to be the one who read just the FBI info and nothing around it.
No one asked for a backdoor. That's not in play.
If Putin asks Apple for the same sort of help that the DOJ is asking for, Apple can simply refuse to comply if it believes that there isn't sufficient due process. The likely result is that Putin bans the sale of Apple phones in Russia. That's why it's a commercial argument.
Actually I've spent more time than I should reading as many points of view on this as I can find. Including yours, I might add. I just find most of the arguments against this to be unsupported by the actual facts of the case.
The San Bernardino County iPhone, which the terrorists didn't bother to destroy (they destroyed their own phones, but if they hadn't, and it ran Android, we would never hear about it) is the phantom menace.
there will be a master key. The key is the software to disable the passcode security features.