Apple's lead attorney frames encryption debate as digital arms race, says only US asking for privil

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    "I can tell you I don't think you'll like what comes out of Congress," Sensennbrenner said.

    We we haven't liked what came out of DC in a long time. 

    ---  

    no back door. No "limited" access. 
    baconstangsteveh
  • Reply 22 of 35
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member

    I think it's probably more simple than it needs to be. Basically, Apple wants to take away functionality it provided for decades. Home users could even buy tools to access data. So today, so if a customer forgets a code they may have to buy a new iPhone or be inconveniced in other ways. After all, iPhone sales have been soft in the US, and anything Apple can do to get its customers to upgrade will help sales..

    But either way, the problem everyone is worried about fixes itself within a few years and Tim Cook scrapes the bottom of the barrel of ideas again.
    Are you saying people who forget their iPhone passcode have to buy new iPhones? and that Apple is intentionally doing this to sell more iPhones?
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 23 of 35
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 1,091member
    stompy said:
    Trey Gowdy's 5 minutes were an embarrassment -- for himself and S.C.
    His query will be as successful as his grilling of Hillary.
  • Reply 24 of 35
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,289member
    eep357 said:
    The State of California trusts registered locksmiths located on a street corner with the ability to make keys for $50,000 or $100,000 vehicles. Most likely, California Legislators can do something similar with a phone valued around $400.
    You don't get it. Nobody cares about the $400 phone and it's use/function as such. The data stored on a phone could be worth more than all the BMWs and Mercedes in California combined. There is literarily no limit to the potential value of information. Nor is there any threshold to the amount of personal, social and financial damage that can be caused to people, businesses and organizations by theft and/or release of such information. While the data on my own phone may be mostly worthless, the data belonging to a Sony executive, FBI director, or high profile political candidate could be priceless.
    Correct. Let's see, I have the master-key. Today I want to peek into our dear president phone, oh there is the secret memo regarding national security... okay, tomorrow, maybe I am going to peek Dear Pope's phone, and the next day after that probably the Russian president's war plan... or the Queen's bank account... Look, with just this one iPhone master-key, I am the most powerful man in the world, because iPhone is iPhone no matter it belongs to terrorist or Justin Bieber, I only need 1 key.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 25 of 35
    I completely understand Apple's view of this...but let's not loss sight about why the FBI wants access to these phones....the couple in California committed an act of terrorism. Somehow this has become about the right to privacy...these people and therefore anyone who murders innocent people lost their rights.  Now having said this do I believe the FBI should have ability to access information on these phones...YES!  Do I believe Apple should give it to them...yes and no.  They should find a way to help the FBI but no they are not responsible to give the FBI a backdoor, this is the place of the FBI to find a way.  As to all the wing nuts who claim this is gonna give the FBI the power to collect information on anyone and everyone...give it a rest!  Most of you aren't worth the effort to have your paranoid, pathetic lives examined by the FBI, they have bigger fish to fry...and of course had the people who massacred all these people killed one of yours you'd be pissed at the FBI for not getting to the bottom of this matter and pissed at Apple for not doing all it could to help!!

    Apple has given the FBI all the information is has. Apple gave the FBI advice on how to trick the phone in to giving up more recent information, but the FBI made a deliberate decision to destroy that option.

    Apple built a tool to allow organisations to unlock their own phones (its part of Mobile Device Management), and San Bernadino county bought it, but never deployed it.

    The probability that this phone contains any information of value is very low (The San Bernadino County Police Chief has said as much, and the murderers were tech-savvy enough to physically destroy their personal computers, and personal phones, prior to the attack.)

    The tool that the FBI are asking for does not yet exist, and under US law, no company has been ordered to make such a tool, yet, using the law the FBI has asserted.

    If such a tool is made, it can not be locked to just one iPhone in any permanent way - it can be easily modified to work on any iPhone of around that generation (later devices that use an A7 processor may need a bit more work)

    Once such a tool has been made, it makes it much easier for the FBI to order Apple to use the tool on other phones, AND it makes it much easier for the FBI to order other phone manufacturers to do similar things (in most cases this is not necessary today, as most Android phones have physical local root compromises that make this straightforward for the FBI to simply do themselves, or contract it out to a forensics specialist). The thing is , how many other US phone manufacturers are there ? The answer is none really (Boeing and Raytheon). Anyone who is mass market, are all foreign companies, and the US court system has no jurisdiction over them.

    If the US asserts a right to force foreign companies to do this as well, then it makes it much easier for Apple to have the same done to them by foreign governments. Even for US government owned phones.

    Such a situation is a mess, and has an impact on the privacy of over a billion people. For thousands, or potentially millions, of them, particularly outside the US, it could be quite serious indeed. 

    If it happens, then terrorists and criminals will just move to one of the multitude of ways of encrypting their data, without relying on anyone who is under US jurisdiction. They do this today. It is well documented. We will not be any safer from terrorists and they will still have gone dark. But the FBI will be able to access data on normal people's phones whenever it can get a court order.

    Thats a REALLY big trade off to make, when the phone probably contains nothing of value, we know who committed the crime, and they are dead.

    The FBI having unrestricted access to this information makes no-one safer. The US Government knew that something like 9/11 was happening from looking at unencrypted communications, but was unable to get enough information to make it clear that action was needed and prevent it. Several governments knew Paris was going to likely happen, again from unencrypted communications, but they weren't able to pull all the pieces together fast enough to understand the urgency, and prevent it.

    Honouring the memory of 14 people does not outweigh the right to privacy of billions.



    baconstangibillsteveh
  • Reply 26 of 35
    focherfocher Posts: 687member
    I completely understand Apple's view of this...but let's not loss sight about why the FBI wants access to these phones....the couple in California committed an act of terrorism. Somehow this has become about the right to privacy...these people and therefore anyone who murders innocent people lost their rights.  Now having said this do I believe the FBI should have ability to access information on these phones...YES!  Do I believe Apple should give it to them...yes and no.  They should find a way to help the FBI but no they are not responsible to give the FBI a backdoor, this is the place of the FBI to find a way.  As to all the wing nuts who claim this is gonna give the FBI the power to collect information on anyone and everyone...give it a rest!  Most of you aren't worth the effort to have your paranoid, pathetic lives examined by the FBI, they have bigger fish to fry...and of course had the people who massacred all these people killed one of yours you'd be pissed at the FBI for not getting to the bottom of this matter and pissed at Apple for not doing all it could to help!!

    Worst argument ever. First, the privacy argument isn't about the privacy of the individuals. It's about the privacy of all other iPhone owners who become susceptible to the use of a modified version of iOS that bypasses the security mechanisms. Second, you can't have it both ways. Either the FBI has the right to have Apple help the FBI access an iPhone's data (I'll assume you mean that's contingent on a properly executed search warrant) or Apple is not obligated to create the modified iOS version. Those are the only two options here. Third, no policy or law should or is ever based on the government's good will or committee to "using it properly". The government shouldn't get a back door, and whether people have something to hide is besides the point. If you have nothing to hide, then the police still can't just walk into your house.

    Finally, many of us would not want civil liberties to be denied in such a situation just because we or our family members were the victims of the crime. In fact, there are some of the San Bernadino family members with exactly that position. Believe it or not, there are those who still believe Constitutional rights supersede. Apple has no obligation to do more than it already has, and it definitely shouldn't be forced to actually write software code to act on the FBI's behalf.
    baconstangsteveh
  • Reply 27 of 35
    seneca72seneca72 Posts: 42member
    Urei1620 said:
    Only in the US because the FBI wants to spy on all of us.
    If only.  In the UK the Home Secretary has just published a revised draft of the Investigatory Powers Bill, aka 'the Snoopers Charter"  There's a brief explanation of it here:

    The article points out that in the previous version of the Bill.......
    • There was language suggesting that tech firms could be forced to break the encryption on messages sent using their technology – a requirement which could force companies like Apple and Facebook, which offer encrypted messaging apps, to choose between operating in Britain or breaking their own messaging apps on an international scale.

    The new version of the bill does soften that last requirement, just. It offers a “pragmatic approach” on the part of the government, and makes clear that no company will be required to remove encryption of their own services if it is not technically feasible. The definition of what, exactly, constitutes technical feasibility is, however, left as an exercise for the reader – and for a lot of lawyers in the future.

    As the article says, the last part has been watered down a little but I've no doubt the UK Government is looking at what happens with Apple v FBI.  If that goes in the FBI's favour, then expect the UK Government to be making sure Apple is kept very busy unlocking iPhones.  

    It's the type of bulk surveillance the Stasi could only have dreamed of and unlike the US, the UK does not have the benefit of a written Constitution to protect us.  The only possibility is that it conflicts with European Human Rights law.  Ironic that after a World War in which two Countries fought against this sort of thing our liberties are so casually given away.  Even more so if the UK looks to the EU to protect us under human rights law.






    stevehduervo
  • Reply 28 of 35
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    I think the best solution is to wait. First off, in the physcal world, there are laws on the books that legalized registered locksmiths in the state of California to be able to make car keys without permission from the manufacturer.

    Federal legislation for encryption keys could be based on car key legislation that's already used in California and Silicon Valley. Legislators and Congress just needs to issue an inquiry to the California Locksmiths Associations/Unions about the laws of cutting (and programming) car keys.

    Why wait? Well, wuite possibly at the speed in which technology progresses (and also because Apple wants its damned iPhone to replace everything you can carry) iPhones may also have the ability to unlock cars. Perhaps some already do. Once challenged by the Locksmith Union, Apple will be obligated to make iPhone keys programmable.

    Then, the way I see it, support of existing California law makes complete sense. Even BMW (or maybe Mercedes) didn't want to comply so The California Locksmith Association/Union issued a per-diem fine for each day it's not accomplished. Maybe that's what Apple needs too. Let's say $20,000 per day Apple is not compliant. For a company the size of Apple, this is a great way to tell Investors why they missed their numbers.

    Either way, The State of California trusts registered locksmiths located on a street corner with the ability to make keys for $50,000 or $100,000 vehicles. Most likely, California Legislators can do something similar with a phone valued around $400. So let's seriously not loose our heads here..!

    Digital products like those Apple sells can always be re-issued. But physical cars.. Well, that's why they created a series of laws regarding "Grand Theft Auto".

    I think it's probably more simple than it needs to be. Basically, Apple wants to take away functionality it provided for decades. Home users could even buy tools to access data. So today, so if a customer forgets a code they may have to buy a new iPhone or be inconveniced in other ways. After all, iPhone sales have been soft in the US, and anything Apple can do to get its customers to upgrade will help sales..

    But either way, the problem everyone is worried about fixes itself within a few years and Tim Cook scrapes the bottom of the barrel of ideas again.


    Been available for some time now and I haven't yet heard anything about any locksmith union challenging this. The only thing challenging seems to be your mental grasp of technology. 

    http://www.amazon.com/Viper-Smart-Start-System-VSS4000/dp/B002WDGW4Q

    http://www.crutchfield.com/S-dRFL7QOMY2h/p_607DSM50BT/Directed-DSM50BT.html

    Suppose the car is equipped with a custom alarm system that won't allow the car to start, unless the correct code is punched into a keypad? Is the locksmith suppose to also know the code?   

    I bet you were one of those that also thought Apple wouldn't want to include security software in iPhones that turns a stolen iPhone into a brick, to deter thefts, because Apple didn't want to lose the sales of people replacing their iPhone due to thefts. Well, iPhones in the hands of thieves are now bricks, has been for over 3 years now, even before the laws were passed to require smartphone kill switch and I haven't seen report of any loss of sales because of it. And thefts of smartphone has been down since the passing of the law. 

    iPhones owners can easily back up the data in their iPhone to an iCloud account or home computer. No need to buy extra software to access the data in an iPhone that you've forgotten the passcode to. Just plug it into your home computer and reset the iPhone to factory and restore from the latest back up. Loss the iPhone? Had auto back up enabled? Then the back up could be less than a day old. Just buy a new or use iPhone and log in to your iCloud account or plug it into your computer and restore it with one of your back up file.

    If Apple wants to increase sales by getting their customers to upgrade, they only need to do what they do in the Android world. Make their newest iOS only compatible with iPhones less the one year old. As it stands, when iOS9 came out, it was compatible with an iPhone 4s, that was about 4 years old. (Though some features were absent due to hardware limitations.) Does writing new software that works on 4 year old iPhones (and other iDevices)  sounds like Apple will do anything to get their customer to upgrade? 
    steveh
  • Reply 29 of 35
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member

    malcolmtucker said:

    No I think it's well thought-out.   Many upper-range vehicles have immobilizers that need to be reprogrammed when you rightfully acquire a new key.  

    The two are fairly similar.  If you don't know the key or passcode to an iPhone, you can't use it.  Similar to how a car immobilizer works.  Thankfully, the California Congress was smart enough to pass a law to force car manufacturers to reprogram immobilizers so a car will run when a locksmith issues a new key

    You haven't a clue.  When you acquire a new key, you either have the qualify locksmith or the dealer program the chip in the key to match the immobilizer in your car. The only time you would need to reprogram the immobilizer in the car with new keys is if you lost your key or purchased the car and want to changed the codes, in the car and the key, to insure that the last owner don't have a spare key to  access what is now your car or the person that found your lost key. No law was pass by Congress to make dealers (or qualified locksmiths) do this. They charge a lot for the service and the keys and make money doing it. When was the last time Congress had to pass a law forcing a company to make money? 

    If you don't know the passcode to a phone, then you are most likely not the owner. The phone is then useless as required by laws that were actually passed by Congress, that all smartphones have a kill switch to make them worthless to thieves. If you rightfully acquire the iPhone, then you shouldn't need to acquire the passcode from the manufacturer, if the person you got it from was the rightful owner. It should have been reset to factory settings or he should have given you the passcode. If you forgot your passcode, then hopefully you have a recent back up because as the owner, you can reset to factory and restore the data with the back up.
    edited March 2016 stevehduervo
  • Reply 30 of 35
    gunner1954gunner1954 Posts: 142member
    chris2044 said:
    If the US government forces Apple and other US companies to weaken their encryption or provide backdoors, then companies based in other countries, or individual citizens will create stronger encryption disregarding the US government. This only stands to put US law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Any such law would be a grave mistake.
    More than the encryption aspect. This is about the US government (through the courts) COMPELLING a private citizen/company to CREATE a system/product that COMPROMISES the safety, security, and/or integrity of a product they produce.

    It would be equivalent of the gov't ordering car manufacture's to create a system where the tires on their vehicle can be blown out or made flat via remote control on gov't order (All Writs Warrant) instead of using spike strips. Doing so places the burden on the manufacturer of the vehicle for anything that might go wrong instead of on the gov't, where it belongs. 
    steveh
  • Reply 31 of 35
    Overall, I felt congress was gushing over Apple and the experts present. Rep. Trey Gowdy criticism was on point. Apple brags about wanting to provide a balance between personal privacy and national security, however, Apple has not stated how they think those interests can be balanced. Apple was even uncomfortable answering how they felt about the FBI trying to break into the phone. The reality is, Apple doesn't want anyone breaking into the phone and will likely fix any weaknesses that allows the phone to be broken into ("the arms race"). Apple doesn't want to disable any features that make the phone weak. Apple's position is likely that the government can wiretap or subpoena any communications with the phone or data stored with third-party services (such as iCloud) but privacy of data on the phone is paramount. This was even eluded to in various comments that some criminal use should be expected but should not result in weakened privacy.
    steveh
  • Reply 32 of 35
    tmay said:
    I have to state how happy I am that the swarms of trolls had a die off.

    I'm guessing trolls hatch, find a website, troll a few threads, and expire in their basements from the constant snacking. I'm not sure how they reproduce.

    Gnats probably live longer. These aren't the traditional Tolls like in the film Trollhunter.
    I understand encouraging users to use restraint but, snarky comments like yours tmay, with no substantive point are exactly what needs to be deleted.

  • Reply 33 of 35
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,381member
    tmay said:
    I have to state how happy I am that the swarms of trolls had a die off.

    I'm guessing trolls hatch, find a website, troll a few threads, and expire in their basements from the constant snacking. I'm not sure how they reproduce.

    Gnats probably live longer. These aren't the traditional Tolls like in the film Trollhunter.
    I understand encouraging users to use restraint but, snarky comments like yours tmay, with no substantive point are exactly what needs to be deleted.

    His post was at least witty and humorous, unlike troll posts which contain nothing but vile lies and ignorance. Which, you seem to support, for some reason. 
  • Reply 34 of 35
    In China, Russia and other dictatorship countries, they use torture like breaking finger and electrocute genitals, which work great and fast. US should learn from them.  :) 
  • Reply 35 of 35
    securtissecurtis Posts: 86member
    Apple will change their tune about backdoor If/when China asks for it. Which is probably going to happen. Can't kill the golden goose. 
Sign In or Register to comment.