Government says Apple arguments in encryption case a 'diversion,' presents point-by-point rebuttal

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 122
    steevyweb said:
    While I support the principal Apple is putting forward, I would also challenge you all to think about the families of the dead, killed by the owner of that phone. This isn't just some nebulous government intervention on rights and freedoms. People died and the authorities are trying any means to find out how it happened. Look at what you have stored on your own device. You've gotta believe there might be something on that phone that may help the investigation or perhaps alert us to other threats. So yes, its a damn slippery slope, but lets remember the tragic reason behind the governments ask and the victims who want answers.  Tell me you could look at the mothers and fathers and children of those who were massacred by terrorists and say "sorry, but its the principal of the thing, ya know?  wish I could help but..".  Thats basically what Apple is saying to these families. Its a true moral dilemna, not just a privacy issue.
    Not many year before the Constitution was written many thousands of people gave their lives so we may enjoy the liberties that they died having never enjoyed themselves. It's always nice to say think of the families, the dead, or the children, but if we can't stand by the principles that founded our nation then we have no basis for civl society. Nothing will be sacred. Not even life and we become lawless in the worst way. 
    baconstangration alchiacornchipicoco3
  • Reply 82 of 122
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Dave S said:
    Urei1620 said:
    @ Dave S, how much did your employer pay you to post that brilliant analysis?


    I employ myself.  I don't post often and I initially suspected the FBI was likely overreaching.  I deal with them routinely in my work and I was employed with the government for a time.  It is not uncommon, in my experience, that they can be cripplingly powerful.  It can be scary if they are on your tail and many folks subject to this type of "investigation" are not clear criminals.  Rather, they operate in the financial gray area because to do so can be very lucrative.  Or, they aren't aware they are breaking a law and just can't understand why the gov't can literally shut off their life overnight (freeze accounts, arrest you and request denial of bail, seize you and your family's assets, etc...)  Again, judges need to be careful and most realize the tremendous burden they carry.

    That said, I believe it is the result of judges being too friendly about finding cause to issue warrants.  Regardless, in this instance, there is no doubt the man is a killer and that the phone may contain relevant info that could prevent harm of other innocent people.  I have no clue how this can be reasonably opposed.  Leads me to wonder just how much I don't know.  Ignorance is bliss, no doubt, and I know the guys at Apple are probably doing this in good faith.  All I can say is that, from a legal perspective, they lose.  So, if Apple is right, it must be because I am ignorant with respect to some material fact that, the existence which, would swing the pendulum.

    You started well, and they well clearly proved you don't know the case. So, thanks for playing.

    The killers destroyed all their electronic devices thoroughly save this one (but there are backups 6 weeks before the crime of this device that Apple have already given to the FBI). The FBI would have had access to the most recent backups if and foobared it themselves.  The FBI know what software was on this phone (Apple told them).

    Finally, the FBI themselves said it was very likely there was NOTHING ON THIS PHONE.

    The FBI guy already said it's not just about this phone, they want to set a precedent (after being laughed at about his initial affirmation), one that will be used on hundreds of phones waiting to be unlocked by the FBI, the DOJ and local law enforcement. Non of those are terrorists and It's very likely most of these are simply drug crimes (since most people in jail n the US are there for drug crimes).

    The people who get their rights abused are most often the poorest, minorities of all type; it will be the case here.

    BTW, most intelligence is NOT ACTIONABLE (i.e. Useless) and 99.9999% of people implicated in those phone searches won't be terrorists but minorities arrested for minor drug crimes (that's what fills most US prisons right now).

    So, hundreds of millions lose a lot, and millions will lose tremendously (in many parts of the world that means ending in prison or even dying) for that chance that once every many years you maybe can save a few people in the US.

    Considering 99% of mass shooting crimes in the US are not terrorist related, are the works of deranged crackpots acting alone; mass murders will continue unabated.





    edited March 2016 baconstangericthehalfbeechiacornchip
  • Reply 83 of 122
    Dave SDave S Posts: 6member

    Are we saying that we are so paranoid that we do not trust our gov't not to do something illegal like look at other phones when they shouldn't if they have that ability?  Again, when we assume crime will occur on that level, those who put forth the argument, I suspect, have much bigger issues with the gov't than this evidentiary issue.  I work on the assumption that we have to trust the system.  If not, we lose.  Is it abused, sure.  Everything is.  We are still the best system in the world and, generally, if our gov't abuses something, we usually find out.

    I can see why the gov't would have real evidentiary issues at trial if it were not able to show exactly how the info was extracted.  That said, in this instance, the gov't, as I understand it, is looking from more of an investigatory standpoint than prosecutorial.  As a result, on these facts, I would not let the gov't have any more than the info itself.  Where it was on the phone and how it was extracted would only become an issue in need of determination in the event the matter went to trial and the prosecuting attorney wanted to use some of the info as evidence showing the truth of what was asserted.  If that were the case, I truly believe Apple has this obligation even if it means some lack of overall security.

    After all, we are all 90% good and it is only when we act collectively that things get scary (big companies and gov'ts).  So, the vast majority of us wont have our info stolen and, if we do, it wont be the end of our world.  On the other hand, defending ourselves from true threats of mass murder is serious.  We need to accord these men and women in our gov't the ability to do their job.  If they abuse it, shame on them.  Regardless, I would hope we get a fair and reasoned opinion that takes these things into consideration.  I appreciate the dialogue.  It has brought me a bit more toward the middle.  Regardless, I think we are overthinking this particular situation.  The judge should simply order disclosure of the contents and nothing more (certainly nothing that would threaten Apple's proprietary rights).

    gatorguy
  • Reply 84 of 122
    5150iii5150iii Posts: 96member
    This whole matter is disgusting. I don't believe, for a second, that this is about 1 phone. What's unnerving is how this case is so transparent it makes you wonder what is going on behind the scenes and the bigger picture. Digital security is a conversation, perhaps, that needed to happen but this very public and malicious display is ridiculous already. Apple, as the largest taxpayer, should tell the Gov. to suck it.
    The Gov. is biting the hand that feeds it.
    baconstangcornchip
  • Reply 85 of 122
    Dave S said:

    Are we saying that we are so paranoid that we do not trust our gov't not to do something illegal like look at other phones when they shouldn't if they have that ability?  Again, when we assume crime will occur on that level, those who put forth the argument, I suspect, have much bigger issues with the gov't than this evidentiary issue.  I work on the assumption that we have to trust the system.  If not, we lose.  Is it abused, sure.  Everything is.  We are still the best system in the world and, generally, if our gov't abuses something, we usually find out.

    I can see why the gov't would have real evidentiary issues at trial if it were not able to show exactly how the info was extracted.  That said, in this instance, the gov't, as I understand it, is looking from more of an investigatory standpoint than prosecutorial.  As a result, on these facts, I would not let the gov't have any more than the info itself.  Where it was on the phone and how it was extracted would only become an issue in need of determination in the event the matter went to trial and the prosecuting attorney wanted to use some of the info as evidence showing the truth of what was asserted.  If that were the case, I truly believe Apple has this obligation even if it means some lack of overall security.

    After all, we are all 90% good and it is only when we act collectively that things get scary (big companies and gov'ts).  So, the vast majority of us wont have our info stolen and, if we do, it wont be the end of our world.  On the other hand, defending ourselves from true threats of mass murder is serious.  We need to accord these men and women in our gov't the ability to do their job.  If they abuse it, shame on them.  Regardless, I would hope we get a fair and reasoned opinion that takes these things into consideration.  I appreciate the dialogue.  It has brought me a bit more toward the middle.  Regardless, I think we are overthinking this particular situation.  The judge should simply order disclosure of the contents and nothing more (certainly nothing that would threaten Apple's proprietary rights).

    Once Apple creates this custom OS, the US Govt will demand to have it. the Govt will require it to be done for every firmware revision. It will set the precedence. Also, the US Govt IS UNABLE to hold on to anything critical safe. There are thousands of contractors and less than honest people working for the government. This GovtOS if created will leak out in no time. I bet you $1 million. This will compromise security for ALL iPhone users. Trust me, Snowden walked out from the NSA as a contractor with thousands of files and the NSA did not know...They do not even know how many files he took with him. History shows that you cannot trust the Govt to keep critical information or software safe. The US Govt is a national security risk.
    edited March 2016 baconstangration alchiacornchipicoco3
  • Reply 86 of 122
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    SpamSandwich said:
    …our illustrious government owns the money supply.
    Well…
  • Reply 87 of 122
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Dave S said:
    Are we saying that we are so paranoid that we do not trust our gov’t…
    Yes. What the fuck are you doing trusting the government? That’s not the job of the people.
    I work on the assumption that we have to trust the system.  If not, we lose.
    You’ve already lost.

    If that were the case, I truly believe Apple has this obligation even if it means some lack of overall security.

    Talk about your doublespeak! This is literally what Ben Franklin warned us. Security (freedom) cannot be compromised for information (security).
    After all, we are all 90% good
    So you’ve quantified that, have you?
    So, the vast majority of us wont have our info stolen
    Every single American has already had his information stolen.
    if we do, it wont be the end of our world.
    Prove it. No, don’t. Your argument is just instantly void and doesn’t even come into play. They don’t have the right to do it. All results thereof are instantly bad.
    On the other hand, defending ourselves from true threats of mass murder is serious.
    How about actually doing that, then, by closing the fucking borders, stopping immigration, and deporting all illegals?
    The judge should simply order disclosure of the contents and nothing more (certainly nothing that would threaten Apple's proprietary rights).
    And here’s the problem with that: I don’t trust APPLE with a crack of this security, either.
    cornchipicoco3
  • Reply 88 of 122
    Dave SDave S Posts: 6member

    I have no doubt that there is heavy handedness and overreaching by the FBI.  I have long said that, while us advocates in the private market are expected to overreach and then back up in negotiation, the gov't should only ask for what they know is appropriate just as they should only prosecute those that are clearly guilty.  In my career, I have seen clients who clearly have a gov't target on their back and I have seen heavy handedness by law enforcement more often than not.  I agree that the approach taken in the country by law enforcement needs to be overhauled in a big way with respect being the biggest element.  Regardless, if Apple has given the info from the phone and the gov't will not stop there, then it would seem that the court could appoint an independent to confirm Apple's finding regarding the data and force them to carry a bond ensuring that, in the event of disclosure or illegal use, Apple would have recourse.

    It is nobody's fault but everyone in this forum if they don't trust their gov't but do nothing to actively advocate change.  Our system has put forth alternate parties and alternate candidates.  The vast majority of people see the benefit of the system we have.  Just because we have not experienced war in our generation or seen the evil that a country with money and a beef can bring to our shores does not mean it can't or won't happen.  Our laws are not the problem.  It is the judges ordering disclosure and gov't officials abusing it that people seem to complain about here.  So, you are not looking for Apple to win, you are looking for the Ogre in the room to finally take a shot!  I get it and I don't disagree. I just don't agree that this case is the proper forum to decide that Apple gets to keep their key.

    The comment that Apple does not have the key that one person posted in reply to me is not true.  The comparison in this debate seems more like "should apple get to keep a master key to the bank's entire safe deposit room even after it gets the one box open that it received a court order to open?" I don't think any of us would agree to that!

  • Reply 89 of 122
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,526moderator
    Dave S said:
    I think a healthy balance on gov't manipulation seems to be in a battle with basic mistrust and paranoia.  I hope logic and objective analysis wins out.  This motion pertains to one phone as I understand it.  Also, I am not aware of the gov't asking or requiring Apple to tell them how they unlock the phone.  They are asking for data.  That should be all.  If anything more is requested, Apple can seek an appropriate limiting order from the court and it should not be required to disclose any of it's proprietary methods or code.  Again, I don't understand the resistance so I must be mistaken factually.  Nonetheless, even if it isn't as simple as I make it seem, in the end, the court should fashion an order for Apple to give the data yet retain the right not to tell anyone how they removed it from the phone.  I am confident that a competent court will accomplish this.

    ---

    Dave.  Here is what's going on.  First, the iPhone is locked by a password that is combined with a hardware key build into each iPhone at manufacture.  This hardware key is randomly generated and encoded into the silicon inside each iPhone AND IS NOT KNOWN EVEN TO APPLE.  So to unencrypt the data on an iPhone, you need the user password and the hardware key, which exists only in the phone's hardware.

    To decrypt the data on an iPhone you need to enter the password ON THAT IPHONE so that the password gets combined with that iPhone's hardware encryption key.  Taking the data off the phone and trying to decrypt it elsewhere won't work because you won't have the hardware key portion of the combined encryption key.

    So you need to enter each password guess into the iPhone you are trying to unlock.  And the iPhone has a security feature that wipes all the data in the phone after ten consecutive incorrect password attempts.  This feature is what makes a simple four digit passcode such a strong security measure.  Without that feature, it would be a simple process to manually sit there and try one password after another until you went through all 10,000 combinations.  The FBI, or a school kid with a couple extra days on his hands could break into any iPhone.  But if the phone erases itself after ten unsuccessful password tries, then you won't dare even try to unlock it, as you'll have only a 1 in a thousand chance of guessing the correct password and the consequences of that tenth incorrect guess is that you'll lose the data you're after.

    The FBI is demanding that Apple remove this security feature so that they can simply brute-force the password.  10,000 tries, even if done manually, wouldn't take very long.  Of course, they are also asking for two additional weaknesses.  One is to allow passwords to be sent to the phone electronically (wirelessly).  That would save time over manually sitting there trying one after another passcode.  And the other is to remove a delay the software inserts between passcode attempts, so that it could blast passcodes at the phone at a very fast clip.  You'd ask for these two additional weaknesses only if you are planning on turning this into a tool for law enforcement to use over and over.  So that puts the lie to the FBI's stance that they want this only for this one time.

    Apple is not being asked to use any method they want to just get the data.  Apple is be demanded to build a forensic tool for law enforcement's repeated use.  Apple, and those of us knowledgable about this sort of thing, knows that this tool will need to be maintained and documented, and submitted into evidence to be inspected by defense attorney experts, because defense attorneys will want to be certain that the tool does not modify the evidence it makes available.  This is how the tool will get out into the wild, and then none of us will have any security unless we install additional encryption software on top of the operating system.  Which criminals and terrorists will immediately do, leaving them safe from law enforcement search while leaving the vast majority of casual users open to those same terrorists infiltrating their phones and grabbing their bank account passwords, etc.

    Law enforcement will solve a few more crimes, committed by unwitting criminals who didn't think to add additional encryption on top of the weakened encryption in the operating system.

    Casual users like you and me and your kids and wife will be more subject to snooping by hackers, some of which will be working for the fund-raising departments of terror organizations.

    Terrorists will hold up this incident and the fallout from it as a major victory in their attempts to weaken and manipulate free society.

    baconstangjbishop1039ration alchiapscooter63icoco3propod
  • Reply 90 of 122
    steevyweb said:
    While I support the principal Apple is putting forward, I would also challenge you all to think about the families of the dead, killed by the owner of that phone. This isn't just some nebulous government intervention on rights and freedoms. People died and the authorities are trying any means to find out how it happened. Look at what you have stored on your own device. You've gotta believe there might be something on that phone that may help the investigation or perhaps alert us to other threats. So yes, its a damn slippery slope, but lets remember the tragic reason behind the governments ask and the victims who want answers.  Tell me you could look at the mothers and fathers and children of those who were massacred by terrorists and say "sorry, but its the principal of the thing, ya know?  wish I could help but..".  Thats basically what Apple is saying to these families. Its a true moral dilemna, not just a privacy issue.
    Not many year before the Constitution was written many thousands of people gave their lives so we may enjoy the liberties that they died having never enjoyed themselves. It's always nice to say think of the families, the dead, or the children, but if we can't stand by the principles that founded our nation then we have no basis for civl society. Nothing will be sacred. Not even life and we become lawless in the worst way. 
    Yes, and I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.  Our society wont come to a halt because of this, now will it if it happened 1000 times.  And by the way, Apple is not your friend.  Its a giant corporation that, like others, uses its money and power to rewrite our laws in their favor.  So spare us all the "save our constitution" garble.   Is your current life so terrible that you would not even consider the plight of others?  
  • Reply 91 of 122
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    steevyweb said:
    Yes, and I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.
    You mean the ones who CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF APPLE?
    Our society wont come to a halt because of this, now will it if it happened 1000 times.
    Too bad. It has no right to happen even once.
    ...Apple... ...uses its money and power to rewrite our laws in their favor.
    Someone school this guy with the chart that shows Apple’s lobbying money compared to everyone else’s.
    So spare us all the "save our constitution" garble.
    Fuck you, traitor.
    Is your current life so terrible that you would not even consider the plight of others?  
    Fuck others. FINK UDDA CHULLUNS is not a valid argument.
    baconstangration alcornchipicoco3
  • Reply 92 of 122
    steevyweb said:
    Yes, and I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.
    You mean the ones who CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF APPLE?
    Too bad. It has no right to happen even once.
    Someone school this guy with the chart that shows Apple’s lobbying money compared to everyone else’s.
    Fuck you, traitor.
    Fuck others. FINK UDDA CHULLUNS is not a valid argument.
    I rest my case.
  • Reply 93 of 122
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    steevyweb said:
    I rest my case.
    You mean the one that you never had and which I just thoroughly destroyed?
    baconstangration alpscooter63cornchipicoco3
  • Reply 94 of 122
    Dave S said:
    I think a healthy balance on gov't manipulation seems to be in a battle with basic mistrust and paranoia.  I hope logic and objective analysis wins out.  This motion pertains to one phone as I understand it.  Also, I am not aware of the gov't asking or requiring Apple to tell them how they unlock the phone.  They are asking for data.  That should be all.  If anything more is requested, Apple can seek an appropriate limiting order from the court and it should not be required to disclose any of it's proprietary methods or code.  Again, I don't understand the resistance so I must be mistaken factually.  Nonetheless, even if it isn't as simple as I make it seem, in the end, the court should fashion an order for Apple to give the data yet retain the right not to tell anyone how they removed it from the phone.  I am confident that a competent court will accomplish this.

    ---

    Dave.  Here is what's going on.  First, the iPhone is locked by a password that is combined with a hardware key build into each iPhone at manufacture.  This hardware key is randomly generated and encoded into the silicon inside each iPhone AND IS NOT KNOWN EVEN TO APPLE.  So to unencrypt the data on an iPhone, you need the user password and the hardware key, which exists only in the phone's hardware.

    To decrypt the data on an iPhone you need to enter the password ON THAT IPHONE so that the password gets combined with that iPhone's hardware encryption key.  Taking the data off the phone and trying to decrypt it elsewhere won't work because you won't have the hardware key portion of the combined encryption key.

    So you need to enter each password guess into the iPhone you are trying to unlock.  And the iPhone has a security feature that wipes all the data in the phone after ten consecutive incorrect password attempts.  This feature is what makes a simple four digit passcode such a strong security measure.  Without that feature, it would be a simple process to manually sit there and try one password after another until you went through all 10,000 combinations.  The FBI, or a school kid with a couple extra days on his hands could break into any iPhone.  But if the phone erases itself after ten unsuccessful password tries, then you won't dare even try to unlock it, as you'll have only a 1 in a thousand chance of guessing the correct password and the consequences of that tenth incorrect guess is that you'll lose the data you're after.

    The FBI is demanding that Apple remove this security feature so that they can simply brute-force the password.  10,000 tries, even if done manually, wouldn't take very long.  Of course, they are also asking for two additional weaknesses.  One is to allow passwords to be sent to the phone electronically (wirelessly).  That would save time over manually sitting there trying one after another passcode.  And the other is to remove a delay the software inserts between passcode attempts, so that it could blast passcodes at the phone at a very fast clip.  You'd ask for these two additional weaknesses only if you are planning on turning this into a tool for law enforcement to use over and over.  So that puts the lie to the FBI's stance that they want this only for this one time.

    Apple is not being asked to use any method they want to just get the data.  Apple is be demanded to build a forensic tool for law enforcement's repeated use.  Apple, and those of us knowledgable about this sort of thing, knows that this tool will need to be maintained and documented, and submitted into evidence to be inspected by defense attorney experts, because defense attorneys will want to be certain that the tool does not modify the evidence it makes available.  This is how the tool will get out into the wild, and then none of us will have any security unless we install additional encryption software on top of the operating system.  Which criminals and terrorists will immediately do, leaving them safe from law enforcement search while leaving the vast majority of casual users open to those same terrorists infiltrating their phones and grabbing their bank account passwords, etc.

    Law enforcement will solve a few more crimes, committed by unwitting criminals who didn't think to add additional encryption on top of the weakened encryption in the operating system.

    Casual users like you and me and your kids and wife will be more subject to snooping by hackers, some of which will be working for the fund-raising departments of terror organizations.

    Terrorists will hold up this incident and the fallout from it as a major victory in their attempts to weaken and manipulate free society.

    This is about as straight forward an explanation as there can be. Dead on.
  • Reply 95 of 122
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    steevyweb said:
    Not many year before the Constitution was written many thousands of people gave their lives so we may enjoy the liberties that they died having never enjoyed themselves. It's always nice to say think of the families, the dead, or the children, but if we can't stand by the principles that founded our nation then we have no basis for civl society. Nothing will be sacred. Not even life and we become lawless in the worst way. 
    Yes, and I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.  Our society wont come to a halt because of this, now will it if it happened 1000 times.  And by the way, Apple is not your friend.  Its a giant corporation that, like others, uses its money and power to rewrite our laws in their favor.  So spare us all the "save our constitution" garble.   Is your current life so terrible that you would not even consider the plight of others?  
    WTF are you about you talking about!
     You do fracking know that these people would have died regardless of this, just like the thousands who die each year in mass murders in the US.
     That over the air non encrypted SMS with info on the god damn Paris attack didn't stop it from occurring, just like open communications didn't stop the London attacks, the Madrid attacks and 911.

    As for the "plight of others", this is a god damn red herring, they would die anyway and the supreme court has already sided that the off chance of catching a murderer is not enough to give up everything the constitution stands for. 

    Seems the terrorist have already won for people like you, since destroying your own country seems to now be your goal.
    So, please go to Russia and lick Putin's ass since you love police states so much and are ready to sacrifice everything for an illusory security.

    edited March 2016 radarthekatbaconstangcornchipicoco3
  • Reply 96 of 122
    "The evidence on Farook's iCloud account suggests that he had already changed his iCloud password himself on October 22, 2015--shortly after the last backup--and that the autobackup feature was disabled. A forced backup of Farook's iPhone was never going to be successful, and the decision to obtain whatever iCloud evidence was immediately available via the password change was the reasoned decision of experienced FBI agents investigating a deadly terrorist conspiracy," the government claims.
    What "evidence"? The only known password change was the one done by San Bernadino county at the direction of the FBI. This is a blatant attempt by the Feds to cover their asses for either 1)incompetently screwing up their ability to get into the phone via established channels to which Apple has shown no objection or 2)deliberately blocking the alternative option as part of a deliberate plan to set up a precedent-setting case.

    baconstangicoco3
  • Reply 97 of 122
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,526moderator
    Dave S said:
    I think a healthy balance on gov't manipulation seems to be in a battle with basic mistrust and paranoia.  I hope logic and objective analysis wins out.  This motion pertains to one phone as I understand it.  Also, I am not aware of the gov't asking or requiring Apple to tell them how they unlock the phone.  They are asking for data.  That should be all.  If anything more is requested, Apple can seek an appropriate limiting order from the court and it should not be required to disclose any of it's proprietary methods or code.  Again, I don't understand the resistance so I must be mistaken factually.  Nonetheless, even if it isn't as simple as I make it seem, in the end, the court should fashion an order for Apple to give the data yet retain the right not to tell anyone how they removed it from the phone.  I am confident that a competent court will accomplish this.

    ---

    Dave.  Here is what's going on.  First, the iPhone is locked by a password that is combined with a hardware key build into each iPhone at manufacture.  This hardware key is randomly generated and encoded into the silicon inside each iPhone AND IS NOT KNOWN EVEN TO APPLE.  So to unencrypt the data on an iPhone, you need the user password and the hardware key, which exists only in the phone's hardware.

    To decrypt the data on an iPhone you need to enter the password ON THAT IPHONE so that the password gets combined with that iPhone's hardware encryption key.  Taking the data off the phone and trying to decrypt it elsewhere won't work because you won't have the hardware key portion of the combined encryption key.

    So you need to enter each password guess into the iPhone you are trying to unlock.  And the iPhone has a security feature that wipes all the data in the phone after ten consecutive incorrect password attempts.  This feature is what makes a simple four digit passcode such a strong security measure.  Without that feature, it would be a simple process to manually sit there and try one password after another until you went through all 10,000 combinations.  The FBI, or a school kid with a couple extra days on his hands could break into any iPhone.  But if the phone erases itself after ten unsuccessful password tries, then you won't dare even try to unlock it, as you'll have only a 1 in a thousand chance of guessing the correct password and the consequences of that tenth incorrect guess is that you'll lose the data you're after.

    The FBI is demanding that Apple remove this security feature so that they can simply brute-force the password.  10,000 tries, even if done manually, wouldn't take very long.  Of course, they are also asking for two additional weaknesses.  One is to allow passwords to be sent to the phone electronically (wirelessly).  That would save time over manually sitting there trying one after another passcode.  And the other is to remove a delay the software inserts between passcode attempts, so that it could blast passcodes at the phone at a very fast clip.  You'd ask for these two additional weaknesses only if you are planning on turning this into a tool for law enforcement to use over and over.  So that puts the lie to the FBI's stance that they want this only for this one time.

    Apple is not being asked to use any method they want to just get the data.  Apple is be demanded to build a forensic tool for law enforcement's repeated use.  Apple, and those of us knowledgable about this sort of thing, knows that this tool will need to be maintained and documented, and submitted into evidence to be inspected by defense attorney experts, because defense attorneys will want to be certain that the tool does not modify the evidence it makes available.  This is how the tool will get out into the wild, and then none of us will have any security unless we install additional encryption software on top of the operating system.  Which criminals and terrorists will immediately do, leaving them safe from law enforcement search while leaving the vast majority of casual users open to those same terrorists infiltrating their phones and grabbing their bank account passwords, etc.

    Law enforcement will solve a few more crimes, committed by unwitting criminals who didn't think to add additional encryption on top of the weakened encryption in the operating system.

    Casual users like you and me and your kids and wife will be more subject to snooping by hackers, some of which will be working for the fund-raising departments of terror organizations.

    Terrorists will hold up this incident and the fallout from it as a major victory in their attempts to weaken and manipulate free society.

    This is about as straight forward an explanation as there can be. Dead on.

    ---

    Thanks.  That's what I come here to do. Add a bit of insight to the endless debate in hopes of bringing a few more up to speed.  
    edited March 2016 cornchip
  • Reply 98 of 122
    Dave S said:

    I work on the assumption that we have to trust the system.


    The fact that the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants IS the system. It is the Feds who are declaring their contempt for the system.

    radarthekatbaconstangration alcornchipicoco3
  • Reply 99 of 122
    steevyweb said:
    I would say again - make that lofty argument to the mother of a dead son or daughter.
    Hokay.

    Me: I have a right to drive on the roads.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter whose guts are spilled over somebody's fender!!
    Me: I have a right to own a firearm.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter whose brains got blown out by a bullet!!!!
    Me: I have a right to practice my religion.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter who got their throat slit on an alter by some weirdo cultist!!!!!!
    Me: I have a right to drink liquor.
    You: Tell that to the mother of a son or daughter who got their liver turned to swiss cheese by alcohol poisoning!!!!!!!!




    radarthekatbaconstangtallest skilcornchipicoco3
  • Reply 100 of 122
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    Dave S said:

    After all, we are all 90% good and it is only when we act collectively that things get scary (big companies and gov'ts).  So, the vast majority of us wont have our info stolen and, if we do, it wont be the end of our world.  On the other hand, defending ourselves from true threats of mass murder is serious.  We need to accord these men and women in our gov't the ability to do their job.  If they abuse it, shame on them.  Regardless, I would hope we get a fair and reasoned opinion that takes these things into consideration.  I appreciate the dialogue.  It has brought me a bit more toward the middle.  Regardless, I think we are overthinking this particular situation.  The judge should simply order disclosure of the contents and nothing more (certainly nothing that would threaten Apple's proprietary rights).

    So the iPhone killed someone? It's also been 3 months since the attack and nothing has happened. 

    it won't be the end of the world? Just access to your email, bank and financials, etc. 
    baconstang
Sign In or Register to comment.