One possible attack vector, when a device is seized is to used the jtag pins on the (A) chip to get complete control over it. This effectively takes the chip in hardware debug mode and makes it possible to do cycle steps and inspect each memory attached. Sometimes chip vendors leave the channel open (it has to be physically disabled) and so make it possible to circumvent all protection. I hope Apple is clever enough to have this hardware attack vector closed or left out hardware debugging of the production chips.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
Privacy is very important, but all the "rights" people mention, it's one of the least absolute. Your right to privacy almost always conflicts with someone else's right to act or speak.
Now if you want to talk about protections against intrusion by government actors in our personal affairs and private documents, I'm with ya.
I don't really see how someone's right to speak or act conflicts with someone else's privacy, unless they are revealing confidences or, for example, posting pictures of you on the internet without your permission. The latter probably ought to be illegal, particularly pictures of a personal nature, and the right to privacy in that instance ought to trump other rights. The former is morally reprehensible, but you probably had a choice to not reveal those confidences to them. But, whether it's more "absolute" or not, and regardless of in what sense it is or is not, privacy is one of the most fundamental and necessary of human rights, and privacy and freedom are in many ways two sides of the same coin: Without privacy there is no real freedom. Obversely, without freedom, real privacy is unlikely to exist.
It's also a fundamental mistake to assume that rights specifically cited in the US Constituion are somehow more absolute or fundamental than other rights, or were thought to be by either the founders or their successors. As SCOTUS made clear in Griswold, many Amendments that protect other specific "rights" also protect privacy. In fact the very purpose of many of these "rights" was to protect privacy. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments all relate directly to privacy. How many other "rights" are protected by multiple clauses of the Constitution? The 9th Amendment also makes clear that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That so many clauses protect privacy directly and indirectly speaks forcefully for its importance to the founders, to just how fundamental a right they considered it, and to just how inseparable it is from liberty.
You're missing my point. The whole reason there are so many clauses and debates about "privacy" is because it is such a complicated and non-absolute thing. The line between public and private is blurry in almost any context and requires nuanced distinctions to be made. For example, if I see you walk into a barbershop am I violating your privacy by telling my wife I saw you there? How about telling a police officer who asks? What about if it were a medical facility instead? You right to privacy imposes obligations on me that other rights don't. But then our modern discourse is awash with sloppy talk about "rights" that don't make sense.
But yes, I agree with you: government intrusion into things we'd like to keep private is problematic. But we'll all disagree about how problematic and where the lines should be drawn.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
Privacy is very important, but all the "rights" people mention, it's one of the least absolute. Your right to privacy almost always conflicts with someone else's right to act or speak.
Now if you want to talk about protections against intrusion by government actors in our personal affairs and private documents, I'm with ya.
I don't really see how someone's right to speak or act conflicts with someone else's privacy, unless they are revealing confidences or, for example, posting pictures of you on the internet without your permission. The latter probably ought to be illegal, particularly pictures of a personal nature, and the right to privacy in that instance ought to trump other rights. The former is morally reprehensible, but you probably had a choice to not reveal those confidences to them. But, whether it's more "absolute" or not, and regardless of in what sense it is or is not, privacy is one of the most fundamental and necessary of human rights, and privacy and freedom are in many ways two sides of the same coin: Without privacy there is no real freedom. Obversely, without freedom, real privacy is unlikely to exist.
It's also a fundamental mistake to assume that rights specifically cited in the US Constituion are somehow more absolute or fundamental than other rights, or were thought to be by either the founders or their successors. As SCOTUS made clear in Griswold, many Amendments that protect other specific "rights" also protect privacy. In fact the very purpose of many of these "rights" was to protect privacy. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments all relate directly to privacy. How many other "rights" are protected by multiple clauses of the Constitution? The 9th Amendment also makes clear that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That so many clauses protect privacy directly and indirectly speaks forcefully for its importance to the founders, to just how fundamental a right they considered it, and to just how inseparable it is from liberty.
You're missing my point. The whole reason there are so many clauses and debates about "privacy" is because it is such a complicated and non-absolute thing. The line between public and private is blurry in almost any context and requires nuanced distinctions to be made. For example, if I see you walk into a barbershop am I violating your privacy by telling my wife I saw you there? How about telling a police officer who asks? What about if it were a medical facility instead? You right to privacy imposes obligations on me that other rights don't. But then our modern discourse is awash with sloppy talk about "rights" that don't make sense.
But yes, I agree with you: government intrusion into things we'd like to keep private is problematic. But we'll all disagree about how problematic and where the lines should be drawn.
You know exactly when you violate another's privacy. Making it blurry doesn't change that.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
There are plenty of exceptions.
Not from a human rights standpoint.
Yes, even from a human rights standpoint. Are you arguing that the police should never have the right to perform a search?
Here's an example - a man robs a bank. The car used in the bank robbery is parked in the driveway. The man is seen going into the house with a bag matching the one the money was in.
Here's another example - a man has a history of abusing his girlfriend. She goes over to his house. They're heard arguing and gunshots are heard. She never comes home. Her boyfriend is found driving her car with her purse. Bloody footprints are seen by the back door of his house.
According to you, the police should not be allowed to search either of these houses without the owners' permission. Sorry, there's a difference between theoretical ideals and the real world.
For all the hoity-toity privacy discussions here (I am guilty of that too), my worry is: if my phone is stolen (as happened a year ago), wouldn't if be possible for the thieves to extract all of my info using this technology (since there is no reason to assume that they couldn't get their hands on it)?
So, a simple question: Why has Apple not said anything about this?
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
There are plenty of exceptions.
Not from a human rights standpoint.
Yes, even from a human rights standpoint. Are you arguing that the police should never have the right to perform a search?
Here's an example - a man robs a bank. The car used in the bank robbery is parked in the driveway. The man is seen going into the house with a bag matching the one the money was in.
Here's another example - a man has a history of abusing his girlfriend. She goes over to his house. They're heard arguing and gunshots are heard. She never comes home. Her boyfriend is found driving her car with her purse. Bloody footprints are seen by the back door of his house.
According to you, the police should not be allowed to search either of these houses without the owners' permission. Sorry, there's a difference between theoretical ideals and the real world.
Human rights are not theoretical or ideal. Local law should adhere to Human rights and not the other way round. ‘Right to search’ is only allowed by local law in very special circumstances, but is alway a human rights violation when executed.
It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on them. Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
Right to privacy is absolute and a basic human right, no exceptions.
There are plenty of exceptions.
Not from a human rights standpoint.
Yes, even from a human rights standpoint. Are you arguing that the police should never have the right to perform a search?
Here's an example - a man robs a bank. The car used in the bank robbery is parked in the driveway. The man is seen going into the house with a bag matching the one the money was in.
Here's another example - a man has a history of abusing his girlfriend. She goes over to his house. They're heard arguing and gunshots are heard. She never comes home. Her boyfriend is found driving her car with her purse. Bloody footprints are seen by the back door of his house.
According to you, the police should not be allowed to search either of these houses without the owners' permission. Sorry, there's a difference between theoretical ideals and the real world.
Human rights are not theoretical or ideal. Local law should adhere to Human rights and not the other way round. ‘Right to search’ is only allowed by local law in very special circumstances, but is alway a human rights violation when executed.
You’re not making sense, talking in circles and contradicting yourself.
You say that ‘right to search’ is allowed, but then say that that laws should adhere to human rights and not the other way around and finally that searches are always a human rights violation, which would mean that they’re not allowed because the laws have to follow human rights.
This is exactly what I mean about the difference between real life and theoretical ideals and what many people don’t seem to get. You can say that the right to privacy is a fundamental human right (I agree) and that there are no exceptions to human rights. Except that would mean that you can never perform a search. As soon as you admit that searches are necessary and acceptable under certain circumstances then you have admitted that there is a grey zone. That grey zone must be defined - what constitutes acceptable criteria to perform a search? Adamantly repeating ‘privacy is a human right’ ignores the issue.
Comments
This effectively takes the chip in hardware debug mode and makes it possible to do cycle steps and inspect each memory attached.
Sometimes chip vendors leave the channel open (it has to be physically disabled) and so make it possible to circumvent all protection.
I hope Apple is clever enough to have this hardware attack vector closed or left out hardware debugging of the production chips.
But yes, I agree with you: government intrusion into things we'd like to keep private is problematic. But we'll all disagree about how problematic and where the lines should be drawn.
Here's an example - a man robs a bank. The car used in the bank robbery is parked in the driveway. The man is seen going into the house with a bag matching the one the money was in.
Here's another example - a man has a history of abusing his girlfriend. She goes over to his house. They're heard arguing and gunshots are heard. She never comes home. Her boyfriend is found driving her car with her purse. Bloody footprints are seen by the back door of his house.
According to you, the police should not be allowed to search either of these houses without the owners' permission. Sorry, there's a difference between theoretical ideals and the real world.
So, a simple question: Why has Apple not said anything about this?
Local law should adhere to Human rights and not the other way round.
‘Right to search’ is only allowed by local law in very special circumstances, but is alway a human rights violation when executed.
You say that ‘right to search’ is allowed, but then say that that laws should adhere to human rights and not the other way around and finally that searches are always a human rights violation, which would mean that they’re not allowed because the laws have to follow human rights.
This is exactly what I mean about the difference between real life and theoretical ideals and what many people don’t seem to get. You can say that the right to privacy is a fundamental human right (I agree) and that there are no exceptions to human rights. Except that would mean that you can never perform a search. As soon as you admit that searches are necessary and acceptable under certain circumstances then you have admitted that there is a grey zone. That grey zone must be defined - what constitutes acceptable criteria to perform a search? Adamantly repeating ‘privacy is a human right’ ignores the issue.