The reason Apple couldn't say it was technically impossible is because it is the 5c; I believe it is possible but not easy and by the time they brute force the password (maybe years if they use the long pass code) the info would be irrelevant anyway. Though, they could be lucky and the pass code could their birth date or something similar.
Apple doesn't want to allow even for this phone because it sets a precedent.
I appreciate that my iOS devices are very secure, and I'd rather not see Apple being forced by the govt to create weaker and compromised versions of iOS on purpose, something that would affect hundreds of millions of customers.
The authorities and the administration should have just done their jobs better and those terrorists could have been caught before they carried out their act of workplace violence. Red flags were everywhere.
You should stop using Donald Trump avatar for this thread because Trump himself is fucking supporting the government to tell Tim cook to back down in this case!
I will not. There is no candidate that I agree with 100%, and I've disagreed with the Donald on a few issues before, so this is nothing new.
Apple doesn't have to create a "backdoor" to comply with legitimate security requests. From another site:
"...it would be possible to put the iPhone into DFU mode and then overwrite the firmware with a version that has neither the auto-erase mode nor delays between passcode attempts. The FBI could then trivially brute-force its way into the phone.
The FBI can’t overwrite the firmware because the device checks for a valid Apple signature. The FBI doesn’t have this. But Apple does. Apple could thus create signed firmware without the protections designed to defeat brute-force attacks, and hand the phone back to the FBI."
User data can still stay private with no secret government backdoors that might be taken advantage of by hackers. Personally I don't see this as an insurmountable problem.
Don't you see what's wrong with what you just said in bold? You can force someone to give you something he/she has, but you cannot force him/her to CREATE something out of the blue. That's unconstitutional!
Well...I'm not sure about the "unconstitutional" assertion, but the court likely has the power to require disclosure of the source code for iOS. They could even take it via eminent domain (requiring of course fair compensation.) The feds could offer a job to anyone willing to take it for creation of the iOS version they want (giving that individual the source code), and hold any applicable CDA/NDAs they may have signed with Apple as invalid. Then...the feds can seize control of the servers necessary to make a signed certificate.
None of this requires Apple to make anything. And I'll betcha the federales have explained just how they plan to proceed to Tim. Might be good to have a film crew on hand when the federal marshalls show up in Cuppertino to seize things.
Don't you see what's wrong with what you just said in bold? You can force someone to give you something he/she has, but you cannot force him/her to CREATE something out of the blue. That's unconstitutional!
Well...I'm not sure about the "unconstitutional" assertion, but the court likely has the power to require disclosure of the source code for iOS. They could even take it via eminent domain (requiring of course fair compensation.) The feds could offer a job to anyone willing to take it for creation of the iOS version they want (giving that individual the source code), and hold any applicable CDA/NDAs they may have signed with Apple as invalid. Then...the feds can seize control of the servers necessary to make a signed certificate.
None of this requires Apple to make anything. And I'll betcha the federales have explained just how they plan to proceed to Tim. Might be good to have a film crew on hand when the federal marshalls show up in Cuppertino to seize things.
You can't take source code using eminent domain. The purpose of eminent domain is to seize property for public use. The court is overstepping their legal bounds with this case. I fail to see how a judge can order a private company to essentially become unwilling participants in surveillance research and development.
There are ways to accomplish this safely, although Apple and other manufacturers might not like it. One method mentioned is something like a key unique to each phone is capable of decrypting the phone that Apple maintains.
I can't trust companies--who have a vested interest in keeping my data safe--to keep my data safe (I'm looking right at you, Target). And I'm supposed to trust the US government, which still has people running around with laptops running Windows 3.11WFW?
Uncle Sam, you know where you can stick that OKIdata dot-matrix printer you still use...
Right now I would vote for Tim over any of the candidates we have before us. The agencies have a full court press to get Apple to open a backdoor and it is obvious when they start saying things like "think of our children", terrorist, etc. Apple should close its doors before letting this government force them to do this. Apple we are behind you!!!!
Tim's stance on privacy evens out his other collectivist stances on race issues. It's a wash. But purely on privacy, he beats all candidates hands down.
US government is contradictory to itself. On one hand, FBI spends resources to investigate the hypothesis the San Bernardino shooting is terrorism. On the other hand it forbids FBI to investigate suspicious acts for violating civil liberty. Especially when the killer exhibited some kind of mental problem. Finally, in a court trial the defense lawyers will allege illegal evidence gathered by the investigator to void the evidence. And the court will dismiss the trial. It seems most of the time the parties are simply playing so to justify their government jobs.
US government is contradictory to itself. On one hand, FBI spends resources to investigate the hypothesis the San Bernardino shooting is terrorism. On the other hand it forbids FBI to investigate suspicious acts for violating civil liberty. Especially when the killer exhibited some kind of mental problem. Finally, in a court trial the defense lawyers will allege illegal evidence gathered by the investigator to void the evidence. And the court will dismiss the trial. It seems most of the time the parties are simply playing so to justify their government jobs.
Hypothesis?
What a bunch of garbage. It was terrorism, and the two lowlife killers were radical islamic terrorists and supporters of ISIS, and that's why they did what they did.
Apple is really in an indefensible position here. As much as Apple wants to, you can't truly protect a user using a weak password, even though that's what a lot of people do for the sake of convenience. If the phone had a strong password, any help from Apple would not have made it easy enough for the FBI to crack the encryption. The FBI is not asking for a backdoor to be built into iOS that can circumvent strong passwords (the strongest encryption is still weak w/ weak pass codes), but simply exploiting an inherent weakness (that's only weak when coupled w/ a weak password) that Apple has made it difficult for anyone else but itself to exploit.
I don't have any issue with Apple helping to hack into this one particular iPhone as a one time thing. If that is at all possible, then Apple should help in my opinion.
But giving the Govt some sort of Master key which can be used to unlock any iPhone, belonging to anybody, is not a good idea, and I am against that.
US government is contradictory to itself. On one hand, FBI spends resources to investigate the hypothesis the San Bernardino shooting is terrorism. On the other hand it forbids FBI to investigate suspicious acts for violating civil liberty. Especially when the killer exhibited some kind of mental problem. Finally, in a court trial the defense lawyers will allege illegal evidence gathered by the investigator to void the evidence. And the court will dismiss the trial. It seems most of the time the parties are simply playing so to justify their government jobs.
Hypothesis?
What a bunch of garbage. It was terrorism, and the two lowlife killers were radical islamic terrorists and supporters of ISIS, and that's why they did what they did.
You don't know the definition of terrorists. It is a double standard. There are many mass killings in US not being called terrorism. Columbine and Sandy Hook do you remember? What does US do to prevent these from happening again? Where are the evidences that the San Bernardino killers are supporters of ISIS? If the FBI have the true evidence why do they so need of Apple?
"Apple estimates it would take a supercomputer over five and a half years to crack a six-digit passcode with lowercase letters and numerals. Brute-forcing a stronger passcode could take decades. In short, iOS was built to withstand the very attack vectors proposed by the FBI. "
So they get their weakened system and STILL won't be able to accomplish their alleged goal. Cook was being kind, these people are morons.
I would have given the same answer. Nevertheless I am not 100% sure that Apple does not have a back door to get access to the device. During development a new versions of the hardware and iOS, such a tool would be really handy during testing
Were that the case Apple would have quietly taken the phone aside, "discovered" it hadn't been protected at all and given it back opened up.
I don't have any issue with Apple helping to hack into this one particular iPhone as a one time thing. If that is at all possible, then Apple should help in my opinion.
But giving the Govt some sort of Master key which can be used to unlock any iPhone, belonging to anybody, is not a good idea, and I am against that.
The safest thing for Apple to do here, while complying with the court order, is to actually crack this particular phone in-house for FBI instead of giving FBI the signed iOS mod to crack the weak password. But imagine the negative PR for doing the former. If Apple is telling the truth, then even Apple can't crack a strong password on its own phone. What I'm curious is whether Apple (technically) can give law enforcement an image of the phone that allows for brute force password cracking w/o release the signed iOS mod.
Well...I'm not sure about the "unconstitutional" assertion, but the court likely has the power to require disclosure of the source code for iOS. They could even take it via eminent domain (requiring of course fair compensation.) The feds could offer a job to anyone willing to take it for creation of the iOS version they want (giving that individual the source code), and hold any applicable CDA/NDAs they may have signed with Apple as invalid. Then...the feds can seize control of the servers necessary to make a signed certificate.
None of this requires Apple to make anything. And I'll betcha the federales have explained just how they plan to proceed to Tim. Might be good to have a film crew on hand when the federal marshalls show up in Cuppertino to seize things.
You can't take source code using eminent domain. The purpose of eminent domain is to seize property for public use. The court is overstepping their legal bounds with this case. I fail to see how a judge can order a private company to essentially become unwilling participants in surveillance research and development.
I think you are wrong. Source code is clearly "property" within the meaning of the constitution. And there is a public use here: a criminal investigation and national security.
Do not underestimate the power of the government. Apple has assets and property because the government allows it.
This is nothing but a back door fishing expedition by the FBI. Apple has already given the FBI iCloud data. On top of the iCloud information, the FBI has the shooters computers, text messages, multiple flash drives, e-mails, etc. Is there really something on the iPhone that the FBI doesn't know already? The FBI is just using this case to gain pubic support for back doors.
I expect you're totally correct. Especially given the care the murderers took to totally crush their other two private phones: had this one been anything other than s simple work phone it would have been destroyed as well.
Move the seat of Apple to Europe (almost any country might do). Less taxes, better protection, less pressure.
Not Great Britain: they're considering doing a mandatory backdoor law at the moment.
Apple is and will always remain an American company based in the US.
For all of the things that are wrong with the US, things are much worse in Europe. Can you imagine Apple being in Europe and being controlled by the corrupt EU fascists?
Comments
Apple doesn't want to allow even for this phone because it sets a precedent.
None of this requires Apple to make anything. And I'll betcha the federales have explained just how they plan to proceed to Tim. Might be good to have a film crew on hand when the federal marshalls show up in Cuppertino to seize things.
http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/02/17/what-the-fbi-is-asking-apple-to-do/
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf
Uncle Sam, you know where you can stick that OKIdata dot-matrix printer you still use...
What a bunch of garbage. It was terrorism, and the two lowlife killers were radical islamic terrorists and supporters of ISIS, and that's why they did what they did.
But giving the Govt some sort of Master key which can be used to unlock any iPhone, belonging to anybody, is not a good idea, and I am against that.
So they get their weakened system and STILL won't be able to accomplish their alleged goal. Cook was being kind, these people are morons.
Do not underestimate the power of the government. Apple has assets and property because the government allows it.
For all of the things that are wrong with the US, things are much worse in Europe. Can you imagine Apple being in Europe and being controlled by the corrupt EU fascists?
Never gonna happen.