Avoiding "absolutist" positions is even possible in this debate?
It's a binary option. Either there is a backdoor/weakness or there isn't. There is no middle ground.
So much for Obama having "a good grasp of the issue's technical details." He's not doing any better than any other politician (from both sides of the aisle) saying exactly the same thing in different words.
Nah.
The FBI knows there is a way to get the decryption key by taking it apart, they just don't want to because it might destroy the phone instantly. So instead they want to compel Apple to create a version of iOS that can be loaded onto any iPhone to brute-force the password.
Apple can "give the middle finger" here by tying a temporal password limit. eg the first 5 times are instant, and then every time after that the delay for using the PIN doubles. That would hamper any brute-force technique. A self-destruct mechanism should be a duress password (Eg a password that would be hit by brute forcing) or a number of tries definable by the user.
Now, as far as creating backdoors... I could see Apple making a JTAG-like connector inside the phone, that is only useful as a "recovery" mechanism. This wouldn't allow anyone to unlock the phone, it would just allow the flash to be dumped or securely erased from the device, which could then be manipulated on a hardware emulator. This is reasonable since you can't decrypt the phone without having it and without making it effectively unusable (so it can't just be used to unlock a suspect's device at will.) But as others will point out, any backdoor is bad, and providing this kind of mechanism would only be useful to prevent destroying the phone by accident. But it seems reasonable as long as Apple isn't providing software assistance in this regard.
The other option, is that Apple open sources the base iOS (not the apps, app store, etc) and thus the onus falls on some other party to create a backdoor'd iOS, but Apple still won't sign these unauthorized iOS versions, so that still goes back to figuring out how to load such a thing.
And after all that, terrorists and criminals will just install 3rd party encryption systems and law enforcement will find themselves back to square one.
You cannot unlearn, undiscover, and unknow knowledge that is already known. The encryption genie is out of the bottle, strong encryption is here to stay, like it or not. The old ways of fighting crime and terrorism will just have to evolve to better tackle the new security and surveillance landscape.
As has correctly been pointed out, you can't really have it both ways. If you build backdoors, those backdoors will be used by bad guys. And bad guys are not always russian hackers, chinese government or muslim extremists. As Edward Snowden has made clear, the bad guys are also sometimes the US government. Referring to TSA is the worst argument ever. The TSA system actually proves that such a system with a backdoor, in fact means that now anybody (who wants) has access - not just the TSA. Anybody who wants to access a suitcase with a TSA lock can go online and buy a master key set. You can even print your own, if you have access to a 3D printer. The US government appears to be playing the we-need-this-to-keep-you-safe card. The sad thing about this, is that even if Apple (and/or other companies) were forced to build backdoors, it wouldn't help in terms of terrorists anyway. Those terrorists clever enough to get away with something, would also be clever enough to find alternative software to use for communication or storing documents. The encryption algorithms exists and lots of companies all over the world make software with strong encryption.
It is not an "encryption debate", it is the GovtOS debate: i.e. whether the government can compel Apple to write some OS for its investigative purposes...
History shows such things are possible... only under martial law...
"...the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed," Obama said. "And it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through.."
Got it. In other words and like a bad cop movie.. 'we can do it the easy way. Or we can do it the hard way...'
Obama's point is a fantastic point. He's saying that when something truly horrible happens and getting information could have stopped it, like the Patriot act, congress will pass something much worse with the support of angry Americans. I thought his points were well put.
What a coward. On some issues, you just have to take a stand, and not be a slimy politician.
So, carefully considering both sides of an issue and the potential risks they harbor before making a decision renders one a coward, does it? That's good to know.
Obama should have consulted with people like Mike Cheroff and Hayden before making himself a fool again. They are all opposed to backdoors to encryption.
Strong encryption prevents more crime than weak encryption would allow to be prosecuted. Weak encryption funds more terrorism than strong encryption enables.
Obama should have consulted with people like Mike Cheroff and Hayden before making himself a fool again. They are all opposed to backdoors to encryption.
Kind of like how the NSA found a backdoor installed in Juniper's firewalls by the Chinese or some other state actor and decided to exploit it for themselves.
Well, how about an iPhone that would accept two signatures/keys, one belongs to Apple, one belongs to the DOJ. Wait, what? China wants one too. Oh, shoot. Russian wants one as well. Well, screw that, iPhone will happily run any software as long as it is runnable.
Obama, like the rest of the FBI etc. need to learn about technology: political talk about compromise won't work here; just as a girl can't get "a little bit pregnant" so security can't be "a little bit broken".
Either a system is secure, or it's not; that's the nature of binary i.e. digital technology.
"I'm sorry Obama, I can't do that... ...these things have crept up before and they have always been attributable to human error."
"...the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed," Obama said. "And it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through.."
Got it. In other words and like a bad cop movie.. 'we can do it the easy way. Or we can do it the hard way...'
Obama's point is a fantastic point. He's saying that when something truly horrible happens and getting information could have stopped it, like the Patriot act, congress will pass something much worse with the support of angry Americans. I thought his points were well put.
It may well be that bad laws written in anger will spring from the next truly horrible thing. But the first horrible thing done after those laws go into effect, done by bad people rendered invisible by uncrackable encryption that mocks those laws, will hopefully show the futility of trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Mathematical reality is impervious to political reality.
Simple solution: Apple moves all operations to China. the USA loses all revenue from Apple, the USA realizes they played hard ball and lost. The USA begs apple to come back.
Dronebama, our fearless civil liberties compromiser, used to be a "Constitutional Law" professor, but now he is an encryption expert...and so are FBI chief Comey and AG Lynch....
Witness an object lesson on the origins of sophistry. The chuckle, of course, is that Obama has to know this. Much of Western pragmatism is premised on the logical fallacy that "the truth lies between two extremes" - which is hogwash. Gravity isn't defined as the midpoint between floating around in the air and Jovian pressures keeping us flattened against the ground. Etc..
The crucial questions of privacy, liberty, are defined by our constitution and the bill of rights - and if Obama and his peers in the snooping industry want to change that all they need is a constitutional amendment.
Not that I'm confident that a society that revels in something called reality TV wouldn't roll over to protect the children, stop terrorism, prevent the evil empire of darkness from existing after sunset, blah, blah, blah.
Obama's point is a fantastic point. He's saying that when something truly horrible happens and getting information could have stopped it, like the Patriot act...
For one, you KNOW you're going to go through a checkpoint and you PREPARE.
a they see what you chose to bring for them to inspect.
A a phone is different. It's pictures, Internet browsing, phone calls, emails, txt, app usage, voicemail, etc. deeply personal.
There SHOULDNT EVER be a TSA for that.
its not simply "data" mr. Obama. It's my personal life details.
The TSA example is really more stupid if you compare them to airport security in the rest of the western world. They are theatre at best and do little more than make you run through airports bear foot to avoid missing your flight while leaving you with a sense that you probably less secure than normal.
Edit to add more generally: Isn't Apple already at the middle ground?
They offer not only encryption to the general public but they offer back-ups that encouraged and subject to warrantable searches. They offer Mobile Device Management so companies can retain digital control of their information of hardware they provide for work. They provide assistance to law enforcement. Even in the case in hand they have reportedly provided as much info as they have access too and we are left with the impression that none of that had any actionable intelligence.
It just seems disingenuous to claim standing up and saying they have done as much as they can is taking an absolute position.
Yep. The president is wrong and doesn't realize it, or he's providing himself with cover to shift the blame onto others.
Why would he do that? It is not as if he has an election to fight this November... Unless he knows that Trump is gonna get elected and make him look like a saint in comparison?
Anyway, when the POTUS says 'gimme a backdoor' it is time for Apple to relocate outside of the USA lock, stock, stores, and HQ. That would give the rest of the world a clear signal that they are on the hight ground here.
Comments
You cannot unlearn, undiscover, and unknow knowledge that is already known. The encryption genie is out of the bottle, strong encryption is here to stay, like it or not. The old ways of fighting crime and terrorism will just have to evolve to better tackle the new security and surveillance landscape.
Referring to TSA is the worst argument ever. The TSA system actually proves that such a system with a backdoor, in fact means that now anybody (who wants) has access - not just the TSA. Anybody who wants to access a suitcase with a TSA lock can go online and buy a master key set. You can even print your own, if you have access to a 3D printer.
The US government appears to be playing the we-need-this-to-keep-you-safe card. The sad thing about this, is that even if Apple (and/or other companies) were forced to build backdoors, it wouldn't help in terms of terrorists anyway. Those terrorists clever enough to get away with something, would also be clever enough to find alternative software to use for communication or storing documents. The encryption algorithms exists and lots of companies all over the world make software with strong encryption.
History shows such things are possible... only under martial law...
Obama's point is a fantastic point. He's saying that when something truly horrible happens and getting information could have stopped it, like the Patriot act, congress will pass something much worse with the support of angry Americans. I thought his points were well put.
Either a system is secure, or it's not; that's the nature of binary i.e. digital technology.
"I'm sorry Obama, I can't do that...
...these things have crept up before and they have always been attributable to human error."
Dont some TSA members steal things and abuse their position? Not a good comparison.
The crucial questions of privacy, liberty, are defined by our constitution and the bill of rights - and if Obama and his peers in the snooping industry want to change that all they need is a constitutional amendment.
Not that I'm confident that a society that revels in something called reality TV wouldn't roll over to protect the children, stop terrorism, prevent the evil empire of darkness from existing after sunset, blah, blah, blah.
http://http//www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/fbi-admits-patriot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/?page=all
Edit to add more generally:
Isn't Apple already at the middle ground?
They offer not only encryption to the general public but they offer back-ups that encouraged and subject to warrantable searches. They offer Mobile Device Management so companies can retain digital control of their information of hardware they provide for work. They provide assistance to law enforcement. Even in the case in hand they have reportedly provided as much info as they have access too and we are left with the impression that none of that had any actionable intelligence.
It just seems disingenuous to claim standing up and saying they have done as much as they can is taking an absolute position.
It is not as if he has an election to fight this November...
Unless he knows that Trump is gonna get elected and make him look like a saint in comparison?
Anyway, when the POTUS says 'gimme a backdoor' it is time for Apple to relocate outside of the USA lock, stock, stores, and HQ.
That would give the rest of the world a clear signal that they are on the hight ground here.