Urei1620

tenly said:

This article is kind of sloppy.  Was it written in a hurry?  There are several grammatical mistakes. There are also inaccuracies and lots of speculation and opinion that is presented as fact.

This issue is difficult enough to discuss without all that.  People are arguing with emotion instead of fact and many people act like they've never heard of the constitution.

[quote]
Investigators have been unsuccessful in their attempts to break into Farook's iPhone 5c, which is protected by a strong encryption method designed to thwart brute-force attacks. [/quote]

My understanding is that the phone in question is only protected by a 4-digit passcode.  A brute force attack would take half an hour or less to find the right passcode whereas a well chosen passphrase could take hundreds or thousands of years to crack.  A four digit passcode is hardly a component of a strong encryption method.  The thing that makes it difficult to crack in this case is the auto-wipe feature which wipes the phone after 10 incorrect password attempts.  While that's part of the security model in place - it's not part of the "encryption method" and like it or not, I think the government would be able to declare it illegal and force Apple to remove it - not the encryption - just the booby trap which once triggered - destroys evidence (which is already illegal).  If the government chose to pursue the auto-wipe in isolation - I think they'd be able to compel Apple to remove it from this particular phone (not all phones) without Apple having any grounds to object.  If this ability were to "get out", it wouldn't compromise Apples encryption - but it would force us all to use passwords or passphrases to ensure our data remains private from governments and hackers alike.  4-digit codes would no longer offer any real security.  This would acutely completely solve the problem for this "one phone" however, it doesn't set a useful precedent and would be useless against phones using proper passwords which is why (I presume) they are not going this route.  But by ignoring this approach which would solve their problem for "this one phone", they are proving that their intentions do not end with "this one phone" as they have stated publicly.

[quote]
To circumvent this particular security layer Apple would need to write a new, compromised version of its iOS operating system, sign the code and install it on the device. But Apple is refusing to comply, citing an overreach of federal authority and potential First Amendment rights implications. [/quote]

This, I believe is speculation.  If all they wanted to do is to disable the auto-wipe booby trap - they wouldn't have to touch the operating system.  All Apple would have to do is take the existing firmware - find the line that adds 1 to the "incorrect password counter" and change the formula so that it adds "0" instead of "1". Then, they would just have to replace/update the existing firmware with the 1-byte tweak and give the phone back to the FBI.  They could pay a clerk to start entering passcodes with 0-0-0-0 and incrementing by 1 until they find the code that unlocks the phone.  Shouldn't take any longer than a couple of days I would think.  And even if (when) the FBI lost control of this "revised firmware" - it would quickly become completely useless as everybody concerned with pricacy (which should be all of us) would stop using 4-digit codes and begin using secure passphrases.  Apple could even help speed up this process by eliminating 4 digit passcodes ame forcing users to choose something secure.

In any case - speculating that a new, compromised OS would have to be created seems like fear-mongering.  That is certainly one-possibility - but an extremely unlikely one.  There are other ways that Apple could comply with a law requiring them to help - if such a law is indeed created that passes all constitutional challenges.

Chang of topic.

On many of these recent threads, there are many people who are arguing about what Apple should or shouldn't do in response to the demands of the FBI.  These are useless debates.  It's clear what Apple should be doing - and it appears that they are doing exactly that.  Apple is a private company, responsible to its shareholders.  They don't have a choice.  They must do what is in the best interest of the company and its shareholders.  Tim Cook is not the owner of the business and cannot choose to ignore a law, risking punishment simply because he disagrees with it.  If it is in the best interest of Apple to do business in the USA, Apple must comply with their laws.  If the law doesn't seem right - they can (and should) challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court - but - when the dust settles and the final ruling is made - Apple must (and Apple will) comply with the law.  In this case - that is exactly what is happening.  It would be irresponsible - and not in the best interest of Apple, its shareholders - and all of us - for Apple to not challenge the existing demands, so they can and will fight this with all legal options open to them.  When they run out of legal options to refuse - they will comply with any law that comes out of this. They have to.

I dont want to give up my privacy and I am happy that Apple is challenging the FBI.  I hope they win - but the debates on these forums are useless if they ignore the constitution, if they ignore reality and if they ignore reality.

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).

jmgregory1 said:

I think, what Apple should do is to not only do what the FBI is asking, but go a step further and create a new version of iOS that is completely open and hackable so the government has access to everyone's data - and so that the Russian, Chinese and other nefarious hackers can steal everyone's data, bank accounts, etc.

It's just ridiculous that the FBI is hanging its hat on this one iPhone, which just happens to be the one thing the perp didn't destroy...hint, hint, maybe because it's got nothing on it worth hiding...

ibill said:

Obama's DOJ are behaving like terrorists.

tmay said:

Urei1620 said:

Agreed. There are no good choices here. I am a Bernie supporter and wish that he come through. However, if it comes down to Hillary and Trump and a gun on my head, I would have to give it to Trump.

That's why I love Bernie supporters; they feel so entitled to cut their own throats. Don't let me stand in your way.