|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Security v. Freedom
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just to clarify if anybody's confused--the FBI aren't asking them to break the encryption, they intend to do that themselves if it can be done. (There are forms of encryption out there that are so far unbreakable, as far as we know.)What they are doing is asking them to disable secondary security features that prevent a brute force attack on the encryption issue.
No, they are asking for a version of the OS in which that security feature has been disabled. Which wiil make hacking any other phone that much easier.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, there is no suggestion that the revised OS (should it ever be developed) will ever exist anywhere other than on a small number of computers at Apple (or, potentially one laptop that someone from Apple takes with them to wherever the FBI have the phone to install it). Apple aren't going to make this a free download from their website for anyone who wants to bypass a security feature on their phone (or, someone elses phone). So, unless the security at Apple is so bad that someone obtains that code illegally that isn't an issue.
There is an outside chance that by making it known that there is a way of bypassing the 10 attempt limit on the PIN that someone else might create a piece of code capable of doing the same thing, but it won't be a version of whatever Apple produce. However, the chatter about this has already let that cat out of the bag.
For Apple (and, presumably, other producers) the issue is that if they do this it won't be long before the FBI, or some other organisation, comes along with another phone they need access to, and another, and another ... either they fight each one through the courts or some of their talented software engineers spend a large amount of their time opening up phones for the law enforcement community. How long can Apple, or anyone else, afford to keep on doing that?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
There is no reason to believe this version to be any less secure in terms of the technical components of the phone being hacked and reused than there would be any others.
The extent to which the operating system of the phone (which is what would need to be changed) is secure is completely different to the security of the user content.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there is no suggestion that the revised OS (should it ever be developed) will ever exist anywhere other than on a small number of computers at Apple (or, potentially one laptop that someone from Apple takes with them to wherever the FBI have the phone to install it). Apple aren't going to make this a free download from their website for anyone who wants to bypass a security feature on their phone (or, someone elses phone). So, unless the security at Apple is so bad that someone obtains that code illegally that isn't an issue.
There is an outside chance that by making it known that there is a way of bypassing the 10 attempt limit on the PIN that someone else might create a piece of code capable of doing the same thing, but it won't be a version of whatever Apple produce. However, the chatter about this has already let that cat out of the bag.
For Apple (and, presumably, other producers) the issue is that if they do this it won't be long before the FBI, or some other organisation, comes along with another phone they need access to, and another, and another ... either they fight each one through the courts or some of their talented software engineers spend a large amount of their time opening up phones for the law enforcement community. How long can Apple, or anyone else, afford to keep on doing that?
Since all these phones are essentially the same (with minor variations), there isn't really any issue for Apple to keep doing it. Realistically, they wouldn't destroy such a "feature" version anywhere. They'd just keep the details stored in a branch of code somewhere with steps to make sure that they don't accidentally install it on the next release of their handsets. That's not at all difficult.
This is a marketing issue. Apple have marketed iPhones as somehow being more secure because Apple cannot decrypt the data. This is rubbish, as they have neglected to point out that they could easily circumvent a key part of the protection, as they are now being required to do by a court. They don't like that. Life is hard.
As for how long they could keep doing it, they have a cash mountain the size of many countries, so I should imagine they could sustain the services of a few engineers for quire some time....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there is no suggestion that the revised OS (should it ever be developed) will ever exist anywhere other than on a small number of computers at Apple
This isn't a plausible scenario. Even were it, the FBI would have a copy of the disabled iOS in their hands when Apple left.
The intelligence community don't like encryption and they don't like having to ask each time they wish to snoop.
They want the tools, that is what this is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is an outside chance that by making it known that there is a way of bypassing the 10 attempt limit on the PIN that someone else might create a piece of code capable of doing the same thing, but it won't be a version of whatever Apple produce. However, the chatter about this has already let that cat out of the bag.
This was hardly a secret even before the shootings.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there is no suggestion that the revised OS (should it ever be developed) will ever exist anywhere other than on a small number of computers at Apple
This isn't a plausible scenario. Even were it, the FBI would have a copy of the disabled iOS in their hands when Apple left.
The intelligence community don't like encryption and they don't like having to ask each time they wish to snoop.
They want the tools, that is what this is about.
The iOS will still be property of Apple, and the FBI won't be able to do anything with it without either permission from Apple or by breaking the law (which I would hope would make anything gained inadmissible in court). Even if they can bypass Apple's property rights, will the FBI be able to copy the revised iOS off the phone, and if they could would they be able to install it on a different phone without some input from Apple? What I've read suggests that anything Apple can produce will include components specific to the phone they are working with (access codes and the like). If so, then even with the iOS the FBI (or anyone else) will still need to ask each time they want to snoop.
The fact that the FBI won't like it is irrelevant to the fact.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You are suggesting that the FBI would respect rights?
I do not believe this would be the case. Even allowing for the best intentions, power will be abused.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm suggesting that if they fail to respect Apple's property rights then they will only be able to do that with the collusion of other parts of the criminal justice system. They can't conduct what would effectively be an illegal search and still use that evidence within a criminal prosecution, so they would need a warrant of some form from the courts (as they have obtained in the current case). If the FBI can ride rough shod over the law then you have very significant problems, and the ability to access the contents of some phones isn't going to make any real difference to that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are suggesting that the FBI would respect rights?
I do not believe this would be the case. Even allowing for the best intentions, power will be abused.
The FBI court submission already specifies that the modified version of the phone operating system should only operate on the specified handset, and once Apple digitally sign the software, it wouldn't be transferable to another handset anyway.
There are several ways it could go wrong therefore.
1. Apple screw up the modified version and neglect to lock it to a specific handset. Highly unlikely
2. FBI obtain Apple's secret code signing keys, in which case they can do whatever they want forever. They might already have them illegally and just not want to publicise that, in which case this whole case is just smoke and mirrors.
3. There's a big hole in the whole code signing idea, in which case lots of entities are in trouble.
Which of these, or others, do you think is likely to cause a problem?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm suggesting that if they fail to respect Apple's property rights then they will only be able to do that with the collusion of other parts of the criminal justice system. They can't conduct what would effectively be an illegal search and still use that evidence within a criminal prosecution, so they would need a warrant of some form from the courts (as they have obtained in the current case). If the FBI can ride rough shod over the law then you have very significant problems, and the ability to access the contents of some phones isn't going to make any real difference to that.
There exists no intelligence agency in the world in which all its members operate completely within the rules. None.
Once again, it is about encryption in general, not this just this one mobile, not just Apple.
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The FBI court submission already specifies that the modified version of the phone operating system should only operate on the specified handset, and once Apple digitally sign the software, it wouldn't be transferable to another handset anyway
And how would that be done? The OS on that mobile is not unique.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Just to clarify, though this quote:
There exists no intelligence agency in the world in which all its members operate completely within the rules. None.
might sound a bit paranoid, it is based on those I know within the community, the selection processes, human nature and historical examples.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm suggesting that if they fail to respect Apple's property rights then they will only be able to do that with the collusion of other parts of the criminal justice system. They can't conduct what would effectively be an illegal search and still use that evidence within a criminal prosecution, so they would need a warrant of some form from the courts (as they have obtained in the current case). If the FBI can ride rough shod over the law then you have very significant problems, and the ability to access the contents of some phones isn't going to make any real difference to that.
There exists no intelligence agency in the world in which all its members operate completely within the rules. None.
Once again, it is about encryption in general, not this just this one mobile, not just Apple.
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The FBI court submission already specifies that the modified version of the phone operating system should only operate on the specified handset, and once Apple digitally sign the software, it wouldn't be transferable to another handset anyway
And how would that be done? The OS on that mobile is not unique.
The entire basis of the request is that a new version of the OS be created. This version of the OS should remove the self destruct function, remove the time delay between allowed attempts, and allow the submission of passcodes via a USB connection or similar.
There are lots of ways to forensically identify the handset in a unique way - serial numbers in hardware etc etc. Once you agree on a way to do that, you create the new version of the OS that incorporates that feature, then you digitally sign it to say that it's an authentic Apple version.
If you then tamper with it to try and change the forensic identification code (or indeed, any other code) and then put the tampered with version on another phone, the other phone would be able to detect the tampering and refuse to run the software.
This tampering detection is already commonplace. It's been used, for example, to stop people installing non Sony approved software on PlayStation games consoles. There, it was cracked, but that was because people were able to steal the secret key that allowed them to pass off modified versions of the software as being legitimate ones.
The fact that the operating system is not unique at the moment doesn't matter. The new version would be, and would be locked to the specific device. Note (again) that Apple have not denied the technical feasibility of this, and that's what I think they are really pissed about - they've marketed their phones as being secure because Apple themselves can't decrypt them. Someone has now called bullshit on that (quite rightly) and Apple don't like it.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
As an aside it's worth pointing out that the FBI's plan is only viable because the number of combinations of a 4-digit PIN can be tried via a computer in a reasonable time. If it had been a 6-character alphanumeric passcode then it could take years to try them all. iPhone users take note!
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
If you then tamper with it to try and change the forensic identification code (or indeed, any other code) and then put the tampered with version on another phone, the other phone would be able to detect the tampering and refuse to run the software.
Even our printer knows when we have used a non-Canon cartridge and won't work ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Someone has now called bullshit on that (quite rightly) and Apple don't like it.
Yeah, and Google support them because it is all about Apple and nothing else.
[ 18. February 2016, 18:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Exposing total ignorance here, but how are they going to persuade the phone to download and install the new OS if the phone is locked behind a PIN?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, though, they're deciding to try the case in the court of public opinion, with an open letter to their users. THAT is most definitely not one of the steps in appealing. It's a PR stunt designed to create sympathy and/or pressure.
Why shouldn't they do this?
The issues raised by the court order are matters of public interest. Consequently, it is good for there to be a public debate on them.
(Note: I am under no illusions that Apple actually care about the public interest, but if Apple's concerns happen to coincide with public concerns, I don't think those concerns suddenly become invalid just because it's Apple.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The phone in question is an iPhone 5S I believe. Cracking it should be relatively trivial compared with one of the 6 series. The latter have a separate firewalled processor system dealing with security presumably due to the "Apple Pay" feature.
Just to repeat what has already been said, this isn't about backdoors. It's more like crowbarring your way in through the front door. That way, the issue of encryption is irrelevant.
Its nice to think that Apple is acting on the highest principles here. Get a grip! It's a commercial decision. Apple is not a high-principles company.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the FBI can ride rough shod over the law then you have very significant problems, and the ability to access the contents of some phones isn't going to make any real difference to that.
I don't believe the only problem with the FBI breaking the law is that it might secure convictions that would otherwise be illegal. This is the organisation that tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into giving up.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Someone has now called bullshit on that (quite rightly) and Apple don't like it.
Yeah, and Google support them because it is all about Apple and nothing else.
Google didn't like being told in Europe to remove selected listings from search engines. Microsoft didn't want to produce "unbundled" versions of Windows that had to allow people to select other browsers by default. Etc Etc. And in all cases, they're all taking the piss over their tax arrangements, as we have another thread about.
In every case, they wish to preserve the status quo for their own commercial advantage. It's nothing to do with principles.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The question is, should the safe manufacturer be forced to assist in the safe breaking? At their own expense and thereby undermining their "no one has ever broken into our safes" advertising campaign.
Yes.
This is the entire point of judges, to make decisions like this. To weigh up competing interests. To claim that the safe manufacturer's interest is absolute and will always, no matter what, win out over the interests of investigating and dealing with a crime is every bit as disturbing as anything that can be conjured up by 'the government might breach your privacy' bogeymen.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, though, they're deciding to try the case in the court of public opinion, with an open letter to their users. THAT is most definitely not one of the steps in appealing. It's a PR stunt designed to create sympathy and/or pressure.
Why shouldn't they do this?
The issues raised by the court order are matters of public interest. Consequently, it is good for there to be a public debate on them.
(Note: I am under no illusions that Apple actually care about the public interest, but if Apple's concerns happen to coincide with public concerns, I don't think those concerns suddenly become invalid just because it's Apple.)
They're not looking for public debate. They're looking for an emotive push-button where all the people who are paranoid about government gasp in horror at the prospect that the government might get into their phone. They're sending out a letter to every customer that the FBI has shown zero interest in, with a subliminal message of "if we don't fight this, you could be next!"
Because, you know, owners of iPhones are good people whom the government should have no right to pry into.
Except, of course, for the ones that steal millions from superannuation or take sexually exploitative photographs of children or massacre an entire roomful of people. But those people are different. No true iPhone user would do those things.
Just as no true NRA member would ever use their gun for anything nefarious, and isn't it outrageous to think the government might impose upon them.
The thing that really exasperates me here is that a judge making an individual decision about an individual circumstance is exactly how decisions about invasion of our privacy are supposed to work. It's how search warrants work.
And Apple is basically saying that the principle of your privacy ought to be completely sacrosanct and absolute. If your iPhone is believed to contain a copy of plans to fly a plane into the World Trade Center, they'll fight for your right not to have that divulged.
[ 18. February 2016, 21:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Meanwhile, of course, most of those customers that Apple is reassuring are blindly sharing data with Apple and/or app developers on a regular basis.
I've actually been having a heated argument with the developer of my gym logging app because, after years of entirely private use, they've created a situation where any data I enter about when I had a workout and what exercises I did ends up with them.
I'd be far happier with the police obtaining this information by judicial warrant than I am with a company obtaining this information as a matter of standard practice.
[ 18. February 2016, 21:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
They're not looking for public debate. They're looking for an emotive push-button where all the people who are paranoid about government gasp in horror at the prospect that the government might get into their phone.
There are two points here (correct me if I caricature you):
1. That Apple have impure motives. True, but I think this is technically an argumentum ad hominem. Last year I wrote to the taxman saying I should have some money back because I had been over-taxed due to someone misunderstanding information I had given them. My concern was for my own filthy lucre, not for the abstract fairness of the tax system, but that doesn't mean I wasn't right.
2. That Apple's argument is emotive and silly. This may also be true, but in order to be assessed as emotive and silly, it has to be put in the public domain for public scrutiny.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
They're looking for an emotive push-button where all the people who are paranoid ...
If your iPhone is believed to contain a copy of plans to fly a plane into the World Trade Center, they'll fight for your right not to have that divulged.
There is a certain irony in claiming that one side is probably making an emotive argument, whilst making one of your own.
[ 18. February 2016, 22:48: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Its nice to think that Apple is acting on the highest principles here. Get a grip! It's a commercial decision. Apple is not a high-principles company.
Which is largely besides the point; As a consumer you have to take your allies where you find them - and in this particular case Apple's interests line most closely with that of the consumer (who not coincidentally is the end customer for their services).
Policies have to be judged according to their outcomes, and not necessarily the stated intentions of those that push them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
They're looking for an emotive push-button where all the people who are paranoid ...
If your iPhone is believed to contain a copy of plans to fly a plane into the World Trade Center, they'll fight for your right not to have that divulged.
There is a certain irony in claiming that one side is probably making an emotive argument, whilst making one of your own.
It would be ironic if I didn't know I was doing it. I'm illustrating how the emotion that is evoked changes a great deal depending on whose phone you're talking about, and that this is exactly why it's a poor basis for argument.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Last year I wrote to the taxman saying I should have some money back because I had been over-taxed due to someone misunderstanding information I had given them. My concern was for my own filthy lucre, not for the abstract fairness of the tax system, but that doesn't mean I wasn't right.
Sure. But this in fact neatly illustrates the difference between individual cases and systemic issues.
Apple are trying to invoke a systemic agenda because they've lost an individual court decision. To which part of my response is to actually talk about the systemic issue: about why we allow judges to make these kinds of orders to access data, or access properties.
Because the systemic issue is not about whether an individual Apple customer is a nice person. My objection to Apple's tactics is that they are trying to say "dear nice person, you should be mortified at the prospect of this ever happening to you".
My response would be "dear nice person, if you stay nice and don't, say, murder a large number of your colleagues, the chances of this ever happening to you are quite remote". Apple deliberately strips this context of the individual case in order to declare it's interested in the principle.
The fact that you were entitled to receive tax back in your own individual circumstances is no kind of basis to mount an argument that all of your neighbours ought to be getting money back too.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My response would be "dear nice person, if you stay nice and don't, say, murder a large number of your colleagues, the chances of this ever happening to you are quite remote".
This is a terrible argument -- it's like saying if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about when they violate your fourth amendment rights and search your home.
Moreover, it's not just government intrusions that people are concerned about -- it's also the very real possibility that if Apple is made to write code that breaks into its phones that code will end up being used by criminals who will have fewer scruples than the FBI about using it.
Finally, the notion that Apple should not have made a public statement defending their stance is ridiculous. Tim Cook not only has a constitutional right to speak, he has a responsibility to protect the interests of his company. I don't at all buy the crap about Apple caring more about profit than principles; being profitable is an important principle for a publicly held company.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Apple says that complying with the court's directive would pose a danger to other users:
quote:
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.
Their reasoning isn't clear to me, though. According to their security white paper, Apple routinely makes software upgrades encrypted for use on unique devices, so the copy used on this phone wouldn't run on another. It's true that the "technique" could be used again - by someone with access to the source code and Apple's signature keys. But if the modification to the iOS is relatively minor, then practically the same danger already exists, since Apple currently has the unmodified source code and its signature keys. If Apple is currently able to ensure their secure possession of the elements required to create the iOS, I don't see why they can't take the same steps to limit access to the "technique" the FBI is asking for.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My response would be "dear nice person, if you stay nice and don't, say, murder a large number of your colleagues, the chances of this ever happening to you are quite remote".
This is a terrible argument -- it's like saying if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about when they violate your fourth amendment rights and search your home.
Bingo. "If you're not a bad person you have nothing to fear from this wee little trampling of your rights" is not a good argument.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Dave W.: Yes, I see your point. Tim Cook in his statement said,
quote:
Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
This doesn't seem like a great analogy, but I think I see his point -- better that the thing doesn't exist at all.
Another thing ... the FBI was the one to decide to try this thing in the court of public opinion. They made this public, not Apple.
And another ... this is an unusual court order in that it doesn't require Apple to turn over information it already has -- it requires Apple to write code that (presumably) does not exist. If Apple can be compelled to do this, what can other companies be compelled to do to assist government investigations?
[ 19. February 2016, 04:41: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And another ... this is an unusual court order in that it doesn't require Apple to turn over information it already has -- it requires Apple to write code that (presumably) does not exist. If Apple can be compelled to do this, what can other companies be compelled to do to assist government investigations?
Look, we need a widget that does this, that, and the other, and we know your company is capable of inventing and producing one. Cough up the goods or go to jail.
[ 19. February 2016, 04:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My response would be "dear nice person, if you stay nice and don't, say, murder a large number of your colleagues, the chances of this ever happening to you are quite remote".
This is a terrible argument -- it's like saying if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about when they violate your fourth amendment rights and search your home.
Bingo. "If you're not a bad person you have nothing to fear from this wee little trampling of your rights" is not a good argument.
Of course it's not a good argument.
But it's not my argument, and in fact it's begging the question. First prove that there's a trampling of your rights.
Apple's argument is the data equivalent of declaring "I have a right to resist any attempt to enter my home". No, you don't. There's this thing called a search warrant.
The notion that people have an absolute right to privacy of their information is bunkum. They have as much right to privacy as the law supplies.
[ 19. February 2016, 05:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The other reason I stand by my actual argument is the involvement of a judge. This is entire reason that we involve judges in such decisions, so that law enforcement is not authorised to go poking in anyone they are interested in. They have to justify that interest to an independent person.
The reason "this is unlikely to happen to you" works is not because I think that the FBI is good and wholesome, but because I think nothing in the law permits the FBI to go from a specific case to a general one.
If you don't trust that, well then, I spend a heck of a lot of my time writing protections for you that aren't worth the paper they're written on. But ask yourself, if the FBI are that nefarious, why the fuck did they bother going to court in the first place to get a court order?
In short: how does the fact that the FBI followed legal process justify dark predictions that if they get their way, the FBI will start doing illegal things?
[ 19. February 2016, 05:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apple are trying to invoke a systemic agenda because they've lost an individual court decision. To which part of my response is to actually talk about the systemic issue: about why we allow judges to make these kinds of orders to access data, or access properties.
Well, presumably the judge believes it's in the public interest and the law allows it.
Both of which are legitimate matters for public debate. The first for obvious reasons, and the second because the law is supposed to reflect public opinion insofar as it is created by a publicly elected legislature - if the law creates an outcome that is repellant to the public, the public ought to lobby for a change in the law. But for this to happen, the public has to know about the (potentially) repellant outcome in the first place.
quote:
My response would be "dear nice person, if you stay nice and don't, say, murder a large number of your colleagues, the chances of this ever happening to you are quite remote".
Tell that to Khaled El-Masri.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Again: how the hell does Khalid El-Masri have any relevance to a situation where a law enforcement agency has gone to a court and obtained an entirely non-secret court order?
If we were talking about a fear that Apple software engineers are going to be abducted and waterboarded, I'd accept the relevance.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In short: how does the fact that the FBI followed legal process justify dark predictions that if they get their way, the FBI will start doing illegal things?
The fear is more that the court will start awarding warrants to every tom dick and harry law enforcement brigade who want to decrypt our private information.
This is a proxy in the long-running war between the government and the encryption industry. Without taking that into account, talking about court orders and how nice the FBI is is just so much hot air.
The government doesn't want there to be non-government-break-into-able encryption. Encryption creators, and people like me, think that allowing the government to have access to our personal data on the level they want is tantamount to there not being any security at all.
Before you start gassing about this is just one phone, you need to plug this one phone into this larger argument. Yes, it's a slippery slope argument. Once the camel's nose is under the tent flap, what is to stop the government from demanding more and more? If not the FBI then some other agency. State agencies. Local agencies. We need to catch the guy who robbed this convenience store. Break into the cell phones of everybody standing in line or go to jail.
As for laws not being worth the paper they're printed on -- yeah, let's talk about police confiscating people's cars for suspicion of drugs, and not having to return them when the person is found innocent of all charges. And the paper we're talking about here is the paper the U.S. Bill of Rights was written on. So yeah. Where law enforcement agencies are involved, you'll have to forgive us if we feel a little unsure of their intent. However beautiful the laws you craft are.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again: how the hell does Khalid El-Masri have any relevance to a situation where a law enforcement agency has gone to a court and obtained an entirely non-secret court order?
Because it raises the question: "Do the American security services have sufficient checks to protect the innocent from molestation for them to be entrusted with the powers that, according to this judge, the law entitles them to?" and "If not, should the public lobby for additional legal safeguards?"
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
There seems to be some magical thinking based on Apple's claims of security going on. So here's an analogy.
Suppose a suspect had some documents locked up in a safe. The police think there might be some incriminating evidence in that safe. They can go to court and get a warrant allowing them to search the safe, which might well involve the services of a locksmith to gain access.
In any reasonable society, this has to be allowed. You don't get to say "no, you can't look in my safe, because it says "private" on it.
But what if the safe has an additional security feature? Suppose there's a bomb in the safe, and if you tamper with the safe, it will destroy its contents. Clearly this can't change anything about whether the courts should be able to order the safe opened - it's still got the same stuff in it. But it has become technically more difficult to do.
Now, the court is ordering Apple Safe Co. to help defeat the bomb in the safe. The court knows that Apple Safe Co. has the plans for the safe, believes that it is capable of building a tool that will prevent the bomb from going off, and so orders it to do so.
We're still in the same scenario. If the court orders the safe opened, it gets opened. It's not reasonable for people to claim that documents shouldn't be admitted as evidence against them because those documents were stamped "private". It's equally and identically unreasonable for someone to claim that the court shouldn't be able to order their locks unlocked.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The fear is more that the court will start awarding warrants to every tom dick and harry law enforcement brigade who want to decrypt our private information.
It is not a fear, but a reality.
Here is a longer article. This link is to a preface, there is an 83 page report linked therein.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would be ironic if I didn't know I was doing it. I'm illustrating how the emotion that is evoked changes a great deal depending on whose phone you're talking about, and that this is exactly why it's a poor basis for argument.
Which would have merit if they had actually made the argument you claim they made, if they had been the first to do so, and if this had been their first and only contribution to this debate.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again: how the hell does Khalid El-Masri have any relevance to a situation where a law enforcement agency has gone to a court and obtained an entirely non-secret court order?
Because it raises the question: "Do the American security services have sufficient checks to protect the innocent from molestation for them to be entrusted with the powers that, according to this judge, the law entitles them to?" and "If not, should the public lobby for additional legal safeguards?"
I'd say it raises the question "why on earth would additional legal safeguards make you feel any safer"?
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The fear is more that the court will start awarding warrants to every tom dick and harry law enforcement brigade who want to decrypt our private information.
It is not a fear, but a reality.
Here is a longer article. This link is to a preface, there is an 83 page report linked therein.
Yeah, okay. I give you permission to be frightened.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd say it raises the question "why on earth would additional legal safeguards make you feel any safer"?
Indeed, another good question of public interest.
To be clear: I am not saying I agree or disagree with Apple. I am saying I agree with their right to lobby the public.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Now, the court is ordering Apple Safe Co. to help defeat the bomb in the safe. The court knows that Apple Safe Co. has the plans for the safe, believes that it is capable of building a tool that will prevent the bomb from going off, and so orders it to do so.
We're still in the same scenario. If the court orders the safe opened, it gets opened. It's not reasonable for people to claim that documents shouldn't be admitted as evidence against them because those documents were stamped "private". It's equally and identically unreasonable for someone to claim that the court shouldn't be able to order their locks unlocked.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the contents of the phone, should the FBI be able to recover them, are or should be inadmissable.
It's more that the tool has the potential for abuse and undermines the business of Apple Safe co.
I'm uneasy with the idea that people or corporations should not just not obstruct law enforcement but be coerced to join their ranks - against their own interests and their own moral reservations.
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So - should there be some absolute right to privacy then? And should it extend to the dead?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So - should there be some absolute right to privacy then?
I don't think one necessarily has to believe I an absolute right of privacy in order to be cautiously supportive of Apple in this particular scenario given the wider context.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So - should there be some absolute right to privacy then?
I don't think one necessarily has to believe I an absolute right of privacy in order to be cautiously supportive of Apple in this particular scenario given the wider context.
Absolute privacy is not a practical right. But expecting a level of privacy is. And trusting the government completely is foolish. At its best intention, government is composed of people, people who will fail, people who will abuse authority, people who will bend or suspend rules for the 'greater good'. Time and again they get it wrong. Guantanamo, the NSA and MI5 phone spying, Kincora*, the Computer Misuse Act amendments, etc.
Over time, authority will be a used. It is not a question of if, but of when and how far.
*Kincora involvement is alleged, but the fact they can legally hinder investigation is troubling.
[ 19. February 2016, 15:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
