|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Security v. Freedom
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
UK readers may recall how the Terrorism Act was used to expel an 82 year old man from the Labour Party Conference.
OK, this is a long way from Apple, but it's the idea that if the authorities are able to abuse powers, inevitably they will. Hence, widespread wariness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4291388.stm
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think the biggest risk is more basic, once the software is written and available in a large organisation - sooner or later it will be leaked. Not because either Apple or the FBI want that - but just because it is worth a huge amount of money.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the biggest risk is more basic, once the software is written and available in a large organisation - sooner or later it will be leaked. Not because either Apple or the FBI want that - but just because it is worth a huge amount of money.
But couldn't you make the same argument about all of Apple's software? If they're unable to control this one copy of iOS, why should anything they do be considered secure?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I'm quite sure that the FBI do have other mechanisms by which they can do this, given the resources at their disposal. I think it's reasonable to assume that they(and other intelligence agencies), do actually go out and acquire large quantities of phones, tablets etc etc, and study them in forensic detail at both the software and hardware level.
I'm sure they have already cracked this mechanism before as an exercise and could do so in this case. No harm in them asking Apple to do it, from their point of view.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
With regard to the safe analogy, it seems to me that it's not so much like the government asking for a master key, it's more like they're asking for software that could be loaded into any safe to make it possible for anyone to open it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
What happens if Apple, uhm, attempts to crack the phone but fails?
Anyway, I doubt FBI believes national security shattering data is on that one phone and nowhere else; more likely they see this situation as a great gift yto exploit for getting the public to agree that FBI should have backdoor access to everything.
It's not about one phone end of topic. It's about one phone used as a strategic tool to push, phone by phone at first, then collect multiple incidents to prove FBI needs access to all communications "to keep us safe."
Possessing a phone they don't have backdoor access to will become a crime. Duh, if they have right of access you have no right to possess unaccessible, obviously you'd be a terrorist.
FBI aren't stupid, they've always wanted total access, here's a bloody incident and a locked phone to milk for public persuasion towards their goal.
The only question is do you agree with their goal or not?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
With regard to the safe analogy, it seems to me that it's not so much like the government asking for a master key, it's more like they're asking for software that could be loaded into any safe to make it possible for anyone to open it.
...with the point being that if you can walk up to a safe, install new software on it, and it opens, then it's not a safe at all. It's a box designed to mislead you into thinking that it's a safe.
Your stuff is n your apartment, Apple is your landlord, and has the key. The FBI have a court order to look through your stuff. It's flat-out unreasonable for Apple to say "no, that's his apartment - it's private. I', not going to let you in there."
Apple should say exactly that right up to the point that the FBI or whoever present a search warrant, and then say "certainly, officer - I'll open the door for you." That's how search warrants are supposed to work.
Can this be abused? Yes. But that's not a reason to ban the searching of someone's home.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the biggest risk is more basic, once the software is written and available in a large organisation - sooner or later it will be leaked. Not because either Apple or the FBI want that - but just because it is worth a huge amount of money.
But couldn't you make the same argument about all of Apple's software? If they're unable to control this one copy of iOS, why should anything they do be considered secure?
Actually, I was more thinking of the FBI, given its very large.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
With regard to the safe analogy, it seems to me that it's not so much like the government asking for a master key, it's more like they're asking for software that could be loaded into any safe to make it possible for anyone to open it.
...with the point being that if you can walk up to a safe, install new software on it, and it opens, then it's not a safe at all. It's a box designed to mislead you into thinking that it's a safe.
Your stuff is n your apartment, Apple is your landlord, and has the key. The FBI have a court order to look through your stuff. It's flat-out unreasonable for Apple to say "no, that's his apartment - it's private. I', not going to let you in there."
Apple should say exactly that right up to the point that the FBI or whoever present a search warrant, and then say "certainly, officer - I'll open the door for you." That's how search warrants are supposed to work.
Can this be abused? Yes. But that's not a reason to ban the searching of someone's home.
Only Apple isn't the landlord because I own my home. And Apple not only doesn't have a key, they sold me the home with the lock based on the fact that there can be no such key for them to have.
Should the government be able to demand that they retroactively change the design of my lock so that such a key can be created after the fact? It's not that Apple doesn't want the FBI to have the information in the one particular phone, it's that they don't want to be forced into breaking their promise to their entire customer base.
The problem with a physical analogy is that it can't adequately represent the unique issues presented by software. I don't know what the answer should be, but it shouldn't necessarily be based on precedents that assume a physical analogy.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the biggest risk is more basic, once the software is written and available in a large organisation - sooner or later it will be leaked. Not because either Apple or the FBI want that - but just because it is worth a huge amount of money.
But couldn't you make the same argument about all of Apple's software? If they're unable to control this one copy of iOS, why should anything they do be considered secure?
Actually, I was more thinking of the FBI, given its very large.
According to the writ, the FBI only requires access to the phone to brute force the password; the software package is to be made loadable and executable on this phone only, and the phone itself can remain at an Apple facility.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Only Apple isn't the landlord because I own my home. And Apple not only doesn't have a key, they sold me the home with the lock based on the fact that there can be no such key for them to have.
And they lied. It is technically possible for them to defeat the security mechanisms on your lock.
quote:
it's that they don't want to be forced into breaking their promise to their entire customer base.
Yes, that's what this is about. Apple made a promise, which was a lie. They represented their new security feature as being effective, whereas it can be defeated by loading new code on to the phone.
quote:
The problem with a physical analogy is that it can't adequately represent the unique issues presented by software.
And the problem with talking about the "unique issues presented by software" is that they're really not unique. Privacy doesn't look different just because there's a computer involved.
The big difference is that computers and electronic records make data analytics and mass searches possible that would take far too long to be practicable by hand. But this is a feature of electronic records, not a feature of phone encryption.
Why should the phone in your pocket have more legal protection than the PC locked in your house. Suppose you have a home computer full of all kinds of personal information (like most people) and it's stored in your locked house, but doesn't have password protection. Everybody agrees that, with a warrant, the police can enter your locked home, take your computer, and search through all your personal data for incriminating records. Why should the computer in your pocket be different?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Why should the computer in your pocket be different?
And in case it wasn't clear, why should a software lock be treated differently from a physical lock?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Anyway, I doubt FBI believes national security shattering data is on that one phone and nowhere else; more likely they see this situation as a great gift yto exploit for getting the public to agree that FBI should have backdoor access to everything.
Yes. This. exactly this. They are using this case as a wedge to destroy our right to privacy via non-government-crackable cybersecurity. As I said above, the government has been in apoplexy since large-prime keys were invented. How dare anybody in the world not have a back door that the government -- who will of course always get a warrant and never use it for, say, political gain -- can use.
May I suggest that before people try to make more moronic analogies to physical objects that everybody take a breather and go read Crypto by Steven Levy. This isn't about this phone. This is about living in a fishbowl with the government able to get into any and all data it wants to. Because there's no middle road here. It's a binary. Can they, or can they not, get in through a back door?
Now that Apple has all but admitted that there is a way to crack the phone, namely by installing new code on it even though it's locked, will phone manufacturers try to prevent this in future phone operating systems, and will the government allow it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Why should the computer in your pocket be different?
And in case it wasn't clear, why should a software lock be treated differently from a physical lock?
The lock analogy is ridiculous.
The FBI are attacking civil liberty. That is what this is about.
--------------------
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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
The problem with a physical analogy is that it can't adequately represent the unique issues presented by software.
And the problem with talking about the "unique issues presented by software" is that they're really not unique. Privacy doesn't look different just because there's a computer involved.
The privacy issues have lots of legal precedents and are pretty well understood, but the uniqueness of this case is not about an individual's privacy, it's about the what tools our society is willing to allow law enforcement to use.
quote:
The big difference is that computers and electronic records make data analytics and mass searches possible that would take far too long to be practicable by hand. But this is a feature of electronic records, not a feature of phone encryption.
Sure, but as I said, it's not the privacy aspect with regard to a single individual that makes this case of such interest to the public, it's the ramifications of mass searches.
quote:
Why should the phone in your pocket have more legal protection than the PC locked in your house. Suppose you have a home computer full of all kinds of personal information (like most people) and it's stored in your locked house, but doesn't have password protection. Everybody agrees that, with a warrant, the police can enter your locked home, take your computer, and search through all your personal data for incriminating records. Why should the computer in your pocket be different?
For the same reason the NSA digitally collecting massive amounts of phone records is different than getting a warrant for an old-style wire-tap.
Prior to the digital age, law enforcement had to make a case that an individual was a legitimate target for investigation before they could start collecting data about that individual. But in the digital age, that is being flipped so that data collection is happening before any individual is identified as a legitimate target. This allows law enforcement, at least in theory, to look for everyone who fits any profile that they consider suspicious. Law enforcement tends to dislike anyone that have decided is suspicious, and we know that they can severely disrupt or even ruin someone they don't like even before anything gets to trial.
Imagine that some totally innocent person happens to purchase items from an ethnic restaurant serving middle-east cuisine, travel to parts of the world where there is easier access to terrorists (such as Turkey), and visit a set of Facebook pages and web sites the FBI has linked to terrorism (perhaps all just to research a book of fiction about terrorism). If the FBI can gather that information prior to having any reason to suspect that person, they can decide that person fits the profile of a dangerous terrorist and start focusing their resources on establishing a case against them. If they convince themselves that they are investigating a terrorist, they have the power to ruin that person's life. Remember that this is the organization that one of the upthread links pointed out used as a reason for suspecting someone that they had grown up (in the USA) working at his father's gas station, making him an expert in blowing one up. This is not how we want our law enforcement to operate, but it's how they actually do operate when they are allowed to and are given the tools to do so.
Like I said, I don't know what the answer should be, but these are the kinds of issues that need to be carefully considered. Because as lilBuddha has pointed out:
quote:
Over time, authority will be a used. It is not a question of if, but of when and how far.
and:
quote:
It is not a fear, but a reality.
Note that in theory, if the FBI was allowed to operate that way, I could become the target of an investigation just for posting this because they decided I fit the profile of someone who poses a danger to the country.
This is not a simple case of a search warrant overriding someone's privacy.
[ 20. February 2016, 03:15: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Sorry, it wasn't the FBI that offered that reason for suspecting someone, it was the Director of National Intelligence. And it wasn't in a link provided up thread, it was an indirect link I followed from Ricardus' link to an article about Khaled El-Masri, which referenced a different article about Majid Khan:
quote:
Khan gained asylum in the United States in 1998 and was a legal resident of Baltimore, Maryland, where he had attended high school and worked for his father. Khan has made repeated offers to submit to a polygraph test to prove his innocence, but been denied.[4] The Director of National Intelligence has asserted that Khan's experience working in his father's gas station "...made Khan highly qualified to assist Mohammad with the research and planning to blow up gas stations."
But don't worry, they're the good guys so we should trust them to be scrupulous in their use of mass searches. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
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.
The "wider context" is full of bogeymen. The actual case involves access to a phone.
--------------------
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 Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the biggest risk is more basic, once the software is written and available in a large organisation - sooner or later it will be leaked. Not because either Apple or the FBI want that - but just because it is worth a huge amount of money.
But couldn't you make the same argument about all of Apple's software? If they're unable to control this one copy of iOS, why should anything they do be considered secure?
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. All of these terrible things will apparently only happen with software that Apple doesn't want to write. Not with all the software that Apple wants you to trust.
Such as the 'error 53' software that somehow, inexplicably, escaped from Apple's labs and ruined lots of people's phones. A
factory test gone wrong, they're telling us.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Why should the computer in your pocket be different?
And in case it wasn't clear, why should a software lock be treated differently from a physical lock?
The lock analogy is ridiculous.
The FBI are attacking civil liberty. That is what this is about.
Declarations that they are attacking civil liberty are equally ridiculous. They are investigating a crime. They are going to a judge to get a court order, which is exactly what law enforcement authorities are supposed to do.
Of course, if you'd like the government to leave your rights alone, we can also see to it that they leave you to fend for yourself on various other rights such as your right to life.
There is a balance to these things. And shrieking in horror at attempts to work out whether a mass murderer was part of a larger network of mass murderers is freaking ridiculous.
The other thing that is freaking ridiculous is talking about the FBI and the NSA and people abducted from other countries all in the same breath, as if "The Government" is just one big monolithic thing. No, as someone who works in "The Government", let me tell you all that it isn't some big fucking monolith of people conspiring in black vans.
I'm honestly trying to work out right now just what is the difference between people who develop conspiracy theories about the FBI (including the bald assertion upthread that lowlands boy is sure the FBI really already know how to crack the phone - probably using their secret mental powers derived from aliens) and a bunch of ranchers who take over federal land in Oregon. Not much difference at all, I fancy.
[ 20. February 2016, 03:58: 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
Let me just end my crankiness by saying this: people spend a hell of a lot of time cowering in fear at the prospect of government invading their lives, while blithely handing over massive amounts of their personal information to corporations whose primary interest in you is how much money they can make out of you.
The government never tried to come into my house and change anything. Meanwhile Microsoft takes active steps to move me onto an entirely new operating system. Apple now pesters me whenever they can to join their music streaming service. Facebook is upset with me because I haven't updated or added any information to my profile for years.
Uber tells you they're breaking the law for your benefit, not because of the millions they make from it.
They want to know all about you, and however much they smile about it it's not because they want to be friends with you.
And that's a difference really, isn't it? The government doesn't smile. The government knows you kind of have to deal with it by force of law, so you're not a 'customer'. But companies, they smile at the boiling frog and shower it with bright colours and cat videos, and the boiling frog smiles back.
[ 20. February 2016, 04:07: 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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I understand what you're saying, orfeo, but Apple and Microsoft generally won't be trying to put me in prison (although I did hear about one case where a bank convinced the FBI to convict an ex-employee who knew about high-frequency trading software).
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
BTW, here's a link to the story about a bank convincing the FBI to prosecute an ex-employee, Sergey Aleynikov (conviction was overturned on appeal).
quote:
In the course of these events, Aleynikov has spent a year in prison for crimes he didn't commit. Aleynikov has divorced, lost his savings,[12] and, according to his lawyer, "[his] life has been all but ruined".
Overzealous law enforcement can't be completely eliminated, but it's prudent for society to take it seriously.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The other thing that is freaking ridiculous is talking about the FBI and the NSA and people abducted from other countries all in the same breath, as if "The Government" is just one big monolithic thing. No, as someone who works in "The Government", let me tell you all that it isn't some big fucking monolith of people conspiring in black vans.
One doesn't need any vast government conspiracy. All that is necessary is that a power be available and someone will use it, someone will abuse it. Often with the best intention. It is inevitable.
H Wyatt's example is but one of many.
Being completely paranoid of government is mental. But so is trusting it completely.
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly. The information needed to prevent 9/11 was there. It was the failure to coordinate between agencies and failure to properly assess the data that was the problem.
It is when politics drive policy instead of analysts that we end up with necessary wars.
It isn't that I believe there is a unified conspiracy to control, I don't. It is that I know that such a thing is unnecessary for abuse to happen.
ETA: BTW, any use of the word 'government' by me is short hand for 'element or agency of government', not the thing entire.
[ 20. February 2016, 06:45: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly.
The FBI is a police force, not a spying agency.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly.
The FBI is a police force, not a spying agency.
Wow, so that caused a traffic jam of responses.
First was someone should tell them that. Followed by aren't they the equivilant of MI5? And there is nothing that mandates a wall between police force and spying.
They are a domestic intelligence agency like MI5 and ASIO.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
For the same reason the NSA digitally collecting massive amounts of phone records is different than getting a warrant for an old-style wire-tap.
The proposal being discussed is a modification to the phone's operating system that requires physical access to the phone. This isn't the same as a mass NSA data sieve.
I will note, however, that there's no reason why Apple couldn't install back doors that would, for example, silently copy all your data to the NSA, in a future version of iOS. This decision doesn't make that either more or less likely.
quote:
This is not a simple case of a search warrant overriding someone's privacy.
Yes, it is. This isn't a mass wiretap program, and doesn't do anything to enable a mass wiretap program.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It creates a precedent and moves the line further down the road.
[ 20. February 2016, 14:36: 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It creates a precedent and moves the line further down the road.
It's the same precedent as looking through someone's computer.
Here's a question for you, and/or anyone else who is seeing the court order in this case as an overreach of intrusive government:
I have a computer in my house which contains all kinds of personal information. It is in a locked building, and may or may not require passwords and decryption to access its data. Do you, or do you not agree that a police force in possession of a suitable court-issued warrant should be able to look through the data on my computer. Do the lengths that I may have gone to to protect the data on that machine (passwords, encryption, deleted data, booby traps, ...) alter your opinion on whether the police should be able to attempt to unlock it?
If the phone wasn't protected by the self-destruct feature, we wouldn't be having this discussion - the FBI would have already looked through the phone. So why does the presence of the self-destruct feature change what the FBI should be allowed to do?
[ 20. February 2016, 15:04: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It creates a precedent and moves the line further down the road.
It very likely would, but probably not in the way most people think.
Writing a variant version of iOS is not a herculean task, and could probably be done in many places, and may have been done already. What prevents it from "going live" is that it needs to be digitally signed using Apple's private key.
In effect, the risk of the modified software escaping from Apple is probably somewhat less than the risk of the key itself (which will be a much smaller piece of data) escaping.
Neither risk is zero, but the risk of damage if the key escapes (as opposed to the risk of either the software or the key escaping) is far higher than if the modified OS escapes. It's impossible to work out what the key is from the software (it uses a variant of the two-key public/private cipher I believe), but with the key you can distribute functioning updates at will.
So in fact there is a much larger danger lurking out there. Any risks attaching to the production of an engineered variant of iOS, provided it is kept within Apple, are small in comparison, and probably smaller than the risk of losing control of the signing key.
As I mentioned earlier, the real reason is almost certainly a commercial one to market the superiority of the iPhone 6 and succeeding models on the basis of its internal security with your data. That's a commendable development, but it's obscuring the arguments. This thread as a whole risks misidentifying what and where the risks are, as well as their magnitude.
And of course that then feeds into the separate issue of the nature and inviolacy of private data, though that's not really what I'm looking at here, important though it is.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
The police have the right to do whatever the law allows them to do.
But, 'the law is an ass' - in other words it is an arbitrary human construct, subject to all the flaws that human beings always bring to the party.
In other words: the appropriateness of application, and the morality of motive, and the consequences of applying the law in any given situation should NEVER be taken for granted.
Apple's motives for resisting the court order, and their ability to comply with it, are effectively beside the point.
The question is: what are the likely consequences of compliance: for Apple, for other iPhone users, and for the relationship between 'the state' and 'the people'?
This is the stuff of true democracy, and a good punch-up in the public square (and on the Ship for that matter) is exactly what is required, I think.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Although it's not overtly stated, is part of the reason why a lot of people feel uneasy about this, is that a search warrant usually just authorises the investigating authorities to enter your house and pull everything apart. Even if they can take your computer away, they have to do the work. Here, though, they seem to be asking for a court order compelling somebody else either to do their investigating for them, or to set up all the necessaries so they can do it.
Incidentally also, though this is only a collateral point, who would pay Apple to do the reprogramming? Would Apple have to do that at their own expense? Or would the government at least be required to reimburse them at the appropriate hourly rate? At least with the compulsory purchase of an asset, the government has to pay market price for it - or at least, they do here.
And is compulsory purchase of labour or time a bit like a sort of slavery?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
The police have the right to do whatever the law allows them to do. ...
In a very literal and limited way, obviously that is true, but I hope nobody really believes it is either ethically or existentially true.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the biggest risk is more basic, once the software is written and available in a large organisation - sooner or later it will be leaked. Not because either Apple or the FBI want that - but just because it is worth a huge amount of money.
But couldn't you make the same argument about all of Apple's software? If they're unable to control this one copy of iOS, why should anything they do be considered secure?
And clearly they've been successful at safeguarding the Apple signature software that has to be used to get the phone to accept a new iOS, or else the FBI wouldn't need to get Apple to help -- they'd just have their own people write the code.
But having it stolen isn't what I'd be worrying about if I were an Apple bigwig. If Apple is compelled by the US government to write code to break into someone's phone, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to tell the Chinese government that they won't do the same thing when the Chinese government demands it. Do folks here with faith in the goodness of US security agencies have the same faith in the goodness of Chinese security agencies? Somehow I doubt it.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I doubt FBI believes national security shattering data is on that one phone and nowhere else; more likely they see this situation as a great gift yto exploit for getting the public to agree that FBI should have backdoor access to everything.
It's not about one phone end of topic. It's about one phone used as a strategic tool to push, phone by phone at first, then collect multiple incidents to prove FBI needs access to all communications "to keep us safe."
Possessing a phone they don't have backdoor access to will become a crime. Duh, if they have right of access you have no right to possess unaccessible, obviously you'd be a terrorist.
FBI aren't stupid, they've always wanted total access, here's a bloody incident and a locked phone to milk for public persuasion towards their goal.
The only question is do you agree with their goal or not?
I agree with almost all of this. I do think they want the info on this one phone, and I believe them when they say they think it might tell them whether other people helped the San Bernardino terrorists carry out this attack.
But I think this is also a great case for them to try to advance the goal of access to people's data. The US security agencies have tried and failed to get Congress to pass legislation requiring companies like Apple and Google to build backdoors for government access into their systems. The FBI could have done this all quietly -- they usually do. But they sought this court order very publicly because they're hoping that the elements of the case -- terrorism, a dead suspect whose privacy we're not likely to care about, and the phone being owned by a local government agency which has given permission for it to be hacked -- will help shift the public debate of privacy vs security in the direction of security.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And another thing ...
orfeo: The FBI isn't a spying agency? WTF? Do you know anything about the history of the FBI?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
RuthW wrote: quote:
But I think this is also a great case for them to try to advance the goal of access to people's data. The US security agencies have tried and failed to get Congress to pass legislation requiring companies like Apple and Google to build backdoors for government access into their systems. The FBI could have done this all quietly -- they usually do. But they sought this court order very publicly because they're hoping that the elements of the case -- terrorism, a dead suspect whose privacy we're not likely to care about, and the phone being owned by a local government agency which has given permission for it to be hacked -- will help shift the public debate of privacy vs security in the direction of security.
This (or perhaps something like it) is pretty much where I am at too. It's actually been stated publicly by the security community, post the Snowden revelations, since when Apple and Google are reported to have stopped playing ball so nicely. So there are bigger issues at play here on both sides without any doubt.
I'm less sure about the China issue though. Apple is notorious for avoidance of tax in the countries in which it makes most of its profits. (So is Google, though they look like repenting to a degree - perhaps). I'm not sure why they should fear China when they already seem to have decided to tell friendly governments to fuck off.
[ 20. February 2016, 22:50: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
The matter isn't concluded yet and Apple are certainly making the most of it - this is terrific advertising and anyone who wants absolute phone security (I don't particularly) will be more interested in their products now. Whatever we think about firms like Apple we should recognise their PR capabilities - money well spent. I've already used their name twice in this post.
By the way there is an option on my iphone to have a four digit or a six digit access code. It initially came set as six. And you don't have to have it wipe the phone if you guess wrong too many times but that is an option which presumably the FBI believe has been selected on this particular phone.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If Apple is compelled by the US government to write code to break into someone's phone, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to tell the Chinese government that they won't do the same thing when the Chinese government demands it. Do folks here with faith in the goodness of US security agencies have the same faith in the goodness of Chinese security agencies? Somehow I doubt it.
Well, it's not exactly goodness that I'm relying on, but I do think the FBI for all its shortcomings is probably more subject to legal restraint than its Chinese counterpart.
But then, I also don't think the outcome of this case will affect the behavior of the Chinese government one way or the other; if they want to require Apple's assistance, I don't think they'll care whether a US court ruled for or against a similar demand from the FBI.
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 orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly.
The FBI is a police force, not a spying agency.
That's so cute.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
The FBI describes itself as "an intelligence-driven and a threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities" and its top 3 priorities are currently:- Protect the United States from terrorist attack
- Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
- Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
It looks like there's a fair amount of overlap with the mission of MI5, though I think the FBI traditionally has had a greater law enforcement role.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Just as an aside, Donald Trump has called for a boycott of all Apple products over this. He tweeted this from his iPhone.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly.
The FBI is a police force, not a spying agency.
That's so cute.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
orfeo: FWIW, IMHO, you frequently seem to think that the US is what you think it should be, not what it really is.
Here's a sampling of HuffPost articles on FBI spying.
Also look up "COINTELPRO", "Carnivore", and "Echelon".
And then there's Stingray.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
anyone who wants absolute phone security (I don't particularly) will be more interested in their products now.
Why? Apple have admitted that their new security, which they claimed was failsafe, is in fact "trust us, we're Apple".
Then again, anyone who wanted actual security would be taking other measures anyway.
[ 21. February 2016, 03:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly.
The FBI is a police force, not a spying agency.
Wow, so that caused a traffic jam of responses.
First was someone should tell them that. Followed by aren't they the equivilant of MI5? And there is nothing that mandates a wall between police force and spying.
They are a domestic intelligence agency like MI5 and ASIO.
No, they really aren't. If you can't tell the difference between the FBI and the CIA and the NSA, this conversation is never going to get anywhere.
And that goes for the rest of you as well. I know that the systems between different countries aren't exactly parallel, but the fact is the FBI is not the CIA or the NSA, otherwise there'd be no reason for each of them to have a separate existence.
[ 21. February 2016, 09:24: 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
More to the point, this conversation is useless so long as everyone can just mention big, dark bogeymen and mutter darkly about the possibilities. How can anyone disprove these theories?
I just saw one astounding post where a person simultaneously asserted that (1) The FBI has already access to the phone, (2) hacking a phone is easy, (3) the FBI wants this for these wider nefarious purposes.
Again, how can anyone disprove such nonsensical, internally inconsistent theories? This is a guy proposing that Apple's security isn't actually worth anything, and that the FBI already knows how to break it, yet the FBI is asking for the tool to break Apple's security.
--------------------
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
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
More to the point, this conversation is useless so long as everyone can just mention big, dark bogeymen and mutter darkly about the possibilities. How can anyone disprove these theories?
I just saw one astounding post where a person simultaneously asserted that (1) The FBI has already access to the phone, (2) hacking a phone is easy, (3) the FBI wants this for these wider nefarious purposes.
Again, how can anyone disprove such nonsensical, internally inconsistent theories? This is a guy proposing that Apple's security isn't actually worth anything, and that the FBI already knows how to break it, yet the FBI is asking for the tool to break Apple's security.
Well, let's look at that again shall we
quote:
I'm quite sure that the FBI do have other mechanisms by which they can do this, given the resources at their disposal. I think it's reasonable to assume that they(and other intelligence agencies), do actually go out and acquire large quantities of phones, tablets etc etc, and study them in forensic detail at both the software and hardware level.
I'm sure they have already cracked this mechanism before as an exercise and could do so in this case. No harm in them asking Apple to do it, from their point of view.
(1) The FBI has already access to the phone
It doesn't say that.
(2) hacking a phone is easy,
It doesn't say that
(3) the FBI wants this for these wider nefarious purposes.
It doesn't say that.
Perhaps you were referring to a different one?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with governmental intelligence is not that they do not already have enough, but that they do not use it properly.
The FBI is a police force, not a spying agency.
Wow, so that caused a traffic jam of responses.
First was someone should tell them that. Followed by aren't they the equivilant of MI5? And there is nothing that mandates a wall between police force and spying.
They are a domestic intelligence agency like MI5 and ASIO.
No, they really aren't. If you can't tell the difference between the FBI and the CIA and the NSA, this conversation is never going to get anywhere.
Um the CIA is not a domestic intelligence service, (and would be like MI6/ASIS and not MI5/ASIO).
The FBI is a domestic intelligence service (like MI5/ASIO and unlike MI6/ASIS)
In theory at least, obv things get a bit blurry.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
anyone who wants absolute phone security (I don't particularly) will be more interested in their products now.
Why? Apple have admitted that their new security, which they claimed was failsafe, is in fact "trust us, we're Apple".
The iphone model in question is not using their new security implementation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I don't think Apple has given any public statement suggesting that newer iPhones are any less susceptible to the kind of thing 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 orfeo:
I know that the systems between different countries aren't exactly parallel, but the fact is the FBI is not the CIA or the NSA, otherwise there'd be no reason for each of them to have a separate existence.
Do you seriously think that the organization of government agencies always makes perfect sense, and never has any redundancy? Many voices said, and are still saying, that the NSA was completely unnecessary because we have the FBI. Do you think there was no domestic spying in the US before Dubya created the NSA? Or that the FBI just willingly relinquished all such activities when the NSA was created?
If the NSA were really the only agency in charge of investigating terrorism (for which spying is an absolute necessity), it would be they who were asking that the phone be hacked, not the FBI.
Further the FBI and CIA are famous for bickering over turf.
You are coming across increasingly as out of your depth here.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
More to the point, this conversation is useless so long as everyone can just mention big, dark bogeymen and mutter darkly about the possibilities. How can anyone disprove these theories?
I just saw one astounding post where a person simultaneously asserted that (1) The FBI has already access to the phone, (2) hacking a phone is easy, (3) the FBI wants this for these wider nefarious purposes.
Again, how can anyone disprove such nonsensical, internally inconsistent theories? This is a guy proposing that Apple's security isn't actually worth anything, and that the FBI already knows how to break it, yet the FBI is asking for the tool to break Apple's security.
Not all of us are making these claims. You can't refute one person's claims and thereby dismiss the rest of us. That's a variant of the straw man fallacy.
[ 21. February 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
