Apple Refuses FBI Demand to Build a "Backdoor" For iPhones

[Saulkar]

lots of people like to think the government is out to get them.

Whistle blowers, watchdogs, activists, demonstration organisers, and political opponents for damn sure. If you were to say that they could receive special privilege to privacy to ensure that they could not be impeded, blackmailed, or pressured by governments or companies through lobbying then who makes the distinction, who grants them that freedom? Furthermore, sure, you might not be doing anything illegal but that is not always the case forever and with things constantly being made illegal like a recent ban on sodomy in one of the states you can bet your ass (pun intended) that someone somewhere would love to use that law against someone they do not like personally, professionally, or politically, and having unimpeded access to your phone is the surefire way to get that information. Information is power and it can and will be abused, if not now but in the future.

 

[Qizx]

Nice to see Apple cares more about 'customer privacy' than helping protect against terrorism. But hey, apparently most people can't quite grasp the fact the government doesn't give a shit about your info, provided you are not doing illegal.

"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"
That's a very old and flawed ideal. Even if in most individual cases, the right to privacy from government is irrelevant, its massively important to have as a society. Your right to privacy is your right to yourself, the right to choose what other people can know about you without cause. You might as well submit all your letters, email and web activity to the government as well, you're probably not doing anything illegal, so whats the problem?

There isn't one. I would do that. You, on the other hand, seem quite opposed to it. Do you have something to hide?

It's not a flawed idea. It is complete common sense. Unfortunately, lots of people like to think the government is out to get them.

Because it's an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent to set. What about when being gay was illegal? There are so many times where a right to privacy is protecting a person from undue harm. Yes today I wouldn't care if the government could know all my dirty secrets as I have done nothing illegal, however who's to say that some things I do/have done won't become illegal in the future?

 

[Kajin]

There isn't one. I would do that. You, on the other hand, seem quite opposed to it. Do you have something to hide?

It's not a flawed idea. It is complete common sense. Unfortunately, lots of people like to think the government is out to get them.

It's EXTREMELY flawed. You're assuming a perfect system operated by complete saints who don't have any ulterior motives or personal vendettas. That's not how the world works and it's not how the people in charge operate.

 

[Gorrath]

Nice to see Apple cares more about 'customer privacy' than helping protect against terrorism. But hey, apparently most people can't quite grasp the fact the government doesn't give a shit about your info, provided you are not doing illegal.

"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"
That's a very old and flawed ideal. Even if in most individual cases, the right to privacy from government is irrelevant, its massively important to have as a society. Your right to privacy is your right to yourself, the right to choose what other people can know about you without cause. You might as well submit all your letters, email and web activity to the government as well, you're probably not doing anything illegal, so whats the problem?

There isn't one. I would do that. You, on the other hand, seem quite opposed to it. Do you have something to hide?

It's not a flawed idea. It is complete common sense. Unfortunately, lots of people like to think the government is out to get them.

It is such a flawed idea that it's been beaten near to death in literature. Everyone has something to hide because everyone to some degree or another values their privacy. If you think that the people who have access to that personal information will only use it on the up-and-up then I highly recommend you take a look at what the FBI was and did under Hoover, what NSA employees were doing with the mass information gathering tools they have at their disposal.

The whole mantra of, "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide," presumes that those in power aren't flawed, greedy, jealous, angry jerks just like everyone else. The government isn't out to get us but it also isn't some homogeneous group-think of righteous right-doing either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/snowden-nsa-employees-routinely-pass-around-intercepted-nude-photos/

 

[MCerberus]

Having a back door to a electronic data storage device is a good thing. We aren't talking about an open source situation but a criminal investigation tool.

Like it or not but Smartphones are the new journal, tablet, scheduler, data storage and networking devices. To have so much information locked away from a criminal investigation team is going to hamper their ability to efficiently and economically do their job.

Not granting the justice system the ability to investigate this data storage is foolish.

The problem is backdoors will never, ever exist only to one part. Once the weakness is created, it can be exploited by anyone. It's already happened too. Google was attacked through the backdoor it was ordered to create to allow the feds access.

That and the government has already proven itself untrustworthy in enforcing its own safeguards. Plus, as it's been mentioned before, this is the house that Hoover built. The FBI has a long history doing super illegal things like blackmail.

 

[Lightknight]

I mean, hypothetically forcing a back door is equivalent to forcing the individual to willingly incriminate themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to be able to catch bad guys who are really doing something wrong, but ultimately we have a right to not self incriminate.

 

[rcs619]

Nice to see Apple cares more about 'customer privacy' than helping protect against terrorism. But hey, apparently most people can't quite grasp the fact the government doesn't give a shit about your info, provided you are not doing illegal.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Whistle blowers, watchdogs, activists, demonstration organisers, and political opponents for damn sure. If you were to say that they could receive special privilege to privacy to ensure that they could not be impeded, blackmailed, or pressured by governments or companies through lobbying then who makes the distinction, who grants them that freedom? Furthermore, sure, you might not be doing anything illegal but that is not always the case forever and with things constantly being made illegal like a recent ban on sodomy in one of the states you can bet your ass (pun intended) that someone somewhere would love to use that law against someone they do not like personally, professionally, or politically, and having unimpeded access to your phone is the surefire way to get that information. Information is power and it can and will be abused, if not now but in the future.

Pretty much. It's not a concern that the government is going to come after people today or even tomorrow. This is about the future. Years or decades from now, and which legal precedents will be on the books then.

 

[Space Jawa]

Nice to see Apple cares more about 'customer privacy' than helping protect against terrorism. But hey, apparently most people can't quite grasp the fact the government doesn't give a shit about your info, provided you are not doing illegal.

"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"
That's a very old and flawed ideal. Even if in most individual cases, the right to privacy from government is irrelevant, its massively important to have as a society. Your right to privacy is your right to yourself, the right to choose what other people can know about you without cause. You might as well submit all your letters, email and web activity to the government as well, you're probably not doing anything illegal, so whats the problem?

There isn't one. I would do that. You, on the other hand, seem quite opposed to it. Do you have something to hide?

It's not a flawed idea. It is complete common sense. Unfortunately, lots of people like to think the government is out to get them.

As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

Sometimes, the fear that the government is out to get you turns out to actually be justified, believe it or not.

 

[Leg End]

Wow Apple, I'm a bit impressed. You actually have a portion of my respect now. Keep it up and you might get me to buy your products for people I reasonably tolerate at Christmas time.

Oh for godsake its not a modified OS or cracking its just Apple changing the password and telling the FBI the new password.

You didn't read any of the four links you posted.
The FBI is trying to strong arm Apple into giving them something that does not exist, which is the ability to decrypt the encryption on the phone. They're now trying to get Apple to create a means to bypass the ten strikes on the password entry so the phone does not wipe itself as they attempt to brute force the password. The latter in this case most definitely is a modified operating system/a crack into the OS. In absolutely no way is it what you described.

 

[dreng3]

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

This particular statement truly irks me, sacrificing liberty for safety is literally what society is about, we construct systems and rules to protect ourselves from whatever is out there. We would literally have to abolish every single law, and let the world descend into complete anarchy in order to regain the liberties we've "sacrificed". If you'd used a term like "essential liberty" or something to that effect I might agree, but as it stands it is nothing more than a poorly understood, indefensible slogan to yell at others.

In this case Apple might be in the right, but since neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, knows the exact demands of FBI or the court order we can't really know.

 

[Leg End]

This particular statement truly irks me, sacrificing liberty for safety is literally what society is about, we construct systems and rules to protect ourselves from whatever is out there. We would literally have to abolish every single law, and let the world descend into complete anarchy in order to regain the liberties we've "sacrificed". If you'd used a term like "essential liberty" or something to that effect I might agree, but as it stands it is nothing more than a poorly understood, indefensible slogan to yell at others.

I'd rather govern myself than have someone who thinks they know better than me what's best for me do it.

In this case Apple might be in the right, but since neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, knows the exact demands of FBI or the court order we can't really know.

According to that Cult of Mac link up there, this is what the judge wrote:

Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[dreng3]

I'd rather govern myself than have someone who thinks they know better than me what's best for me do it.

So we should abolish every law regarding murder and assault?

According to that Cult of Mac link up there, this is what the judge wrote:

Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

Draw your own conclusions.

This simply reads as an order to make sure that the FBI can access the SUBJECT device, as in the device in question. As far as I can see there isn't a single call for Apple to hand over even a scrap of code. So yeah, no liberty lost there.

 

[Leg End]

So we should abolish every law regarding murder and assault?

Do you need a law to tell you those things are wrong?

This simply reads as an order to make sure that the FBI can access the SUBJECT device, as in the device in question. As far as I can see there isn't a single call for Apple to hand over even a scrap of code. So yeah, no liberty lost there.

They are asking for Apple to make the means to allow for the FBI to circumvent protective measures against precisely what they are doing. Not only is that intentionally making a vulnerability within their own software, it's making it available to the FBI at their beck and call. Not even mentioning what the altered OS existing in the hands of the FBI could do.

Considering this is the FBI, I'd say there is quite a bit of liberty to be lost there.

 

[dreng3]

Do you need a law to tell you those two things are wrong?

I don't, no, but if it allows the police to investigate people who might be considering murdering or assaulting me? I'd say go ahead, make the law.

They are asking for Apple to make the means to allow for the FBI to circumvent protective measures against precisely what they are doing. Not only is that intentionally making a vulnerability within their own software, it's making it available to the FBI at their beck and call. Not even mentioning what the altered OS existing in the hands of the FBI could do.
Considering this is the FBI, I'd say there is quite a bit of liberty to be lost here.

Which part of the order includes incorporating a weakness in the software? Being able to turn off the auto-erase? Being able to enter the passcode without having to tap the screen? Or is it perhaps ensuring that entering a code without tapping the screen doesn't mess up the phone?
All of these are reasonable, and nowhere is it stated that Apple needs to surrender the code, or the means of access to the FBI. Sure, ideally Apple would figure a way to do a data dump of the phone, but as alternative this works okay.
To me this seems more like a kneejerk reaction against "the man". The feds aren't asking for permission to poke around your phone at will, nor are they asking Apple to give them an electronic skeleton key.

 

[ObserverStatus]

Nice to see Apple cares more about 'customer privacy' than helping protect against terrorism. But hey, apparently most people can't quite grasp the fact the government doesn't give a shit about your info, provided you are not doing illegal.

Any back door Apple creates for the FBI can and will be exploited by dataminers to steal your credit card numbers.

 

[Leg End]

I don't, no, but if it allows the police to investigate people who might be considering murdering or assaulting me? I'd say go ahead, make the law.

Because you need a law for everything until the book breaks a table.

Which part of the order includes incorporating a weakness in the software? Being able to turn off the auto-erase?

This one in particular. It prevents a built in safety measure of someone just forcing their way in.

Being able to enter the passcode without having to tap the screen?

Still falls into making a weakness when combined with the first or even standalone. Allows you to brute force the password.

Or is it perhaps ensuring that entering a code without tapping the screen doesn't mess up the phone?

Still goes into the previous though I imagine that wouldn't screw up the phone.

All of these are reasonable

You can try and make an argument for the last but in no way can you say the first two isn't intentionally making the phone actually possible to break into, which is what the software is designed to prevent.

and nowhere is it stated that Apple needs to surrender the code, or the means of access to the FBI.

So, this phone is going to be under watch by Apple and third parties the whole time and is never going to solely be in the possession of the FBI?

Sure, ideally Apple would figure a way to do a data dump of the phone, but as alternative this works okay.

Except they wouldn't be able to because they intentionally burned the encryption keys in order to make it impossible for the encryption to be broken by anyone, themselves included.

To me this seems more like a kneejerk reaction against "the man". The feds aren't asking for permission to poke around your phone at will, nor are they asking Apple to give them an electronic skeleton key.

They're asking Apple to make it possible to break into an iPhone after Apple made such a thing nigh-impossible. They're asking Apple to make it vulnerable to the FBI's usual skeleton key.

The judge is asking for Apple to, after basically selling the promise of no one being able to get to their data when encrypted because Apple torched all means to do so, to make a way to bypass safety measures and say "oh hey guys, your phone data is now vulnerable to brute force attacks because we made the means to do so after we said we wouldn't do that". Pretty sure that's a pretty good reason to tell the FBI to fuck off.

 

[kris40k]

Which part of the order includes incorporating a weakness in the software? Being able to turn off the auto-erase? Being able to enter the passcode without having to tap the screen? Or is it perhaps ensuring that entering a code without tapping the screen doesn't mess up the phone?
All of these are reasonable, and nowhere is it stated that Apple needs to surrender the code, or the means of access to the FBI. Sure, ideally Apple would figure a way to do a data dump of the phone, but as alternative this works okay.
To me this seems more like a kneejerk reaction against "the man". The feds aren't asking for permission to poke around your phone at will, nor are they asking Apple to give them an electronic skeleton key.

It is modifying the OS that can be loaded onto an existing device without compromising what is on the device and causing the device to not wipe or cause delays upon entering incorrect passcodes. This would allow someone, ANYONE, who gets the code to brute force any iOS device they get their hands on.

It is not a matter of if the software gets out, it is a matter of when. It will leak. By being forced to design the software, which does not exist yet, they will be creating a system that will compromise everyone's device to criminals.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Fuckin' FBI. Ever heard of this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[wallstaples]

This article is more than a little disingenuous, to say the least, because it's not the FBI ordering Apple but a court of Law. A Federal Judge has issued a warrant ordering Apple to decrypt a phone of man that killed 14 people in an ISIS inspired attack. I strongly suggest the article be edited with the truth

http://www.cultofmac.com/412738/apple-must-unlock-the-iphone-5cs-encryption-or-else/
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/16/apple-ordered-unlock-san-bernardino-iphone/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0
http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-wont-comply-with-federal-court-order-to-unlock-shooters-iphone-modify-ios

Hey, someone actually did some research! That is a very important thing to leave out of the article. For a specific case like this, I support decrypting the phone. The problem is that they can't, so the government wants them to add a backdoor to all future iPhones. It's a moral gray area, definitely not how it's portrayed in the article.

 

[dreng3]

Fuckin' FBI. Ever heard of this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think you overlooked the word "unreasonable" we're talking about a person who, undoubtedly, killed several people, nothing unreasonable about going through his stuff, and I have little to no doubt that they could get a warrant. Afterwards the feds can get a court order if they want to look through other devices