Apple rejecting calls from FBI to unlock gunman's iPhone
Discussion
silverous said:
Yes, by the manufacturer at the FBI's request. The fact the FBI are asking, and that Apple do not appear to be saying "it is impossible" suggests that it is possible which means the people on here that don't want the capability available are doomed? I repeat - they are asking to target a specific phone not all phones, at least that is what I'm reading.
The issue is that the software developed to access this 'one phone' could, if it gets into the wrong hands, be used on any iPhone running the iOS version it's developed for. silverous said:
Durzel said:
You either sell something as being secure, and stand behind it, or you don't.
It's that simple, and emotionality shouldn't be a consideration. Fully supportive of Apple in this instance.
I can see that, but hasn't this guy given up his right to security and it is in the greater interest that his phone be hacked in the interests of gathering evidence? It's that simple, and emotionality shouldn't be a consideration. Fully supportive of Apple in this instance.
I agree with liberty but you commit a crime and you give up your right to it...i.e. you go to jail. Why is the security if your iphone so different ?
silverous said:
To this I will reluctantly quote the mantra of those would don't like the idea of government having access to communications - if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Ah that old chestnut. Can I have all your bank and employment details please? Oh and your address and your families details please. Car reg, I'll have that to and your all insurance details. In fact end me all your secure data.I promise I won't do anything bad with it.
Ta!
0000 said:
Doubt it - the FBI will have the mechanism then and won't need Apple.
The FBI will, but the other agencies won't and they aren't keen on sharing that sort of information around the "community". (guess who spent a whole day in a meeting, yesterday, where this attitude was present?)Don said:
Apple can't help. iPhone are engineered so that it is the owner who is in charge of the data on it, not the manufacturer.
So you're on the side of the owners in the Error 53 argument?Two departments within Apple currently appear to be contradicting each other. One reckons the data on the device is entirely owned by the user. The other reckons Apple have the right to delete all data on the device because they don't like what the user has done to the hardware. They cannot have it both ways.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I like to think that people can form an opinion of my opinion without knowing what I do.... I'm comfortable with my opinion and level of understanding, I'm not about to start willy waving about my IT security credentials but I recently took apart some malware for fun and informed the (legitimate) website owner that hosted it what it was doing and that they were unaware that they were hosting it....does that entitle me to an opinion?silverous said:
pip t said:
The issue is that the software developed to access this 'one phone' could, if it gets into the wrong hands, be used on any iPhone running the iOS version it's developed for.
So you don't trust Apple to keep it secure? anonymous said:
[redacted]
I work in IT, with past experience of configuring firewalls for some high profile targets (a safety camera partnership for one - don't shoot me). If something is crackable, it's insecure. Doesn't matter if it's an iPhone or a TV remote.
If Apple even agreed to write a line of code towards an FBI-iOS, before anything of substance was actually created - their security mantra would have no value.
Individuals and companies rely upon Apple's stance on security. Usually hyperbole on stuff like this is unwarranted, "thin end of the wedge" etc, but in the case of data security it's appropriate. Data is either secure or it's not.
And the semantics about whether it's a backdoor or not is irrelevant really. Enabling unrestricted brute force techniques on a 4 digit passcode is logically the same thing as an actually "master key" backdoor, since such a device would be compromised in seconds.
I'm with Apple on this one. An acquaintance of mine (thankfully not terrorist-related) had e-mails controlled by another technology giant who refused to hand over the courts. But I see no moral difference to differentiate between one crime and another - we're on a slippery slope if we say this is acceptable because this crime is worse etc.
pip t said:
ATG said:
Encryption is not the issue. They are asking for help to unlock the phone, not to decrypt the data on it.
But unlocking the phone does decrypt the data on it. It's semantics. The FBI don't want to be seen as asking for a 'back door' by the average user without the technical savvy to know that they're the same thing. In the battle for public acceptance of a back door, not calling it such is their strategy.I'm right behind Apple on this one.
The point is that the phone's locking mechanism is already susceptible to being picked . Apple could unlock the phone if they chose to.
There is no principle at stake here, no fundamental security feature of encryption or phones is at stake.
The FBI are asking Apple to help them exploit an existing cock up in this particular phone's design. The cock up already exists. In theory anyone could already exploit it.
Apple are trying to spin this as a chilling undermining of privacy in general. It is nothing of the sort. They are trying to distract attention from the fact that their product is not secure.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 17th February 12:09
silverous said:
So you don't trust Apple to keep it secure?
It's not really about whether Apple can keep it secure. I'm sure they can, and as far as I trust any technology company I would trust them. However.
At the moment, according to Apple, this software does not exist, which forms the basis of their argument that they cannot break open the contents of an individuals iPhone. Once they have this capability, by creating the software, you can bet your bottom dollar this 'one iPhone' will blossom into any device the authorities want to access, and Apple will be left without an argument against it. You can also expect that once Apple create it, other, perhaps less salubrious individuals, will see it's possible, and have a good crack at doing it themselves, and potentially succeed.
At the end of the day it boils down to your attitude to personal privacy. The contents of my devices is pretty banal, and isn't of any interest to anyone. You could argue that as 'I have nothing to fear,' I shouldn't have a problem with anyone having access to it. I do have problem with that. Banal information it may be, but I like the fact that I'm the only person (apparently) who has access to it's banality. It's the genie in the bottle. Once you let that genie out and grant access to a single device somewhere, you shoot a hole through any future privacy argument.
pip t said:
It's the genie in the bottle. Once you let that genie out and grant access to a single device somewhere, you shoot a hole through any future privacy argument.
Rubbish. The device is already insecure. The question is merely whether Apple helps or hinders the attempt to exploit the insecurity.it had no wider implication at all.ATG said:
With respect, that's missing the point. Encryption itself is not at risk here. I was responding to another poster who suggested electronic trading would be at risk if encryption was undermined. This case is not about breaking encryption algorithms.
The point is that the phone's locking mechanism is already susceptible to being picked . Apple could unlock the phone if they chose to.
There is no principle at stake here, no fundamental security feature of encryption or phones is at stake.
The FBI are asking Apple to help them exploit an existing cock up in this particular phone's design. The cock up already exists. In theory anyone could already exploit it.
Apple are trying to spin this as a chilling undermining of privacy in general. It is nothing of the sort. They are trying to distract attention from the fact that their product is not secure.
You sound like you have far more knowledge of the technical ins and outs of this than I do - I bow to your knowledge on that front.The point is that the phone's locking mechanism is already susceptible to being picked . Apple could unlock the phone if they chose to.
There is no principle at stake here, no fundamental security feature of encryption or phones is at stake.
The FBI are asking Apple to help them exploit an existing cock up in this particular phone's design. The cock up already exists. In theory anyone could already exploit it.
Apple are trying to spin this as a chilling undermining of privacy in general. It is nothing of the sort. They are trying to distract attention from the fact that their product is not secure.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 17th February 12:09
It IS a point of principal though. Whether its the locking mechanism or the encryption itself that is being breached, the privacy of the user, and by implication other users with the same software IS being undermined. And once it's been done once, a precedent has been set.
EDIT - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-...
The link above states my thinking and argument better than I have so far managed!
Edited by pip t on Wednesday 17th February 12:25
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff