Apple rejecting calls from FBI to unlock gunman's iPhone

[silverous]

What does PH think to this?

Apple will contest a court order to help FBI investigators access data on the phone belonging to San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook.
The company had been ordered to help the FBI circumvent security software on Farook's iPhone, which the FBI said contained crucial information.
In a statement, Apple chief executive Tim Cook said: "The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35594245

My view is that helping hack this guy's iPhone is not that different to the police/telecoms companies working together to locate crime information from mobile phone triangulation etc. As long as they do it on a case by case basis and there is some form of legal request (i.e. they don't hand the capability out willy nilly) then I don't see a problem with it.

[silverous]

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?
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]

SoupAnxiety said:

Apple are most likely rejecting the call as there is no backdoor in their software. Newish iOS devices ship with hardware level encryption, if the device was switched off then the only way to unlock it is for the user to enter their passcode (regardless of if you ask Apple nicely or shout at them). Apple do build in monitoring and compliance systems into iOS, there's a lot of upset with it as Apple routinely refuse to explain what these things are for when asked by privacy experts. The snag here is if the device is switched off Apple cannot help even if they want to.

The wider question of privacy is an an interesting one, perhaps there is an argument that all encryption should have backdoors built in but there would be no way to guarantee the "good guys" are the only people using them. Personally I think there is an absolute right to privacy and am dubious about the state always having our best interests at heart when asking for more surveillance powers.

I think if you look at the article the FBI want Apple to update the phone with a new version of iOs that does not lock after x password attempts and also something that will brute force it. I thought this had already been done but I guess they've updated the Os around it - I remember seeing something where you could have a bit of kit that switches the iphone off and on quickly and it forgets that you've had a password attempt and punches in the pass code attempts for you....only needs 10,000 tries apparently

[silverous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nonsense. You can trust encryption as long as you don't have the FBI taking a legal route to unlock your phone on an individual basis - noone is askign Apple to change everyone's phone to allow this.

[silverous]

With apologies for linking to daily fail, the FBI are simply asking for something like this as far as I can tell:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-302...

Apple appear to allow it to allcomers when the FBI don't ask for it

[silverous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Who said anything about a back door? This is the phone manufacturer - you don't think they can put a new OS on the phone without rolling it out to everyone? Noone is asking them to release a security flaw into the product and to the world.

[silverous]

130R said:

That was patched by Apple over a year ago, so completely useless unless you don't update your device.

You are missing the point - I'm sure the FBI would be capable of finding an old patch on the internet, that wasn't my point, the point is that such hacks have been possible, Apple isn't as secure as they are making out to be, and all they need to do is introduce such a thing on one phone to help deal with a terrorist.

[silverous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This makes no sense - noone is talking about introducing a generic mechanism into all iphones/iOs. By definition if someone other than apple can work out how to do what you are suggesting then they can do so today. I repeat, noone is asking Apple to change their hardware or iOs that they ship.

[silverous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Now you are both missing the point. I'm not suggesting that the FBI go try old hacks - if it was that simple it would not have gone as far as it has. My point is that vulnerabilities have existed, Apple isn't as secure as they are claiming, so to introduce the type of vulnerability that they've been guilty of time and time again in the name of anti terrorism isn't such a big leap.

There is no cost to everyone else because noone is asking apple to release this onto other hardware or iOs generally, the FBI want this specific device to be dealt with.

[silverous]

Apple is concerned that sales will be impacted due to lack of confidence in security if they agree to this request, it is that simple. Anyone that thinks Apple has some religious belief in security and adherence to their policy on security is bonkers, Apple is primarily concerned with shareholder value, as with Google. I don't buy this "if you break one device none are secure" nonsense either, but I do accept that if the FBI are successful there will be other requests. 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.

I will be watching this one with interest, I hope the FBI get what they've asked for if it helps them in the fight against terrorism.

[silverous]

0000 said:

There's nothing special about this phone. If it can be specifically dealt with they all can.

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.

[silverous]

0000 said:

Out of interest, what do you do for a living?

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

[silverous]

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?

[silverous]

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]

Not had chance to catch up on the above but below might be of interest.
No remote backdoor:

https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-...

Looks like from iPhone 6 onwards this will not be possible for Apple to assist with which is interesting. I'm more interested in terrorists contacts being found than whatever people think is so worth securing as to allow them to conceal evidence.

[silverous]

I notice Lee Rigby's family have come out against Apple. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35595840

I quite like his uncle's argument "If a court issued a warrant in the UK or United States to search somebody's house, you wouldn't stop them, you would allow them in - why should a smartphone be any different". Exactly, it is that simple for me, people are arguing to protect their holiday snaps whilst allowing terrorist material to remain secure. I'm not sure they need to make that choice - I still think Apple can flash this one phone, they don't have to introduce a flaw to all phones or push this out anywhere. If you work on the basis that someone at Apple can do this, but the FBI can't, then unless Apple release the capability there's no reason to think it will be out in the open. It seems likely to require a lot of skill and inside knowledge and equipment if it is indeed possible (which clearly the FBI believe it is or there would be no point asking).

[silverous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Show me where apple are being asked to introduce a backdrop to all phones? The FBI have asked for a single device.
Just because numerous people are wrong, or bad at explaining, or both, doesn't make it so either.
I'm not an expert in safes and how law enforcement deal with them when they need to. Probably just get a big drill......

[silverous]

It is a long established principle that law enforcement can access evidence. If they need to they can search your house, your car, your office, I believe they can ask you for your encryption keys for data. It strikes me that this is a fairly important capability needed for law and order to work. At what point did it become ok for a company to make it impossible for this to happen or refuse to cooperate, in order to protect your holiday snaps ? What gives Apple the right to be judge and jury as to who sees what?

We are very happy when agencies thwart terror attacks through being able to eavesdrop on terrorists but then we applaud the companies and technologies that would prevent that capability. Do we want terrorists and criminals to be able to be above evidence gathering and preventative detective work ? Is the privacy of our holiday snaps worth that? Would the same people argue against the police having the ability to search your home or your computer?

[silverous]

Foliage said:

The FBI wants to miss that step so they can just do it... Or infact have an iPhone update that they can put on a phone then give back to a suspect so they can access it remotely at anytime...

Where is it stipulated that the FBI want precisely these abilities ?

I was pleased to see this morning that Bill Gates has come out on the side of the FBI, I'd like to think he has a good understanding of the circumstances and the capabilities available, whatever people may think of Microsoft.

[silverous]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Absolutely unless they have evidence against me.

We need protection from the state, they don't need protection from us, don't fall for their propaganda, they are able to get all they want on us.

Ridiculous to say that private holiday snaps trumps the need to prevent terrorist activity.
I think you'll find in the circumstances they have a fair bit of evidence about the dead terrorist so I'll take that as agreement to the police needing to be able to do their job.
I think sadly this is becoming a "them versus us" type of debate where a fair few people are paranoid about the state, rather than an acceptance that we need the police (which isn't quite the state) to be able to do their job otherwise we accept the consequences. Imagine if the police's ability to gather evidence was generally taken away on privacy grounds, I think some people on this thread would support that.