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.

[Durzel]

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.

[SoupAnxiety]

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.

[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 ?

[SR7492]

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.

+1

[sgrimshaw]

Typical Apple attitude.

If there's a court order (or whatever they call it in the US) and Apple simply refuses to comply, then it's contempt of court.

Someone's likely to be going to jail, and that's highly likely to be the CEO.

[Digger]

Is it worth suggesting this be moved to the News forum? Might garner a few more responses. Sorry OP, just a thought.

[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

[Don]

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.

Governments would like manufacturers to engineer their devices differently to allow access.

But if you engineer it such that the manufacturer can get in then you open the door to someone else being able to.

I am a huge fan of weapons grade unbreakable secure encryption. The financial services industry needs it for anyone to have confidence in their on-line services.

Apple are right to engineer their devices the way they do.

[sgrimshaw]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not yet

[Don]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I couldn't agree more.

[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

[Alex]

It shouldn't be POSSIBLE to unlock the data on the phone, even by Apple. If it is possible, then iPhones are not secure.

[130R]

silverous said:

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

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

[anonymous-user]

silverous said:

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

Wait that cant be right the sycophants say apple is the greatest thing since jesus.

[Oakey]

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.

Governments would like manufacturers to engineer their devices differently to allow access.

But if you engineer it such that the manufacturer can get in then you open the door to someone else being able to.

I am a huge fan of weapons grade unbreakable secure encryption. The financial services industry needs it for anyone to have confidence in their on-line services.

Apple are right to engineer their devices the way they do.

Ha, except when you have a third party repair, eh!

[CrutyRammers]

silverous said:

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.

....which might be true if we didn't now know that they, GCHQ and every other bugger have been rooting through everyone's data for the last decade with any sort of oversight whatsoever.

[Don]

Oakey said:

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.

Governments would like manufacturers to engineer their devices differently to allow access.

But if you engineer it such that the manufacturer can get in then you open the door to someone else being able to.

I am a huge fan of weapons grade unbreakable secure encryption. The financial services industry needs it for anyone to have confidence in their on-line services.

Apple are right to engineer their devices the way they do.

Ha, except when you have a third party repair, eh!

That too was a security related issue. Bug in the software meant that fingerprint sensor and system core didn't validate that they were a matching pair properly. Apple fixed the bug. A tiny minority of users who had used a third party repairer have a problem. AFAIK it can be fixed by taking it to Apple...

[sjg]

silverous said:

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

That machine just tried a few passcodes then immediately killed power to prevent the timer/counter incrementing, waits for it to boot and tries again. It was fixed in iOS 8.1.1 and later.

What the FBI are asking for is for Apple to create a special firmware version for them with no incrementing timeout after incorrect tries, and no ability for the phone to wipe itself if it suspects anything is wrong. The FBI can then merrily try passcodes until they hit the right one. Crucially, Apple themselves would need to sign this special firmware so the phone accepts it and runs. Hard to describe it as anything but compelling Apple to provide a backdoor.