Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 379 total)
  • Apple v the FBI
  • mefty
    Free Member

    Well whoever wrote it was having a generally being a bit thick moment.

    Perhaps you should write to a Letter to the Editor with your thoughts, I am sure he will appreciate them as much as I have.

    nickc
    Full Member

    The civil liberties argument is largely a red herring in this particular case. Apple have recognised that the FBI have them over a barrel. Apple’s options are: 1. comply, and admit that updates aren’t secure, and that pretty much anything they ask users to upload is always going to be tainted from now on. 2. don’t comply, and use distraction (civil liberties) in the hope that enough outrage will get the FBI to back down.

    I think a lot of companies/the public are still pissed off enough with the state’s agencies that were exposed by Edward Snowdon’s revelations that the gambit has enough legs in it to run, but Apple are gambling fo’sure

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Apple keep the key.

    How well do you think that’s going to work when a) the FBI / NSA / GCHQ etc know the technology exists, and b) there’s eye-watering amounts of cash to be had from that sort of technology and it only takes one person to leak it to, oh I don’t know, the Chinese government or ISIS say?

    Seriously, are you really that naive?

    aracer
    Free Member

    There is some major point missing going on here. Firstly they’re not asking for a back door – they’re after a way to make it easier to use brute force to break in through the front door (yes, I know that one has been done, yet the phrase “backdoor” continues to be used – even by Apple themselves in their open letter). This is quite significant, because what they want doing will not compromise the security of the data on any other phone in any way.

    Secondly, and one person mentioned it directly but a lot more are alluding to it, there seems to be the idea (undoubtedly propagated by Apple’s PR) that Apple are in some way a white knight here, and that you’d trust them with your data a lot more than the government. Which seems a strange argument, given the POV many of those taking that line have on other political issues. Do we not mostly agree that one of the (if not the biggest) major problems with the way government currently works is the undue influence exerted on it by large companies? Do we not also agree that one of the current big issues is tax avoidance by large companies? Apple the white knight? Yeah I know this is kind of whataboutery/ad-hom, but then a lot of this hangs on the image Apple are trying to portray here.

    Because we come onto the biggest fallacy – the one Apple is trying to push with that open letter. The idea that this is some pandora’s box they’re being asked to open. They’re trying to make out that what they’re being asked to do is in some way novel and something they’ve never considered doing. Don’t get the idea that open letter is anything other than commercial positioning – they don’t care about you and your data, they care about selling phones.

    Because the fundamental point is that (to mix my metaphors) the genie is already out of the bottle. Those experts who know about such things have looked at the tech requirements and determined that such a thing is not only technically possible it’s actually quite straightforward. Now I’m not an expert on Apple operating systems, so I’ll take their word for it, but I am relatively speaking even for STW an expert on IT security and software testing and what they’re saying makes total sense.

    Quite clearly it is possible to push firmware updates to a locked phone – the only thing which prevents anybody doing this is that they have to be signed by Apple. Which is where we come onto the idea that this is something novel which could be released into the wild. First point – I don’t believe this is in any way novel, I would be extremely surprised if Apple don’t already know exactly how to do all that is being asked, but what’s more that they almost certainly have already written the code needed. As a software tester, it’s the sort of thing I’d expect to see test builds of – clearly they have plenty of versions of iOS which never see the light of day which have all sorts of functionality you wouldn’t want to release into the wild. Which brings us onto the second point – I don’t see any of these Apple test builds in the wild. In order for the very existence of this software (if I generously assume it doesn’t already exist) to be a problem if leaked into the wild, Apple’s signing would also have to leak into the wild – which would be a far larger issue for Apple than this little thing is.

    Sorry, but it’s all a marketing thing from Apple and you’ve all been taken in (and no, I’m not an Apple hater – I have an iPad sitting next to me). But that open letter gives me the start of some feelings of hate – it’s just so full of fallacies, finishing off with a nice slippery slope argument. This is just about Apple trying to avoid admitting they have a capability which we know they have – not only that, but they know that we know.

    chubstr
    Free Member

    No company should be bigger than the government and they shouldn’t be able to hamper an investigation like this. Yes, it won’t bring the people back, but what if the phone contains pertinent information to stop future attacks or name accomplices?

    aracer
    Free Member

    I realised there’s something I meant to add to that long rant. Out of the things the FBI is asking Apple to do, two of them are so trivial that I’d be seriously worried if Apple couldn’t provide an update in an hour or two – they should simply involve changing parameters in the source code (and if not, then the code is rubbish). The other one, the ability to input key codes electronically isn’t so trivial, but it comes under the list of things I’d expect to have been implemented as part of the test processes.

    Matt24k
    Free Member

    arcacer you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
    Apple and some other global companies seem to believe that they are above the law in many countries where they sell products to consumers.
    The open letter is just more advertising of their product.
    The FBI is asking for access to one phone on this warrant and they will need another warrant for another phone. This is exactly the same as a search warrant for a property. You know the ones where you see the police walking out with bags full of paperwork and what ever else but usually computer hard drives.

    markgraylish
    Free Member

    they care about selling phones.

    No shit sherlock!
    Apple built their products this way for a specific purpose. The NSA has, alledgedly, conducted industrial espionage and has been spying on heads of state of supposedly friendly countries.

    How will the market react to news that a US government agency can exert pressure on a private company renderings their new flagship product effectively worthless? Why would corporations and large business pay a premium for an iPhone which is just as susceptible to hacking as a cheaper product?

    I’m curious why so many right-wingers are supporting this. Ah yes, thats because you’re either with us or against us on this “so-called” War On Terror!, the current enfant terrible along with kiddy fiddlers. Nothing like stirring the rabble to get otherwise unpopular laws pushed through.

    Anyway, Donald has come out in favor of the FBI, and that’s all you need to know…

    whatnobeer
    Free Member

    Ah yes, thats because you’re either with us or against us on this “so-called” War On Terror!, the current enfant terrible along with kiddy fiddlers. Nothing like stirring the rabble to get otherwise unpopular laws pushed through.

    There needs to be an internet law for this, similar to Godwins. I think Jamba lost on page 1.

    wobbliscott
    Free Member

    The back foot thing doesn’t have to be a physical backdoor or a software one, but a back door in legal precedent, once the FBI have set a precedent they’ll be doing this day in day out. That for me is the problem. They should be able to show some other evidence to support their suspicion that there is valuable data on the phone.

    I just wish the FBI took as much action and interest to all the other almost daily gun massacres that occur in the US. This was just one more gun massacre in amongst a constant stream of them. The primary difference being the shooters we’re Muslims. I suspect this is all a staged front to pretend they Are actually doing something to fight terrorism. If there is important info on the phone I don’t think they need to access the phone to get it. They should have it from the intercept traffic they continuously monitor. How else does data get on the phone in the first place? Via email, SMS etc. All the stuff they are supposed to be monitoring. If they truly need to access the phone then that suggests they’re not doing a good job monitoring the global data traffic.

    surfer
    Free Member

    Apple built their products this way for a specific purpose

    I don’t think protecting your civil liberties was top of their list sweet pea.

    How will the market react to news that a US government agency can exert pressure on a private company renderings their new flagship product effectively worthless?

    Most people will assume this is the case anyway and of those that don’t many will think it is appropriate that Government agencies should access this data in specific instances.

    large business pay a premium for an iPhone which is just as susceptible to hacking as a cheaper product?

    No they don’t they often buy them because they are shiny and perceived as premium. I have worked for large organisations also and although you may be Matt Damon most employees simply use them for sending E:mails and making calls, both of which can be intercepted anyway.

    I’m curious why so many right-wingers are supporting this. Ah yes, thats because you’re either with us or against us on this “so-called” War On Terror!, the current enfant terrible along with kiddy fiddlers. Nothing like stirring the rabble to get otherwise unpopular laws pushed through.

    similar to Godwins

    😀

    jam-bo
    Full Member

    Maybe it just needs a new home button now 😉

    http://gizmodo.com/apple-backs-down-on-error-53-no-longer-security-featur-1759943063

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Plenty tech experts seem to think that the NSA already has this anyway, and that this is just a battle to make it legal. I’d be inclined to agree with them. Choosing the 5c as the battleground, which Cook seems to be doing, is possibly not the best idea. 🙂

    zokes
    Free Member

    The FBI’s request for this phone is imho totally legitimate.

    Nope, see above

    If they wanted a peodophile’s or a drug dealers phone that would be legitimate too.

    Ditto

    The Guardian article today already pointed out that the terrorist was a government employee with a company iPhone and so they already have all the backup data as a result of prior court requests.

    Good. That means they have most of what they need without compromising the security of everyone else

    They are just missing a few weeks worth of info. Hence Apple’s refusal is all the more pointless and stupid from a civil liberties perspective.

    No, the FBI’s request is all the more pointless, given that as you rightly point out, they already have most of the info

    It really is all about their profit motive (I see this is another rare example of where JY and I agree)

    Possibly, but then their business model does partly rely on their security being as strong as it can be, so they can provide, oooooh, governments who want secure phones with the appropriate hardware

    EDIT: just to reiterate this was not his personal phone, it was his employers property and I gauranty the terms of use would have included a clause to say all info on the phone remained the property of the employer.

    I’m sure they did, and they have the phone, and a backup of most of it also

    Apple’s refusal is nothing to do with civil liberties

    Wrong, see above

    You can’t just copy the phone memory and then guess pin numbers as the encryption is a combination of hardware (special chip technology) and software.

    Correct

    As per my earlier post Postprious conveninetly “forgot” his pin so Police could ‘t access his messages. Apple refused to crack his iPhone (older model and crackabke) despite RSA court requests. There is a precident case somewhere where a suspect was forced to give up a finger print copy to unlock their touch-id phone but you cannot force someone to give up a pin.

    And your point is?

    DrJ
    Full Member

    I’m curious why so many right-wingers are supporting this. Ah yes, thats because you’re either with us or against us on this “so-called” War On Terror!,

    Well, jambs is happy to napalm children if there is any accusation of the “t” thing so a trifle like hacking a phone will not be keeping him awake at night.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Not if it is arabs bombing jewish children – he is clear that is wrong but the other way round is legitimate use of force and the arabs fault for using them as human shields.

    I’m curious why so many right-wingers are supporting this.

    Well they dont come more right wing than me.
    RW folk respect the state powers more than individual freedoms generally and think people should be subservient to and serve the state where as I think the state should be subservient to the people and serve them.

    As noted i think always saying yes or always saying no is silly as you ignore the actual issue and one needs to decide whether that specific case deserves that specific measure.

    As an example a court could simply say no you can never raid a person homes its their home, their private property and its sacrosanct so no warrants are ever issued – this is the position some of you are arguing over phones. Clearly the state has no right to pry into my private life, However at the point at which i have committed serious crimes the state has the right to pry into my private life.

    TBH I am not sure why some folk just run up the flag of civil liberties every time as if we are or should be free to do whatever we damn well please and the govt has no right to ever know what it was we did – clearly this position is almost always true but sometimes, when the citizens do bad things and dont respect others, the state has to not respect them and do things that violate that persons privacy

    STW really does not do nuance does is it is always one extreme position or the other

    Generally, who would eh, I am not in favour of state snooping and mass data gathering.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    is the position some of you are arguing over phones. Clearly the state has no right to pry into my private life, However at the point at which i have committed serious crimes the state has the right to pry into my private life.

    The person in question is dead so it’s not his private life they are prying into.

    In any case, that individual is not the issue. The issue is the precedent set and the tools created that will allow state snooping by any state on any individual.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Several people are saying that tech companies shouldn’t be able to defy governments when crimes have been involved.

    But do you really want the ALL tech companies to roll over for ALL governments in relation to ALL “crimes”?
    Or is it just the US government and the other “good guys”?

    This isn’t whataboutery. What happens here sets a precedent. What happens when China come knocking to get some political dissident’s phone unlocked? Or when some state wants a phone unlocked to prove someone is gay?

    Presumably you’d want Apple to say no to them?

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    Sorry, I haven’t read all of the ping-pong above. It seems to me this could go one of two ways. Either Apple open up this phone, or within five years* the security people will be able to open up any phone that falls into their hands, behind their own walls.

    *or maybe tomorrow, who knows?

    I’ll take Bruce Schneier’s viewpoint –

    This implies to me that what the FBI is asking for is technically possible, and even that Apple assisted in the wording so that the case could be about the legal issues and not the technical ones.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    @zokes my point was Apple obstructed a murder investigation of a guy who shot his girlfriend multiple times.

    @whatno what exactly got lost on page 1 ?

    JY indeed we do tend to get rather polarised. My view is with a court order Apple, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp etc should be obliged to hand over the data. Simple amd consistent with a search warrent. As I have often quoted the right to life takes precidence over all others, eg privacy, free speech etc

    A prediction from me, the next POUS will enact a law to oblige tech companies to comply. Obama has backed off of this as he’s at the end of his time and tried to talk them into complying.

    zokes
    Free Member

    Either Apple open up this phone, or within five years* the security people will be able to open up any phone that falls into their hands, behind their own walls.

    Perhaps read some of the ping pong above?

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Simple amd consistent with a search warrent.

    Plenty of people have put forward arguments as to why this is different from a search warrant for your house. It’s so unlike you to ignore this and just bluster on.

    EDIT: I’ve just spotted this 😀

    mefty – Member – Block User – Quote

    Perhaps you should write to a Letter to the Editor with your thoughts, I am sure he will appreciate them as much as I have.

    So you post a leader opinion which a couple of people criticise and the best you can do to defend your appeal to authority is to vaguely insult those who are critical of it. No point in me writing to the editor – I don’t read the FT or really care what “it” thinks. If I were you, I might feel a bit let down with an editorial that begins with a sentence that naïve. Unless I believed it.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    My view is with a court order Apple, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp etc should be obliged to hand over the data.

    No matter which government or state issues that court order? 😯

    zokes
    Free Member

    My view is with a court order Apple, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp etc should be obliged to hand over the data.

    1) It’s not their data
    2) Try again

    robinlaidlaw
    Free Member

    My view is with a court order Apple, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp etc should be obliged to hand over the data.

    A large part of the point is that Apple don’t have the data and can’t access it and indeed the FBI aren’t asking them to. The FBI want Apple to alter the way that the phone’s security works to make it easier for the them (the FBI) to break into it themselves by guessing repeatedly at the unlock code.

    cornholio98
    Free Member

    My view is with a court order Apple, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp etc should be obliged to hand over the data.
    1) It’s not their data
    2) Try again

    Quite right it is not Apples data. As the phone is government owned (as- a works phone) it is their data just held on an Apple device. I think that everyone understands that it’s a PR war for Apple. If the US Supreme Court say do it what would they do then?
    I would guess this will not end well for everyone as by holding out so long they are increasing they likelihood of additional laws that may force them to change the security on devices sold in the future in the US.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    No matter which government or state issues that court order?

    Well, clearly not China, as Obama said himself in March last year:

    “This is something that I’ve raised directly with President Xi,” Obama said. “We have made it very clear to them that this is something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States.”

    “Those kinds of restrictive practices I think would ironically hurt the Chinese economy over the long term because I don’t think there is any U.S. or European firm, any international firm, that could credibly get away with that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a government,”

    Of course, when it’s his own government, he send representatives to California for a chat to see how they might find a solution.

    zokes
    Free Member

    what would they do then?

    Shrug their shoulders and go “meh?”

    Clearly what the FBI need them to do has yet to be done. They could just simply not try very hard.

    surfer
    Free Member

    that could credibly get away with that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a government,”

    My emphasis. The key word is “wholesale” I think the US Government is clear on this.

    zokes
    Free Member

    The key word is “wholesale” I think the US Government is clear on this.

    So is Edward Snowden.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    I think the US Government is clear on this.

    I don’t.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Clearly some people didn’t read my rant – it was a bit long, I guess this is going to be an even worse JY style multi-quote™

    Yeah, so they could stick two fingers up at the law enforcement agencies and avoid awkward stuff which upsets their commercial position.

    How will the market react to news that a US government agency can exert pressure on a private company renderings their new flagship product effectively worthless? Why would corporations and large business pay a premium for an iPhone which is just as susceptible to hacking as a cheaper product?

    Whoah there. Worthless? Susceptible to hacking? As already pointed out, companies pay a premium because they’re shiny, but if they are actually concerned about security, then they’re just as secure as they were yesterday and will be just as secure tomorrow if Apple comply. What they’re being asked to do makes no difference to the encryption features – the only difference is if the phone has been used by somebody involved in a major crime and the FBI are able to obtain a warrant to get Apple to help them unlock it.

    No they won’t – they’ll still have to obtain a warrant, which is why people keep mentioning search warrants, because the principle is exactly the same. If you don’t have a problem with search warrants being issued, then you shouldn’t have a problem with this.

    Do they? I’ve not seen anybody suggesting that – plenty of commentary suggesting it’s straightforward for Apple to do, but for NSA to do it they’d have to have Apple’s signing codes, which is into the far more tricky area of encryption, rather than the straightforward one of minor software updates which is what this case involves.

    See my rant above – I’m sure the tools already exist, it’s just a case of Apple using them, and they’ll allow state snooping on any individual in just the same way that search warrants allow the state to snoop on any individual 🙄

    No, it’s slippery slope combined with straw man.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    it’s slippery slope

    I know…it’s not like governments have ever abused small concessions to privacy is it?

    aracer
    Free Member

    Indeed, and that’s something I’m uncomfortable with – in general I support Snowdon and I’m uncomfortable about a lot of the stuff our government is proposing in relation to release of encryption keys etc. But this case is totally different – the point which keeps being repeated is that they can’t just extend this to other cases, not without obtaining more court orders, and it will make zero difference to their ability to covertly snoop on anybody.

    Danny79
    Free Member

    I think the question of doing it for one country and not another is kind of moot if you’re happy to make and sell your product in a country you should be happy to comply to that countries laws regardless of any ethical qualms you have with that countries government or legal system. Doing business there is tacit acceptance and approval the opposite stance is grossly hypocritical after all Apple and other tech companies for that matter have made use of the stable cheap labour these governments have provided.

    cornholio98
    Free Member

    Considering the bad press Apple recently had with the error 53 issue they seem to have instantly found a way to turn a “bricked” phone back to 100% normal just by plugging it into a computer

    [/url]

    So last week you have a dead and useless device. This week they can just push an update through the lightning port and it is all good again.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Would you care to summarise. Because most of them seem to be along the lines of “because it is”. eg:

    That’s right. Keep repeating it. It’ll sound true eventually.
    [/quote]

    I’ve been through the thread to check, and about the best arguments I can find are these from GrahamS and Cougar:

    “We can’t open your doors or safe so we’ll require the lock manufacturers to make us some special keys that open every lock and safe in the world.”[/quote]

    Because once the genie is out of the bottle it’s a free-for-all. A better analogy would be: a search warrant that demanded a key be created that could open anyone’s front door globally, and at that an easily replicable key that could potentially enter the public domain if there’s a security breach (and by the way, we’re proposing reducing security here). Oh, and you can’t change your locks, once it’s out there you’re screwed.[/quote]

    Which are actually flawed arguments about the tech – this required the doors and safe to be taken into the lock manufacturer to be opened – yes it could be used to open every lock and safe in the world if you took them into the manufacturer. And see my rant – the keys already exist, it’s just the lock manufacturer is trying to hide behind a smokescreen and pretend they don’t. As I also mentioned before, any security breach which could cause harm would involve releasing Apple’s signing keys into the public domain, which would be a far, far bigger issue than this is – if you don’t trust Apple to keep those secure then I’d move to Android.

    The actual point about the search warrant is a refutation of the suggestion that Apple doing this would then allow the FBI to do whatever they liked with people’s data on iPhones. No they wouldn’t, they’d have to first obtain a warrant just as in this case. Sure it’s a bit different to a search warrant, but it’s still a court order involving all the legal arguments that does – and getting a court order in the US certainly isn’t a soft touch.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    the point which keeps being repeated is that they can’t just extend this to other cases, not without obtaining more court orders, and it will make zero difference to their ability to covertly snoop on anybody.

    Look, in isolation, if they could provide the whatever-we-want-to-call-it to get inside this guy’s phone, then the software is under lock and key and nobody ever uses it again, until we have another “there’s a dead guy and his phone knows where the bomb that’s about to obliterate LA is, but we can’t get into it” situation then I’d be all for them being able to get into it. And that’s where I start on the slippery slope (which despite being used widely as a “your point is rubbish” doesn’t automatically mean a slippery slope doesn’t exist).

    As for:

    Do they? I’ve not seen anybody suggesting that – plenty of commentary suggesting it’s straightforward for Apple to do, but for NSA to do it they’d have to have Apple’s signing codes, which is into the far more tricky area of encryption, rather than the straightforward one of minor software updates which is what this case involves.

    Yeah, fair enough, it’s something I’d picked up when reading about it this week. It might have been one conspiracy theorist techy that said it…tbh, I can’t remember. Looks like maybe I believe the NSA have it and you believe Apple has it. Who knows…either of us could be right or wrong. 🙂

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Would you care to summarise. Because most of them seem to be along the lines of “because it is”.

    Whereas your own claim that it is just the same as a search warrant for a house is clearly argued? You want to argue by analogy you have to make your case. Which you haven’t.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Phew – an interesting argument which isn’t ignoring the tech reality, I was despairing at the existence of such a thing on this thread. In any future case they would have to go through the courts in the same way to get an order – which would involve the same level of argument as this one. The only precedent being set here is that if they have a compelling security (as in Homeland security, not data security) reason for asking Apple to help them access the data then the courts will help them with that (assuming whatever the highest court this makes it to does agree). If in any future case Apple want to play hardball, then they’ll be able to take each case up to the Supreme court to make the FBI prove it is a comparable case. Maybe there is a slippery slope there somewhere, but it doesn’t seem very slippery – or indeed very slopey – to me.

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 379 total)

The topic ‘Apple v the FBI’ is closed to new replies.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.