ADVERTISEMENT

Apple loves terrorists

cnsaguy

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2002
18,190
23,848
113
A long-brewing conflict between one of the world's largest and most recognizable companies and the FBI leapt into public view on Tuesday after a federal judge ordered Apple to help government investigators find a way into an iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, California, massacre last December.

Link
 
This is the wrong case/instance for Apple to make a stand on. There's no reason that they can't make a custom firmware to do this because the phone is an iPhone 5C. If it were a 5S or newer it would be a different story. By making an artificial stance when there's no technical reason to not comply, they are hurting the overall debate on encryption. Consumers and politicians won't understand the difference between what the FBI is requesting in this case and the absurd debate over mandating encryption backdoors.

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/

I'm also quite disappointed that the FBI has so far been unable to break-in on their own. They have physical control of the device and can take it apart and attach tools to read/modify memory, decap ICs, etc. Is it easy or cheap? Of course not. But they should have the means to do so.
 
This is the wrong case/instance for Apple to make a stand on. There's no reason that they can't make a custom firmware to do this because the phone is an iPhone 5C. If it were a 5S or newer it would be a different story. By making an artificial stance when there's no technical reason to not comply, they are hurting the overall debate on encryption. Consumers and politicians won't understand the difference between what the FBI is requesting in this case and the absurd debate over mandating encryption backdoors.

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/

I'm also quite disappointed that the FBI has so far been unable to break-in on their own. They have physical control of the device and can take it apart and attach tools to read/modify memory, decap ICs, etc. Is it easy or cheap? Of course not. But they should have the means to do so.
Why would you think the FBI would be the ones to crack the phone? They are a law enforcement agency. This would fall more in line with the 3 letter agencies or private industry.

Edit: The Other 3 letter agencies.
 
Shocked people would support the government forcing an unaffiliated entity to do forced labor to aid in investigations. Not Apple's job to help the FBI or anyone else.

Good on Apple. Almost inspired to buy an Apple phone.
 
Why would you think the FBI would be the ones to crack the phone? They are a law enforcement agency. This would fall more in line with the 3 letter agencies or private industry.

Edit: The Other 3 letter agencies.
Pretty sure they have forensics teams. Regardless, they should be able to enlist the help of another agency if needed before having to beg Apple in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
Shocked people would support the government forcing an unaffiliated entity to do forced labor to aid in investigations. Not Apple's job to help the FBI or anyone else.

Good on Apple. Almost inspired to buy an Apple phone.
This is a good argument that I'm extremely sympathetic to. Why is Apple involved in the case? If I run someone over with a car do the feds ring up GM and force them to help out? Is Apple billing the government for their services? Apple does not have the data. They were not a witness in the case. How can they be compelled to go out of their way to help out?
 
Hey fûck you govt

how about we stop bombing crapistans & dabbling in civil wars - maybe just we'll stop having these towelheads wanna kill us eventually

BTW, if someone was able to get verlander upton pics, couldn't they also this ish

apple w bad ass response:
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

February 16, 2016

A Message to Our Customers


The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook
 
Pretty sure they have forensics teams. Regardless, they should be able to enlist the help of another agency if needed before having to beg Apple in court.
You would think but you'd be surprised at how poorly they work together.
 
Amusing that the same people yelling that Apple isn't responsible for what terrorists may or may not use their phones for, are the same ones cheering zealots like Sanders and Clinton in trying to make gun makers legally liable for anything that a criminal may do while using one of their firearms, despite the gun maker having done everything legally and by the book, from leaving their factory to authorized distributors.

For the record I do side with Apple here.
 
BTW, if someone was able to get verlander upton pics, couldn't they also this ish
Those were stored in their iCloud and people were able to brute force users' iCloud passwords to get into their accounts. If Apple is subpoenaed for iCloud data they can and do surrender it.

I think I've come to the conclusion that Apple could and should help the government in this case, especially because of the high profile nature, but they are well within their rights to not do so and should not be compelled to do so. I think Apple and the FBI both are choosing this case to make a battle over for political and legal precedent reasons.
 
The implication here is that apple would've done it had it been kept secret. Interesting.
I highly doubt this. Apple knows it will spread like wildfire once created.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said today his office has 175 iPhones it can't open because of encryption, and said he doesn't believe it should be up to Apple whether or not it cooperates with law enforcement.
 
The McAfee guy claimed he could unlock the phone in less than a week if the FBI tasked him.
 
I highly doubt this. Apple knows it will spread like wildfire once created.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said today his office has 175 iPhones it can't open because of encryption, and said he doesn't believe it should be up to Apple whether or not it cooperates with law enforcement.
Do you mean that it will spread like wildfire because Apple will just be asked to do it for other cases once they do it for this one? Because they've already done it for many phones in the past. There's varying levels of encryption and protection on the different models and OS's. The 5c is minimally protected. Apple painted it to be a case of "if we unlock this one phone it will break the security on everyone's phones" which isn't the cast.

The McAfee guy claimed he could unlock the phone in less than a week if the FBI tasked him.
jlaw-okay.gif


Listening to John McAfee is like listening to Tuxedo Yoda about expansion.

If you value privacy at all, you will side with apple on this.
I keep going back and forth on this. The idea that if Apple unlocks this one phone it will automatically harm the security of all other iPhones is bullshit. However, it is interesting from a legal perspective. A proper warrant was obtained in this case.

The issue is, Apple does not have any data belonging to the phone or the terrorist. The feds demanding that Apple help them is akin to the feds demanding that a safe manufacturer help them break into a safe just because they have the expertise to know how to do it. It's not like the safe manufacturer has a copy of the key or has any connection to the information inside. They just built and sold a guy a safe. Now if the government asked the safe company to help out and they wanted to out of the kindness of their heart, then of course. But why would the safe company want to help the government out and therefore help undermine the perceived quality of their own product? They wouldn't. To me this case is less about privacy and encryption but more about the ability of the government to compel a private entity to help them with a case they are not connected to.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean that it will spread like wildfire because Apple will just be asked to do it for other cases once they do it for this one? Because they've already done it for many phones in the past. There's varying levels of encryption and protection on the different models and OS's. The 5c is minimally protected. Apple painted it to be a case of "if we unlock this one phone it will break the security on everyone's phones" which isn't the cast.

When did they do it in the past?
 
When did they do it in the past?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fe...uspects-iphones-at-least-70-times-in-the-past

Apple says they won't do it anymore because "For all devices running iOS 8.0 and later versions, Apple will not perform iOS data extractions as data extraction tools are no longer effective. The files to be extracted are protected by an encryption key that is tied to the user’s passcode, which Apple does not possess." This ignores the fact that Apple definitely can help obtain the user's passcode as the feds have asked in this case.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf
 
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fe...uspects-iphones-at-least-70-times-in-the-past

Apple says they won't do it anymore because "For all devices running iOS 8.0 and later versions, Apple will not perform iOS data extractions as data extraction tools are no longer effective. The files to be extracted are protected by an encryption key that is tied to the user’s passcode, which Apple does not possess." This ignores the fact that Apple definitely can help obtain the user's passcode as the feds have asked in this case.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/
 
Do you mean that it will spread like wildfire because Apple will just be asked to do it for other cases once they do it for this one? Because they've already done it for many phones in the past. There's varying levels of encryption and protection on the different models and OS's. The 5c is minimally protected. Apple painted it to be a case of "if we unlock this one phone it will break the security on everyone's phones" which isn't the cast.


jlaw-okay.gif


Listening to John McAfee is like listening to Tuxedo Yoda about expansion.


I keep going back and forth on this. The idea that if Apple unlocks this one phone it will automatically harm the security of all other iPhones is bullshit. However, it is interesting from a legal perspective. A proper warrant was obtained in this case.

The issue is, Apple does not have any data belonging to the phone or the terrorist. The feds demanding that Apple help them is akin to the feds demanding that a safe manufacturer help them break into a safe just because they have the expertise to know how to do it. It's not like the safe manufacturer has a copy of the key or has any connection to the information inside. They just built and sold a guy a safe. Now if the government asked the safe company to help out and they wanted to out of the kindness of their heart, then of course. But why would the safe company want to help the government out and therefore help undermine the perceived quality of their own product? They wouldn't. To me this case is less about privacy and encryption but more about the ability of the government to compel a private entity to help them with a case they are not connected to.

I think you're excusing Apple a bit much here. They ARE connected; they made the device and software that has completely enabled a terrorist in this case to communicate and store data outside the capability of law enforcement, even after a terrorist attack has been carried out. It's not Apple's data but it's their device and software that is providing this capability to criminals or in this case, terrorists.

This is not to say they are LIABLE for any of this, nor should they ever be. But they are at least connected and integral in this investigation since all of the comms and data were done using their product.
 
Meh. The TC headline is a distinction without a difference. The key to the article, which I agree with and already wrote about ITT, is the ability of the government to compel someone to help them with an investigation. I don't think it matters if they are getting access to the data by brute forcing the PIN or getting access to the data by passing the lock screen.

I think you're excusing Apple a bit much here. They ARE connected; they made the device and software that has completely enabled a terrorist in this case to communicate and store data outside the capability of law enforcement, even after a terrorist attack has been carried out. It's not Apple's data but it's their device and software that is providing this capability to criminals or in this case, terrorists.

This is not to say they are LIABLE for any of this, nor should they ever be. But they are at least connected and integral in this investigation since all of the comms and data were done using their product.
Should gun companies be forced to help the feds in murder cases? Should safe companies be forced to unlock safes? Apple has provided the feds with information that they have. Now they're being forced to defeat the protections put into their own products. Yes, I know gun company employees will often testify in murder cases but they do so under their own volition as paid experts and are not defeating their own product.
 
Last edited:
Should gun companies be forced to help the feds in murder cases? Should safe companies be forced to unlock safes? Apple has provided the feds with information that they have. Now they're being forced to defeat the protections put into their own products. Yes, I know gun company employees will often testify in murder cases but they do so under their own volition as paid experts and are not defeating their own product.

What secrets does a gun hide?
 
Grooves in the barrel, specific models, shooting characteristics, etc. The feds hire their own experts to do forensics. If they want an employee of a gun company to help in the investigation or testify in court they ask them nicely. They can't compel them to help.

That's not the same, but it doesn't matter.

Why have Microsoft and Google not been drug into this? Android and WinPhones don't have the same level encryption or they've already complied?
 
That's not the same, but it doesn't matter.

Why have Microsoft and Google not been drug into this? Android and WinPhones don't have the same level encryption or they've already complied?
Yeah, the safe company comparison is much more apropos.

Google came out in support of Apple. Most Android phones do not ship with encryption enabled by default and I'm not sure if the encryption uses the pin as a component of the encryption. The protections just aren't as robust and the feds can probably get the data if they need it. Interestingly, there have been cases where PCs were encrypted and the feds wanted access to it and I don't believe the software or hardware vendors have been compelled to help decrypt it. Microsoft has been battling with the government over cloud data sovereignty and is likely headed to the supreme court eventually. A different situation for sure but no one uses Windows Phones (even I'm using Android at present). Windows Phone could ship encrypted by default but last I checked it I don't think it does. Windows 10 has BitLocker encryption built in. Only a matter of time before it is enabled by default.
 
Woot is absolutely right here. It is amazing that so many of you are willing to throw away any privacy you may still retain in the interest of tracking down some largely useless information.
 
The FBI doesn't want a back door, OK they probably do but that is not what they're asking for. They will give the phone to Apple and all they want back is the data. Apple can keep the phone and destroy everything. They already have the access to get into the phones, they'd be stupid to not be able to access their own product. They're just masters at PR and this will sell them a few thousand more phones. Bill Gates came out and said Apple should give the FBI the data on the phone.
 
The FBI doesn't want a back door, OK they probably do but that is not what they're asking for. They will give the phone to Apple and all they want back is the data. Apple can keep the phone and destroy everything. They already have the access to get into the phones, they'd be stupid to not be able to access their own product. They're just masters at PR and this will sell them a few thousand more phones. Bill Gates came out and said Apple should give the FBI the data on the phone.
Bob, they want a back door, dont be stupid. In the time its taken them to bring this to court, they could have easily cracked the encryption. You are naive if you think otherwise.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT