Apple opposes gov order to unlock iPhone

[Au165]

(02-18-2016, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: That was the impression I was getting from the news reports yesterday on the radio.  Local police would like the precedent also.

This is the biggest issue. It isn't about one phone, it is about the hundreds of requests they will start getting each year to do this across the country. The fear if one of these phones with the changes to assist police get out, hackers could use that to break into other phones. As phones inch closer and closer to being more valuable the licenses and credit cards, mainly because it is both in one location, we don't want to start softening the security on these devices.

Fun fact....

If they remove the wiping function from the phones iOS as well as the time lock that gets longer with each additional wrong answer in theory you could enter a password every 80 milliseconds or 750 passwords a minute. If the guy was using a 4 number pin it is only 10000 combinations which could be cracked in under 14 minutes, assuming it's one of the last once tested. If he used the new 6 pin standard it would be 1 million combinations which would take up to 22 hours, assuming it was one of the last ones tested. If he used the complex password function (goes up to 36 numbers) and picked 12 number it would be 1 Trillion combinations which could take up to 2,536 YEARS.

Moral of the story use longer pins and no one will have the time to break into your stuff anyways. Keep in mind though that it's because an apple hardware limitation that limits the amount of guesses you can process (1 every 80ms). Normal computer passwords or even other system passwords can be hooked up to super computers that can do this much much faster.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 11:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd like to call someone wrong in this thread, but this discussion is well above my knowledge of technology.

But the question is: What good is encrypting something if nobody has the ability to decrypt it?

AU made a good comparison.  When a company sells someone a safe the person who purchases it sets the combination so that even the company that made the safe can not get into it.

But a safe is different because if the government gets a safe that belonged to a terrorist they can cut the door off.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2016, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: AU made a good comparison.  When a company sells someone a safe the person who purchases it sets the combination so that even the company that made the safe can not get into it.

But a safe is different because if the government gets a safe that belonged to a terrorist they can cut the door off.

I guess my confusion was that they were trying to see who they (she) were communicating with, that's why I said someone should be able to decrypt. I can see the differences if they are just looking for data stored on a device. I still think Apple has the tools required, but that's just an ignorant assumption.


Secondly, thanks to all about the lesson(s); I truly learned something today. Chalk that up to one more thing I am now an expert on. I think I am down now to only 2 or 3 things.

[Au165]

(02-18-2016, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess my confusion was that they were trying to see who they (she) were communicating with, that's why I said someone should be able to decrypt. I can see the differences if they are just looking for data stored on a device. I still think Apple has the tools required, but that's just an ignorant assumption.


Secondly, thanks to all about the lesson(s); I truly learned something today. Chalk that up to one more thing I am now an expert on. I think I am down now to only 2 or 3 things.

If all they wanted was who they communicated with they wouldn't need the phone at all. They are after information that never passed through a server, therefor there is no other record of. Things like pictures notes possibly calendar appointments if the phone wasn't syn'd to a cloud server maybe contacts they have in phone but called or contacted some other way. This is more about finding out about them it seems over who they contacted.

[Belsnickel]

(02-18-2016, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: AU made a good comparison.  When a company sells someone a safe the person who purchases it sets the combination so that even the company that made the safe can not get into it.

But a safe is different because if the government gets a safe that belonged to a terrorist they can cut the door off.

But the company also can provide information on how to get into the safe should there be a need. Diagrams to locking mechanisms and what have you that locksmiths, and the company, can use to get into a safe.

The difference I see if that an iPhone is much more common than a safe, and is very likely to hold lots and lots of personal information. Plus, technology, such as a modified OS, can be obtained and transferred very easily making the potential for a hacker with nefarious intentions more likely to obtain and utilize the OS.

I think that Apple should have a way to do it, but I don't like it in the hands of the feds. I also don't like the idea of this OS existing on anything connected to a network. At all. But that's just me. I don't even have an iAnything, I'm more concerned about the precedent than anything.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2016, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't even have an iAnything,

Bought my wife an iRon for her birthday. She wanted a watch, but I told here the stove I got her for our Anniversary already had a clock on it.

[fredtoast]

Kind of off topic, but in a way related to this argument.

Most people don't know that in many states it is illegal to have a secret compartment in yourcar even if it is empty.

That is what will eventually happen with encryption. the only legal encryption programs will be the ones that are designed and sold with a "back door". There will be other options on the free market, but it will be illegal to have them.

[Bmoreblitz]

All this "back door" talk, I thought I was in the After Hours forum.

[Bmoreblitz]

I am amazed that we once fought half the world without giving up our liberties and freedoms and now a rag tag bunch of Terrorist have us shaking in our boots begging the government to do anything to "protect" us.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-18-2016, 03:15 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I am amazed that we once fought half the world without giving up our liberties and freedoms and now a rag tag bunch of Terrorist have us shaking in our boots begging the government to do anything to "protect" us.

I heard that

[Au165]

(02-18-2016, 03:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Kind of off topic, but in a way related to this argument.

Most people don't know that in many states it is illegal to have a secret compartment in yourcar even if it is empty.

That is what will eventually happen with encryption.  the only legal encryption programs will be the ones that are designed and sold with a "back door".  There will be other options on the free market, but it will be illegal to have them.

As you allude to the demand will be filled by a black market supply. The difference is a hidden compartment, while hidden, is much easier to find than encryption. Technology will always be ahead of the law enforcement agencies and it will be a pointless effort. What will happen is these "dark phones" will have a hidden operating system running everything under encryption that law enforcement would never know is there. It would take computer engineers to know what to look for, and you won't be doing that with every day thugs. Sure you may keep random low level criminals from using encryption, but the "terrorists" they will prop up as the reason for the law will be the first ones to acquire the new technology.

[Benton]

(02-18-2016, 03:15 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I am amazed that we once fought half the world without giving up our liberties and freedoms and now a rag tag bunch of Terrorist have us shaking in our boots begging the government to do anything to "protect" us.

But what are you giving up?

If you get arrested, the cops are going through your stuff. They'll go through email if it's relevant, they can take your DNA if it's relevant, they'll rifle through your porn stash, dig under your couch. They'll go through your phone, provided they can access it.

[Au165]

(02-18-2016, 03:41 PM)Benton Wrote: But what are you giving up?

If you get arrested, the cops are going through your stuff. They'll go through email if it's relevant, they can take your DNA if it's relevant, they'll rifle through your porn stash, dig under your couch. They'll go through your phone, provided they can access it.

The worry is this will start a push towards mandating back doors. Once a back door is there then it starts creeping into proactive surveillance type things under patriot act type legislation. I am normally not a beware big brother type person, but this is a slow creep towards a place where the government will be able to get any info they want whenever they want. What we found out from the Snowden issue was through the NSA's secret courts they were able to basically get anything they wanted. Things like encryption are for combating those types of issues, but once a precedent is set it's hard to go backwards.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 03:15 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I am amazed that we once fought half the world without giving up our liberties and freedoms and now a rag tag bunch of Terrorist have us shaking in our boots begging the government to do anything to "protect" us.

What freedoms are we giving up?

Do you think police should not be allowed to conduct searches when there is probable cause to belive that a person is involved in criminal activity?

All of this was done with a valid search warrant and is completely justified under the law.

[Benton]

(02-18-2016, 04:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: The worry is this will start a push towards mandating back doors. Once a back door is there then it starts creeping into proactive surveillance type things under patriot act type legislation. I am normally not a beware big brother type person, but this is a slow creep towards a place where the government will be able to get any info they want whenever they want. What we found out from the Snowden issue was through the NSA's secret courts they were able to basically get anything they wanted. Things like encryption are for combating those types of issues, but once a precedent is set it's hard to go backwards.

I've said before, I disagree with mandating they build in back doors, or mandating developers develop ways to make their product more user-friendly to government agencies.

But if the ability is already there — even if Apple isn't public about it, which is what sounds like what's going on — then, there's no mandate. It's something that already exists. 

[Au165]

(02-18-2016, 04:52 PM)Benton Wrote: I've said before, I disagree with mandating they build in back doors, or mandating developers develop ways to make their product more user-friendly to government agencies.

But if the ability is already there — even if Apple isn't public about it, which is what sounds like what's going on — then, there's no mandate. It's something that already exists. 

The only thing they can do is make it hackable based on the information now about the iOS being update able . The actual order is interesting as well, because Apple originally refused on the grounds it put too much of a burden on the company making the request unreasonable. Sounds like they are going to fight it under those grounds, which makes sense as writing a whole new set of code for a single device seems excessive.

[Bmoreblitz]

(02-18-2016, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What freedoms are we giving up?

Do you think police should not be allowed to conduct searches when there is probable cause to belive that a person is involved in criminal activity?

All of this was done with a valid search warrant and is completely justified under the law.

The phone belongs to the terrorists. Apple merely built the phone. So it would be like making the contractor search the home that it built for a customer. I think that if the FBI wants in that phone then they have a warrant to hack it and get into it, but the government can't force Apple to hack into one of its products and do the FBI's job.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2016, 05:36 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: The phone belongs to the terrorists. Apple merely built the phone. So it would be like making the contractor search the home that it built for a customer. I think that if the FBI wants in that phone then they have a warrant to hack it and get into it, but the government can't force Apple to hack into one of its products and do the FBI's job.

I agree that the law needs to be changed in order to get this information.  But that did not answer the question.  What freedoms would this make you give up IF the law is changed.  No one is free from search when a warrant is obtained.  No one is saying that they can not do this without a warrant.

The Constitution protects you from "unreasonable" search.  I don't see this as any threat to any of my freedoms.

[Bmoreblitz]

(02-18-2016, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree that the law needs to be changed in order to get this information.  But that did not answer the question.  What freedoms would this make you give up IF the law is changed.  No one is free from search when a warrant is obtained.  No one is saying that they can not do this without a warrant.

The Constitution protects you from "unreasonable" search.  I don't see this as any threat to any of my freedoms.

If the FBI are asking for Apple to give them a customised IOS that circumvents security on every IOS device - which is what Apple seem to be suggesting - then Apple are correct to refuse.


If the FBI are only asking purely for the data from this one specific phone - and allow Apple to control the process and not give up the customised SIF - then That would be reasonable. 

[Benton]

(02-18-2016, 05:36 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: The phone belongs to the terrorists. Apple merely built the phone. So it would be like making the contractor search the home that it built for a customer. I think that if the FBI wants in that phone then they have a warrant to hack it and get into it, but the government can't force Apple to hack into one of its products and do the FBI's job.

That's a bad analogy. That's putting a civilian directly in harm's way. That's not common.

But asking specialists for support is. Car company engineers work with investigators when there's belief of faulty equipment that leads to injury.