Why Apple says iPhone court order violates its free speech

[Nbadan]

For all intents and purposes, this is effectively a "government backdoor"...

By then apple has made it's phone encryption software so secure the crack is outdated...think it will make a patch?

[ElNono]

Furthermore, legally speaking, it's not a crime to build an encryption system. Apple here is not the defendant, it's a third party company.

The interpretation that the All Writs act can be used to compel a company to undermine it's own security to solve somebody else's problem is dubious at best.

That's why what Apple is really pushing for is having Congress to step forward and actually enact legislation that specifically deals with this, fully understanding that such a backdoor undermines US business interests worldwide.

[ElNono]

By then apple has made it's phone encryption software so secure the crack is outdated...think it will make a patch?

And therein lies the problem. Once the government has a legal precedent where it can compel Apple to write whatever backdoor it so chooses, then Apple is no longer in control of it's security.

It's also problematic, because now other (more repressive) governments will request the same.

It's a slippery slope that also affects their compe iveness. A company in Germany or Seoul can build actual secure phones, where Apple no longer can, which makes their products less attractive.

And it's not just Apple. Once the legal precedent is set, there's nothing stopping the government from requesting the same on Intel, Cisco, etc.

[Nbadan]

The court order is not looking for a generic firmware update that can be used against other iPhones. Its request is narrow in scope, asking for an update customized for that specific device. And because the FBI would have to send Apple the iPhone to apply the update, the custom software would never have left Apple.

Apple has argued that creating such a bypass for the iPhone's security would create a method for others to exploit the iPhone -- hackers, corporations, foreign governments, and the U.S. government alike. But if that code never leaves Apple's control, perhaps it could prevent such errant usage after all.

“All companies have a way to modify their own devices and software -- it’s like car companies having spare keys for individual cars ... they exist,” said Lance James, chief scientist at Flashpoint, a threat intelligence and data analytics company. “Even if that requires them to modify the firmware with a key they have, they don’t have to give that software to the FBI.

”

http://www.infoworld.com/article/303...ily_2016-02-19

"Apple’s current refusal to comply with the Court’s Order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,

[ElNono]

That's now how it works though. There's no such things as a "firmware customized for that specific device". The lack of understanding on how this work is really the biggest issue with this.

Ultimately, Apple's main objection is not with the creation of the software, that they admit they can create, it's the legal precedent set by compelling them to do it using a 3 centuries old law.

[ElNono]

FWIW...

San Bernardino Police: Reasonably Good Chance Nothing Of Value On Shooter's iPhone

San Bernardino police chief, Jarrod Burguan, who was part of the investigation into the two shooters who killed 14 during a mass shooting event last December, says there probably isn't any useful information on Syed Farook's government-issued phone. "I'll be honest with you, I think there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone," Burguan said. Burguan is siding with the FBI, though, which is seeking to compel Apple to build custom software to allow law enforcement to extract data from Farook's phone. "This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation," Burguan told NPR. "To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."

[ElNono]

Apple does not keep or store the device unique key. That's why it's being compelled to write the software.

The car analogy is pretty terrible too, tbh, an encryption key works nothing like a lock and key. You can make a key given a lock. It doesn't work like that with encryption. You have to either extract the key from the chip, or have access to the key to repeatedly brute force the decryption.

That's why I'm saying that trying to "water down" this discussion for mass consumption has been a terrible thing.

[Nbadan]

That's now how it works though. There's no such things as a "firmware customized for that specific device". The lack of understanding on how this work is really the biggest issue with this.

Ultimately, Apple's main objection is not with the creation of the software, that they admit they can create, it's the legal precedent set by compelling them to do it using a 3 centuries old law.

....maybe, but the Iphone 5c can be cracked with software....later models such as the IPhone 6/6S Touch ID is key 'slotted' to a isolated "Secure Enclave" on the Apple A8 chip. The same area also holds credit card indices. Once the Touch ID paired, the hardware is set unwriteable/unlockable. Apple can not break in, nor can anyone. The only way is to get a new SoC board, and Touch ID, paired by Apple.....

[ElNono]

....maybe, but the Iphone 5c can be cracked with software....later models such as the IPhone 6/6S Touch ID is key 'slotted' to a isolated "Secure Enclave" on the Apple A8 chip. The same area also holds credit card indices. Once the Touch ID paired, the hardware is set unwriteable/unlockable. Apple can not break in, nor can anyone. The only way is to get a new SoC board, and Touch ID, paired by Apple.....

Ehh, that's how is designed to operate. But you can break in. It just costs quite a bit of time and money. ie: you can send it to a chinese lab to do what chipworks does for 500k (decap, image and extract the MCU private key). This is stuff that's been done many, many times. That's how smartcards on satellite systems or even game consoles are hacked all the time, and actually a big reason the DMCA came to be to begin with.

Nothing really is uncrackeable. It just takes different orders of time, money, and more importantly, power. Apple design sought to avoid being asked to provide encryption keys. The reasoning is that if they don't have them, they can't possibly provide them.

That doesn't make getting the key impossible, it makes it costly and time consuming. But, "time consuming" is something the FBI doesn't want to deal with if they can just order Apple not to pursue that route.

[Splits]

Strange bedfellows...

Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent

• CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA

ARE APPLE AND other tech companies somehow against America’s national security if they create uncrackable encryption software that government investigators or even the company’s own engineers can’t break into?


That’s the question coming to a head in the controversy over whether or not Apple should be forced to engineer new software to allow the FBI to unlock the iPhone used by one of the terrorists from the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people in my home state of California last year.


The attacks were unspeakable and more needs to be done to prevent attacks like these in the future. But the FBI cannot mandate that Apple create a backdoor to override the iPhone’s encryption features without creating a dangerous precedent that could cast a long shadow over the future of how we use our phones, laptops and the internet for years to come. We must understand the gravity of what is at stake if we give government this unprecedented review of our private communications.


At first glance, the issue seems simple: Why shouldn’t law enforcement have access to information that could help us hunt down other terrorists or even to help prevent other terrorist attacks in the future?


But this simplification overlooks the reason why companies have built their systems so securely to begin with: namely, to prevent criminals, terrorists and hackers from gaining access to our private and sensitive information. It’s a huge technological breakthrough that engineers are able to build systems so secure that even their own architects cannot break into them. And it’s why major players in the tech industry—from Facebook and Twitter to Microsoft and Google—are lining up to support Apple’s stance.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWIW...

San Bernardino Police: Reasonably Good Chance Nothing Of Value On Shooter's iPhone

San Bernardino police chief, Jarrod Burguan, who was part of the investigation into the two shooters who killed 14 during a mass shooting event last December, says there probably isn't any useful information on Syed Farook's government-issued phone. "I'll be honest with you, I think there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone," Burguan said. Burguan is siding with the FBI, though, which is seeking to compel Apple to build custom software to allow law enforcement to extract data from Farook's phone. "This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation," Burguan told NPR. "To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."

I get utilitarian ethic in policy making but when it comes to personal freedoms and rights I don't think it should matter.

[Nbadan]

CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA

[ElNono]

Strange bedfellows...

I would normally laud him for his "integrity" blah, blah, blah, except that I already know he has none... most likely explanation is that Google/Facebook/Microsoft are one of his largest donors, IMO...

[ElNono]

I get utilitarian ethic in policy making but when it comes to personal freedoms and rights I don't think it should matter.

I agree. But then again, I think the biggest issue here is the attempt to coerce the courts to do Congress' job with a 200 year old law.

I understand it's an election year, and Congress will basically not touch any hot potato item. But it should really be their job to legislate about this. Just put your votes where your mouth is, and if the majority wants backdoors, I'm sure Apple will live with that decision, even if it doesn't agree with it.

Funnily enough, this is another up by Barry, who should've sent a bill to Congress instead of trying to force this politically through the courts. The continuation of mass surveillance is probably one of the worst things of his presidency.

[MultiTroll]

Calif Judge said Apple had to open it.
Now this Brooklyn wussy judge says they don't.

Now the guvment is going to appeal it.
Where and when does this end?

[TDMVPDPOY]

probably see lots of photos of goats and yams...

[pgardn]

Unfortunately, this is a relatively complex topic, and it's difficult to just 'water it down' for mass consumption. The media coverage has been pretty lame in general due mostly to that.

I have seen more, "this is what it's really about arguments", than I can ever remember.
So personally, I'm going with the argument that people are going to make this into an argument of their choosing.

I think the above is a fitting summary at this point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have seen more, "this is what it's really about arguments", than I can ever remember.
So personally, I'm going with the argument that people are going to make this into an argument of their choosing.

I think the above is a fitting summary at this point.

It's pretty standard in federal court to look to what is actually happening as opposed to the labels. IE if the feds get their way what Apple will actually have to do. When it comes down to writing a crack to their firmware protections it should be easily seen as a form of speech even if it is to a machine.

A federal court also recent eviscerated a similar case asking for a similar crack:

A federal judge in New York ruled in favor of Apple on Monday, saying that an obscure Colonial-era law did not authorize him to force the firm to lift data from an iPhone at the government’s request.

The ruling is not binding in any other court, but it takes on an outsize importance as the U.S. government battles Apple in a separate case in California over whether the tech firm should help unlock a phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack in December.

The two cases involve different versions of iPhone’s operating system and vastly different requests for technical help, but they both turn on whether a law from 1789 known as the All Writs Act can be applied to cases in which the government cannot get at encrypted data stored on suspects’ devices.

Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn, who sits in the Eastern District of New York, has become the first federal judge to rule that the act does not permit a court to order companies to pull encrypted data off a customer’s phone or tablet.

In a 50-page opinion disdainful of the government’s arguments, Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...82d_story.html

[MultiTroll]

I have seen more, "this is what it's really about arguments", than I can ever remember.
So personally, I'm going with the argument that people are going to make this into an argument of their choosing.

I think the above is a fitting summary at this point.

Right.
I'm not on either side.
Just that left as it is, great, terrorist phucks can communicate by smart phone.
This way the accomplished planners in their group can communicate to Fasheed Sheepie and give orders.
I'd like to see this stopped whether it be by private or government.

Assholes can't/won't cooperate with one another.

[ElNono]

Right.
I'm not on either side.
Just that left as it is, great, terrorist phucks can communicate by smart phone.
This way the accomplished planners in their group can communicate to Fasheed Sheepie and give orders.
I'd like to see this stopped whether it be by private or government.

Assholes can't/won't cooperate with one another.

You can't stop that, even if you unlock any phones. Strong crypto is a well known, and well studied subject. There's no "crack" for RSA or ECC (yet).

There's nothing stopping bad actors from writing their own encryption apps and running them on their phones or computers. It's very likely that's already happening.

The way you deal with that is doing intelligence work.

Unfortunately, there's people that still think that any encryption is easily breakable, and that's just not true.

RSA has been around since the 1970s, there's still no quick solution to break a 4096 bit key. Quantum computing looks promising, but it's more a dream than a reality right now.

[pgardn]

It's pretty standard in federal court to look to what is actually happening as opposed to the labels. IE if the feds get their way what Apple will actually have to do. When it comes down to writing a crack to their firmware protections it should be easily seen as a form of speech even if it is to a machine.

A federal court also recent eviscerated a similar case asking for a similar crack:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...82d_story.html

In court you go for facts that allow you to win via the law. This does not necessarily illustrate all the ramifications a complex situation like this might have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In court you go for facts that allow you to win via the law. This does not necessarily illustrate all the ramifications a complex situation like this might have.

But it is an example of what Apple is actually arguing in court as opposed to your general dismissal that we cannot know what they are arguing.

[pgardn]

But it is an example of what Apple is actually arguing in court as opposed to your general dismissal that we cannot know what they are arguing.

That is NOT what I wrote.

People/ press arguing about the situation and what really is at stake is not the same as what Apple argues in court.
Read again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is NOT what I wrote.

People/ press arguing about the situation and what really is at stake is not the same as what Apple argues in court.
Read again.

The notions are not mutually exclusive. I'm trying to get this discussion amongst people to focus on what matters ie the reality of the people in court and the arguments actually being made. Judicial review, law, and what is filed is what is at stake. What Apple is arguing is part of that.

[pgardn]

The notions are not mutually exclusive. I'm trying to get this discussion amongst people to focus on what matters ie the reality of the people in court and the arguments actually being made. Judicial review, law, and what is filed is what is at stake. What Apple is arguing is part of that.

Ok. Understood. As an example...

The State of Texas making an abortion law the Supreme Court is supposed to take up soon... there is always much more behind what is argued for the sake of making a case viable. We all know there is much more behind the State of Texas requiring abortion clinics to be close to emergency centers and hospitals. According to many parties from software encryption experts, to privacy rights, to the FBI exerting control over a larger swath of domestic territory, to the safety of the citizenry, this Apple case seems to have it all if viewed from a wider perspective. And viewing this from so many angles is a part of what many experts from many different areas are doing which makes it confusing and interesting. And it is also putting ideological enemies on the same side in some instances which is always curious and refreshing.

All I am saying is there is lots more. And people who have very strong opinions concerning specific personal interests are feasting on all sorts of aspects concerning this case.