Latest in Apple v FBI public squabble over iPhone crack demand In the latest salvo in a very public war, Apple's CEO and the FBI's director have published letters arguing their cases over gaining access to a locked iPhone. In Apple's corner, Tim Cook sent an all-staff email Monday morning in which he argued that the case represents a "precedent that threatens everyone's civil liberties …
Supposedly, and it's depending on the news sources and who can be trusted, they were working quietly and Apple asked for a court order. For some reason, the FBI when public instead of secret court. Apparently Apple has worked on some 70 phones for the FBI previously.
Now how much of this real, how much is BS, and how much is theatre, I have no idea.
"Apparently Apple has worked on some 70 phones for the FBI previously. Now how much of this real, how much is BS, and how much is theatre, I have no idea." -- Mark85
It'll make it harder for you to come to a decision if you don't dig a bit deeper.
it becomes clear the FBI are using this as a test case
Not just the FBI either...
To that point, the New York City police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., criticized Apple after it refused to comply with the court order and said that they currently possessed 175 iPhones that they could not unlock.
Charlie Rose recently interviewed Mr. Vance and asked if he would want access to all phones that were part of a criminal proceeding should the government prevail in the San Bernardino case.
Mr. Vance responded: “Absolutely right.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/technology/apple-unlock-iphone-san-bernardino.html?_r=0
I wonder how many of those 175 cases are minor crimes like bookmaking or dealing pot?
This is why the FBI is pressing this case - they felt like they had a winner with this case about terrorism, but they (and every other law enforcement agency in the US) wants to use it for every crime under the sun. Not that it will be limited to only US law enforcement, once Pandora's box is opened it will be essentially impossible for Apple to refuse similar aid to law enforcement in the UK, EU and China among others.
No doubt they'll charge some people with a crime they know won't hold up in court, just to get access to their phone for a fishing expedition or to harass and intimidate someone they don't like (like the ex wife of a cop, or a guy who films a cop doing something illegal) Eventually someone will die due to police misuse of the data they find, so it isn't only a 'good' where people are kept safer from terrorism like the FBI wants to portray.
>a thorough and professional investigation under law
I wonder what the chances of this being resolved are if the following, grosso modo, are possibilities and are acted on: a) the talented and trusted at Apple are 'deputised' and charged with the task of recovering the data; and, b) the FBI issues an undertaking not to demand more of Apple than the data? The former would allow the chain of evidence to remain unbroken, while the latter would allay Apple's concerns about the incidental, but certainly lucrative (to the TLAs), benefits of the reveal.
The rub: precedent. I'm far more inclined to expect that Apple pulling the sought-for data out of anything will be taken as a precedent and the garotte turned a bit tighter; there's no point in any TLA saying--let alone promising--'now and forever, this far and no further'...
I thought the FBI had already confirmed that they just wanted the data, the phone could stay with Apple for them to destroy or do whatever they wanted rather than any chance it being reversed engineered to do the same on other phones.
I wonder how big a fine Apple are willing to accept in order to not open the phone up, a million per week/day until the conform?
From what I could gather in a quick google yesterday (I'm not a lawyer, obviously) there's a Supreme Court case stating that a corporation can be fined a maximum of $100K for contempt of court. Even as a daily fine, I'm sure Apple would consider that a cost of doing business as $36.5 million/yr is chicken feed for them - less than 1/10th of one percent of their yearly profit.
It is very easy to extract the data from any locked electronic device. I thought everyone knows this. You dismantle the item, connect probes to the memory chips and sequentially read out the data byte by byte. then you can load the data into a PC and display everything. easy! the data in the memory chips is not encrypted.
this news item is all about politics, not tech.
That's ---^ where you went wrong.
I believe it's very likely possible to 'crack' their way past the phone's security, but I don't think it's "very easy".
My assumption is that it's very unlikely that there's not at least several subtle implementation flaws. History of cryptography indicates that it's almost a general rule.
"I believe it's very likely possible to 'crack' their way past the phone's security, but I don't think it's "very easy"." -- JeffyPoooh
This is the key issue: whilst brute forcing the cryptography is probably infeasible (and if it were possible those capable of it would would be very reluctant for that to become known), that does not mean the device itself cannot be hacked open.
If the phone were suspected of containing the date, time and location of a credible NBC attack, government would have deployed a good deal more effort: even the lack of forensic care during custody is evidence against any such effort having been considered. That leaves us with, at best, the possibility the FBI is trying to do this "on the cheap" without regard for significant ramifications; and at worst that it is a deliberate attempt at setting a precedent.
Who said it would be at their own cost?
El Reg linked to the court order in previous articles, which clearly states Apple would be reimbursed for their efforts.
For you to continue with utter bullshit claiming Apple are being forced to do it for free, weakens Apples stance as it shows that even their supporters have no clue.
Be informed, and be correct. Its the best way to beat the government FUD.
Icon, because that's exactly what I do when I read yet another git sprouting "facebook facts" as truth.
"Who said it would be at their own cost?"
Ah, in that case Apple should give them an FOQ; a simple statement saying that the estimated cost of the modification, including loss of goodwill (a major part of the company's value for a brand like Apple), is five billion dollars.
"So, based on the FBI's reasoning, ASSA ABLOY, SentrySafe, etc. might be required to break into every safe or strongbox they manufacturer that might be used by criminals... and at their own cost? Muppets." -- Lobotoman
In a small way, it's better than that -- it won't be at their own cost (although it seems unlikely they will be able to charge their reputational damage as cost). But in a bigger way, it's worse: not so much that they might be required to break into their own products but they might be required to create tools to allow others to do so.
"It cost Apple more to write Tom Crook's letter than it would do to for them to disable the pin retry counter."
Depends what you mean by cost: in one sense, it didn't cost Gerald Ratner anything to say that his products were "total crap" -- in another you could easily argue it cost £0.5 billion.
this is a form of "discovery" and Apple can recovery cost once it is approved by judge. Historically Courts have ordered individuals to handle over their "keys". In the end, every big name lawyer will side with the FBI because the legal system will grind to a halt if discovery of docs is restrained, because Everyone will store critical data on phones or sets of phones,etc.
I wonder at what point does the requirement to disclose information for an investigation, crosses the 13th amendment line and becomes a requirement to perform work, where "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" shall exist within the US?
Supplying known information is one thing, but being required to work to create a version of an OS (key) that lets the government access information, doesn't feel like the same thing.
UK commentators should bear in mind that UK legal system and the US legal systems differ significantly in their treatment of legal precedent.
In legal terms a "precedent" is not just an easy term for "a previous decision". Unfortunately in the coverage of this talking about how this would "establish" a precedent, this crucial distinction is being criminally overlooked.
> In legal terms a "precedent" is not just an easy term for "a previous decision".
In practice it is... just as in mathematics a theorem can be deduced from axioms, but usually is deduced from earlier theorems because it is easier. Judges in both jurisdictions will take into account laws (as passed by the appropriate government) and case law (reasoning as applied by judges, often from a higher court, in previous cases)
It doesn't alter the outcome, legally speaking, but it does make future cases easier for judges to assess.
If the case goes to the Supreme Court and they reach a majority decision (that detail may be crucial as the Supreme Court looks to be short the 9th member for at least another year) then the decision IS legal precedent which every lower court is required to observe. Unless the opinion is written to specifically apply in just this one case, it will open up the floodgates for thousands of requests.
All the FBI wants to establish is that they can force Apple to do work for them. The fact that it may be far more difficult to do this on a newer iPhone, and will require tons of resources for them to do to thousands of phones once requests start rolling in from every podunk PD in the country, won't matter once that precedent has been established.
The FBI wanted Apple to fight it all the way to Supreme Court, so they can get this precedent.
". . . we have awesome new technology that creates a serious tension between two values we all treasure – privacy and safety," -- Coney
I wonder if one of the obstacles to useful debate is the presentation of this as a simple tension between the privacy and safety. My view is that anything that causes the innocent to have less privacy tends to decrease their safety, even if you were to accept (and I don't necessarily agree) that governments to pose no threat to such safety.
I read that the couple had other mobile phones which they destroyed before their rampage - surely those would have been the most likely to have produced some evidence. Why smash them otherwise?
Also, if Farook was working in a public service capacity, surely the last thing a covert terrorist (if he & his partner were so) would want would be to raise suspicion or leave a trail by using a work supplied phone. The records suggest he made "sporadic" icloud backups of the iPhone in question.
Seems to me the Feds are leveraging this tragedy with a rather overbearing focus on the encryption/decryption agenda. That the San Bernardino officials changed the iCloud password at the behest of the FBI only makes me more suspicious.
"I read that the couple had other mobile phones which they destroyed before their rampage - surely those would have been the most likely to have produced some evidence" -- Mitoo Bobsworth
Perhaps the Farooks forgot that this was a (possibly MDMd) work phone and were careless. And perhaps they just forgot to destroy this phone. And perhaps the iPhone has contact details for the Mr Big behind it all. And perhaps they never called Mr Big so there are no phone records. So perhaps this is necessary for the FBI to get his number ...
But Mr Big probably reads the news. So he's probably destroyed his burner phone anyway.
Apple need to realise that, big and rich as they are, they're not above the law. Comply with the lawful order of a court within the jurisdiction you do business, or face the consequences. Love to see Tim Cook slapped in jail until he purges his contempt and issues directions for Apple to comply with the order, might teach him a lesson in humility.
Their mistake was allowing the technique the FBI is using to work in the first place. DFU mode shouldn't allow a new firmware image to be installed without permission from the owner of the device, signified by unlocking it. They need to lick their wounds, and fix that in future iOS versions.
Since a corporation has the same legal standing and subject to the same legal privileges and immunities as an individual under US Law the courts would have the same problem in attempting to jail Cook as they would in attempting to jail a portion of a persons anatomy for some trespass of the law.
Cook, the Board of Directors of Apple, the stockholders, and etc. can't be put in jail over this matter as they have done nothing that would trigger such an order and any judge that would issue such an order in this case would quickly find the whole weight of the entire US Legal System falling upon their head.
The most that can be done is to find the ~Corporation~ in Contempt of Court and issue a fine for every day they are In Contempt. The publicity value of such an order would offset any dollar amount that the court could lawfully impose.
Tim Cook and the BoD of Apple have responsibilities to the stockholders that are clear cut in this case and if they engage in any sort of compliance activity that is not clearly covered by existing law they can find themselves individually and collectively on the receiving end of some very expensive actions brought against them by unhappy stockholders
When talking about the law, it helps if you know (or do some research) how it actually works, rather than how you think it might or should work. Some useful search terms to google are: "corporation contempt of court"
You'd find that officers of a company can be both fined and imprisoned for their failure (whether willful or not, whether a named party to the court order or not) to ensure an order against their company is complied with.
In short, you're utterly wrong about everything.
"The consequence is a legal challenge to the validity of the court order." -- nijam
Exactly: it's extraordinary how many people who use as their main argument some version of "it's the law, stupid" understand (or want to portray) Apple using the appeals process as outright defiance of the court. The court gave them leave to appeal when it made the order; Apple don't agree with the decision, so they are appealing it. There is (as yet) no failure to "comply with a lawful order."
"Comply with the lawful order of a court within the jurisdiction you do business, or face the consequences."
Which court? This is only at the magistrates level. It can, and probably will, be appealed right up to the US Supreme court. Only if and when Apple lose at that level do they have to comply or face the consequences.
Is that there is no way to recover from an update that is interrupted in progress, or if Apple provides a borked update that stops phones from properly booting.
As a compromise DFU mode could authenticate the phone to iTunes. When an unlocked phone is connected to iTunes it would create a public/private key pair, with one half stored on the phone in a location where it can be read in DFU mode and the other in iTunes.
In order to perform a DFU mode update the phone would be required to authenticate that public/private key pair. If they did this it would still allow end users to recover from a bad flash (if they had access to an iTunes they had connected their unlocked phone to once) but block updates from third parties who didn't have access to an iTunes you'd used previously.
When all the talking stops and all the soap boxes are put away, one fact will still remain: the government is trying to compel individual people* to build them the equivalent of a set of lock-picking tools to break into the device in question.
We - and the government - can say that they are getting 'Apple' to do this but there is no disembodied entity called 'Apple' that will be writing the lines of codes required - it will be flesh and blood human beings.
And those humans have their own thoughts and feelings and beliefs and principles and may well feel very strongly about what they are being asked to do.
Sure, they are employed by Apple so if they want to stay employed, they should perform the tasks assigned to them, but what if they refuse, on principle? I've certainly refused certain 'requests' from bosses in the past when I felt strongly about them. Thankfully I haven't been fired due to this stubbornness but in each case, I wouldn't have taken the stance unless I was willing to be fired for it.
So what happens then?
Apple is ordered to get this done and so the board agree it should be done. They pass it on down the chain and, when it finally gets to a group of engineers, they all refuse. It goes back up the chain and 'Apple' reply to the government/the courts that they are unable to comply because they do not have anyone with suitable technical knowledge who is willing to do this.
Would Apple be compelled to hire new engineers?
If so, they will need to train them and, as the work they would be doing is very sensitive, there would have to be a bit of legal back-and-forth with the contracts, resulting in significant delays.
That's all hypothetical, of course, but the point is that the government wants to command individuals who are not in their employment to create something whether they like it or not.
* - I.e. the engineers at Apple who will actually design and build and load the software.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
