The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The government is not trying to force Apple to include a backdoor into every phone in perpetuity.

According to Apple, that's exactly what it would amount to. Every phone is not made with a unique OS, so once you create the program to void its security, every phone they've ever made is instantly compromised by the existence of the override.
For some reason they don't trust the government agency that is forcing them against their will to invent it, to follow through with promises to use it once and then destroy it. I wonder why?

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The irony is that this all important info they want is gone anyway. If they create the update the FBI wants, this single phone won't get it anyway because you have to sign into it to get said update and they can't. This is for the next time, which is why Apple is dragging their feet.

 

[LynahFan]

The irony is that this all important info they want is gone anyway. If they create the update the FBI wants, this single phone won't get it anyway because you have to sign into it to get said update and they can't. This is for the next time, which is why Apple is dragging their feet.

Well if that's the case, it's complete crap and the government should cram it.

It really would help if there were such a thing as a journalist with a clue so they could explain the technical details of exactly what the government wants.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

According to Apple, that's exactly what it would amount to. Every phone is not made with a unique OS, so once you create the program to void its security, every phone they've ever made is instantly compromised by the existence of the override.

None of my Apple products have ever spontaneously been changed - the upgrades only occur when I've initiated them after being advised of the available patch. So therefore the only way for the update to be available would be for Apple to publish it which of course they would never do in this case. Of course if the phone can't be hacked and yet the only way for it to be hacked is via an upgrade there's a chicken and egg conundrum that again makes me question Apple's public cries about this situation. Third I can't believe they'd be myopic enough to create a system in which it's an all or nothing process. Fourth if they've been able to keep their system secret enough to keep it out of the hands of everyone else why couldn't this hack be just as secure? If the government has a right to subpoena the records of someone on the grounds of terrorist threats there is no Pandora's box if Apple can bust a singular product which I don't doubt for a second can be done.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What part of "unreasonable search and seizure" is so hard to understand? It is a "seizure" of Apple's resources. There is no legal basis. If the government wants that power, Congress needs to pass a law to authorize said power, and even then it would be an interesting case.

I don't share your fear of all things federal, but those who peddled fear of boogeymen with hypodermic needles and bomb vests have already emasculated and 4th Amendment.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I don't know about the technical aspects of it, but it does bother me that the Feds think it's OK to "draft" the services of a private company without any regard to ethics or legality. Also understand that even if it is only one phone that loses security, the fact that it was done will be enough to damage Apple's trust and valuation with the public. Don't think it's not a big deal to them if a generation of libertarians suddenly doesn't trust them with personal data. It could put them out of business in the long run as the infection spreads. 90% of Apple's value is in their reputation with consumers.

 

[BassAle]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I don't know 100% of the technical details, but this is an iPhone 5C, so it is lacking some specialized security hardware (called the Secure Enclave by Apple) so hacking it is more feasible than an iPhone 5S, 6, etc. I believe the 5C uses 256-bit AES encryption, which is considered unbreakable by the NSA and is approved by the NSA for top secret data. The data stored on the device is encrypted by a 256-bit key that is randomly generated by the phone when the device is setup. Apple doesn't know the key, and a 256-bit key is impossible to brute force. Of course you don't type a 256-bit key to unlock your phone. That key is stored on the iPhone and is encrypted by another key. That key, on an iPhone 5C, is likely generated from the user's passcode and a hardware specific unique ID. When the phone is locked, it 'forgets' this key used to unlock the 256-bit encryption key. It needs to be regenerated to unlock the phone. The passcode is unknown to Apple, and the UID can only be obtained from the phone hardware (this last bit means that the unlock attempt needs to run on the phone itself, unless you have some way to extract the UID from the device, which might be more possible on a 5C).

Anyway, brute force cracking a 6-8 character user generated passcode isn't computationally difficult. The problem is the passcode must be entered on the touchscreen (so not via bluetooth), there is a 80ms delay between attempts to unlock, and the phone can be set to erase itself after 10 incorrect attempts (it could just delete the 256-bit encryption key, which is as good as erasing the data). The FBI wants a way around these limitations so they can go after the weak-link in encryption - the passcode.

It is possible to load signed software via USB and run it on the iPhone. This is what the FBI wants from Apple - a special iOS that does not have the above limitations and will let them brute force crack the user passcode. The software would be loaded into the phone's RAM and executed via a special USB mode, so the data on the phone is not altered.

Apple doesn't want to be in the business of hacking devices that they marketed as secure. Also, what if next time it is a iPhone 6, or some newer iPhone with more advanced security features? Will they need to add a back door to assist with future FBI requests on future 'unbreakable' iPhones? That inherently makes the device less secure, and any back door will eventually be exploited.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

If the government has a right to subpoena the records of someone on the grounds of terrorist threats there is no Pandora's box if Apple can bust a singular product which I don't doubt for a second can be done.

The government has the right to subpoena the records, it does not have the right to force Apple to unlock the phone. They have the right to ask Apple to unlock it, not compel it.

if it is really such a vital matter of national security, why is this dispute so highly publicized? you'd think the feds would want the request and the negotiations to be sealed and secret, not splashed all over the front pages. but I digress...


Let's flip the script a little:
-- suppose the feds asked Apple to unlock the phone and Apple said yes. How many people would be on board with that, and how many people would be criticizing Apple over that decision?

 

[LynahFan]

It is possible to load signed software via USB and run it on the iPhone. This is what the FBI wants from Apple - a special iOS that does not have the above limitations and will let them brute force crack the user passcode. The software would be loaded into the phone's RAM and executed via a special USB mode, so the data on the phone is not altered.

Exactly what I figured. It would affect just his one phone, and Apple can control the special iOS just as securely (or even more securely) than they do with their baseline iOSes. I just can't buy slippery slope or "all devices would be less secure." This would have been no big deal if Apple themselves hadn't raised such a stink. They could have helped quietly, and then agreed with the FBI on a lie to tell about how they got into the phone. There would have been negligible impact on consumers' trust in Apple. But now that Apple has gone and blabbed to the world that this will lead to he End of Days, of course this will hurt Apple. They completely shot themselves in the foot on this one.

 

[BassAle]

Exactly what I figured. It would affect just his one phone, and Apple can control the special iOS just as securely (or even more securely) than they do with their baseline iOSes. I just can't buy slippery slope or "all devices would be less secure." This would have been no big deal if Apple themselves hadn't raised such a stink. They could have helped quietly, and then agreed with the FBI on a lie to tell about how they got into the phone. There would have been negligible impact on consumers' trust in Apple. But now that Apple has gone and blabbed to the world that this will lead to he End of Days, of course this will hurt Apple. They completely shot themselves in the foot on this one.

What happens when the FBI wants a way into more secure phones? Apple might be able to comply in this one case without too much risk to others, it might be impossible in other cases without introducing security holes for everyone so they can comply with these requests in the future.

I doubt there is much to gain here anyway. I'm sure they are already into their email accounts. The only thing they might get from the phone are iMessages and pictures. And this is a employer owned work phone.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What happens when the FBI wants a way into more secure phones? Apple might be able to comply in this one case without too much risk to others, it might be impossible in other cases without introducing security holes for everyone so they can comply with these requests in the future.

"We won't do X now because we don't want to do Y later," is lousy logic. Do X. Fight Y. Not that difficult.

And this is a employer owned work phone.

Another great point - people who use work-owned hardware should have NO reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of who made the hardware. If the owner of the phone (and presumably, all data on it per usual employment agreements) consents, that further weakens Apple's position. The user has ALREADY waived all his rights to privacy, so Apple is not defending his privacy - they're reinstating it.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Let's flip the script a little:
-- suppose the feds asked Apple to unlock the phone and Apple said yes. How many people would be on board with that, and how many people would be criticizing Apple over that decision?

Not sure how useful that is as a thought experiment. Wouldn't people who think it's a bad hypothetical idea still think it's a bad real idea, and vice versa?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I really, truly do not understand the slippery slope argument. Apple will create a piece of software on a standalone machine that interfaces with the phone data to decrypt it. Nobody can hack onto that computer to steal the decryption software, and Apple clearly does not want anyone else to get it. What's the problem?

Government says "help us hack this one phone. We're not asking for every phone, just this one."

Problem is, they can then use this as precedent for the next case, and the case after that, and so on. Thereby making it "help us hack every phone (we want)."

Plus, once it's done once, you can't un-ring that bell. It means it can be done and Apple won't be the only ones who can do it.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Government says "help us hack this one phone. We're not asking for every phone, just this one."

Problem is, they can then use this as precedent for the next case, and the case after that, and so on. Thereby making it "help us hack every phone (we want)."

Plus, once it's done once, you can't un-ring that bell. It means it can be done and Apple won't be the only ones who can do it.

If you let a man marry another man soon we'll have men wanting to marry turtles. It's the same BS argument. This is a very specific case, and one that I have no problem with. If the next case involves another terrorist I fail to see the problem, and I don't believe for a second that Apple is going to have to develop any new technology for this so the last point is probably too late.

I have a lot bigger problem with Apple fighting this than I do with the Government wanting it. They could have quietly offered to help and avoided this mess.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Well done Funeral Mass. Excellent homily by Fr. Scalia. Music was Catholic, not new age.

That's how it's supposed to be done.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

In what universe can the government compel a private entity, citizen or company, to do anything but testify (and not against itself)?

This is all balderdash.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

In what universe can the government compel a private entity, citizen or company, to do anything but testify (and not against itself)?

This is all balderdash.

That's the thing, exactly. It's a horrible precedent. We do not exist for the purpose of serving the demands of the feds. "Now we want you to build a product that does X. Get on it."

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

If you let a man marry another man soon we'll have men wanting to marry turtles. It's the same BS argument.

No, it's not, but nice try. You're arguing that because we allow X, we will also allow Y. That's not what it going on here. This is the equivalent of saying "a man can marry a man once, so men can marry other men all the time." Which is what happens.

Criminal procedure is entirely precedence based. Court says cops can do A, and every cop in the country will do A. Courts say they can't do B, and cops around the country stop doing B.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

In what universe can the government compel a private entity, citizen or company, to do anything but testify (and not against itself)?

This is all balderdash.

Are you joking? The government can compel you to do all kinds of things. Eminent domain, injunctions, restraining orders, etc, etc.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

No, it's not, but nice try. You're arguing that because we allow X, we will also allow Y. That's not what it going on here. This is the equivalent of saying "a man can marry a man once, so men can marry other men all the time." Which is what happens.

Criminal procedure is entirely precedence based. Court says cops can do A, and every cop in the country will do A. Courts say they can't do B, and cops around the country stop doing B.

What does this have to do with criminal procedure?

The courts are not going to rule that all phone companies have to build back doors into their products. It will be a limited ruling, whose scope encompasses precisely one serial number of one model. When the government claims one house by eminent domain, they don't claim all houses.