FBI gets court order forcing Apple to engineer a backdoor into iPhone

LincLinc OwnerDetroit Icrontian
in Science & Tech

The FBI has succeeded in getting a US federal court to issue an order to Apple to create a way (that does not currently exist) to access data on an encrypted iPhone.

A brief reading list to catch up:

Garg
«1

Comments

  • SonorousSonorous F@H Fanatic US Icrontian
    edited February 2016

    I'm happy Tim Cook is fighting this.

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian

    He's got Google's axe

    http://www.businessinsider.com/sundar-pichai-responds-to-apple-case-2016-2

    Garg
  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian

    @primesuspect said:
    He's got Google's axe

    There's a whole lot of "could be" and hedging in those tweets. I think BI is reading what it wants to read there.

  • MAGICMAGIC Doot Doot Furniture City, Michigan Icrontian

    http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

    Linc
  • SonorousSonorous F@H Fanatic US Icrontian

    Social engineering!

  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian

    I am actually surprised that the security platform is robust enough that the US governments best cyber security experts can't figure out a way around it on their own. They should just hire some kid from Anonymous.

  • RequitRequit That one guy Somewhere over there, I don't know Icrontian
    edited February 2016

    @Cliff_Forster said:
    I am actually surprised that the security platform is robust enough that the US governments best cyber security experts can't figure out a way around it on their own. They should just hire some kid from Anonymous.

    I'm sure that they can, the FBI is just using this as a chance to set precedence. If they can get Apple to build this, it won't be hard to use their victory here to get the same thing from Google, Microsoft, RHEL, et cetera.

    ThraxGargMiracleManS
  • JokkeJokke Bergen, Norway Icrontian

    Or they can do it so easily that they try to make the impression that they can't, so all the terrorists will be like "I use Apple because FBI can't hack me". When in reality the FBI has everything they need.

    primesuspectMAGICFarge
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian

    I've read enough cold-war era CIA/FBI/NSA "Now we know the truth" to not absolutely discount what @Jokke is saying. Classic propaganda technique.

  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian

    There are no great scenarios here. The only good outcome is if the order gets reversed by the Supreme Court, is rebuked by society at large, and leaves the kind of access they're requesting contingent on rare exploits and extraordinary brute force attacks.

    The linked article above said:
    The piece also reveals that Apple had asked the FBI to make its court application under seal – meaning that the legal arguments could be heard in private – but the FBI chose instead to make it a public fight …

    Get ready for some serious FUD from the feds.

  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian
    edited February 2016

    The first unreserved endorsement I've seen from an industry CEO:

  • RequitRequit That one guy Somewhere over there, I don't know Icrontian
    edited February 2016

    Here's an interesting development:

    Apple executives say the phone was in the possession of the government when that passcode was reset. A federal official familiar with the investigation confirmed that federal investigators were indeed in possession of the phone when the reset occurred.

    Missing the opportunity for a backup was crucial because some of the information stored on the phone would have been backed up to the iCloud and could have potentially been retrieved. According to court records, the iPhone had not been backed up since Oct. 19, 2015, one-and-a-half months before the attack and that this “indicates to the FBI that Farook may have disabled the automatic iCloud backup function to hide evidence.”

  • SonorousSonorous F@H Fanatic US Icrontian
    edited February 2016

    If this tweet ends up being legit, things are going to get really interesting.

    http://gizmodo.com/san-bernardino-county-calls-the-fbi-liars-over-terroris-1760317923

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    Bobby, where did you find that cartoon!?

    @BobbyDigi

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    TWIG on this https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-google/episodes/340?autostart=false

    Most interesting between about 30 and 50 minutes.

  • BobbyDigiBobbyDigi ? R U #Hats ! TX Icrontian

    @alberio said:
    Bobby, where did you find that cartoon!?

    Reddit

    -Digi

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    @Cliff_Forster

    A "kid" (really, I don't think so) from Anonymous wouldn't work in this case for the same reason the feds are having trouble. There is a huge difference between getting access before and after the act.

    Lastly, this really seems to be about the precedent.

    Hero
  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    Bruce Schneier weighs in https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/judge_demands_t.html

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    We should all follow this very closely.

    This is very complex and messy and needs to go to the supreme court. Even at that level the international and overall policy issues may still not be fully discussed or considered.

    It also has large risk issues for organizationally supplied and BYOD devices.

    Some observations:

    • Unclear if this is a 5C running iOS 7 or 9 reports vary
    • It was not a personal phone but belonged to the County meaning there is even less of a right to privacy
    • County has consented to it being accessed
    • Cloud backups appear to have been disabled and the botched recovery of the iCloud password may have rendered data inaccessible via that vector
    • Now the fbi claims the reset is immaterial to their investigation and they are after other things
    • A great deal of information here should be accessible to the feds by other means, so the big question is what (if anything) is on the phone that they are really after? This may simply be about precedent.
  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian

    One important point to me that I've seen mentioned very little: they destroyed two phones and not the work phone. Why would they go to effort of destroying two phones that would have evidence and just ... not the third if it also contained info? This exercise is pretty bad.

  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian

    @alberio said:

    • A great deal of information here should be accessible to the feds by other means, so the big question is what (if anything) is on the phone that they are really after? This may simply be about precedent.

    I expect so, and that's what opponents are concerned about. I know I don't mind the FBI reading this guy's phone in particular. If they could get in without sacrificing my privacy and security in the process, more power to them.

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    @Gargoyle was that irony, a pun, or both?

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    @Tushon - interesting, I missed that about destroying two phones. Do you have a reference link for that?

  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian

    @alberio said:
    @Tushon - interesting, I missed that about destroying two phones. Do you have a reference link for that?

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-destroy-phones-hard-drives-sources/story?id=35570286

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    @Tushon, thanks. I misread your comment thinking someone in LE messed up. I was too focused on the cloud reset.

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    More info about the degree to which Apple cooperated and the botched recovery.

    https://www.macnn.com/articles/16/02/19/apple.now.allowed.to.elaborate.on.reasons.behind.its.refusal.132644/

    The reset was within the first day of investigation suggesting someone in LE rushed.
    The DOJ affidavit let Apple out of an NDA with LE which gave them an opportunity to respond to misinformation.

    A bit older BBC "plain English" article explanation with some nice details http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35601035

    Apple isn't standing up for your privacy OP/ED http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/skillicorn-apple-inc-isnt-a-defender-of-your-privacy

    More screw ups, the county paid for but didn't have mobile device manager installed http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/02/21/shooters-iphone-missing-common-feature-that-would-allow-fbi-access.html

  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited February 2016

    @alberio said:
    Apple isn't standing up for your privacy OP/ED http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/skillicorn-apple-inc-isnt-a-defender-of-your-privacy

    I think Apple is standing for privacy, but it's not a universal stand. This is Real Talk:

    Ottawa Citizen Op-Ed
    In my judgment, Apple is using this situation as an opportunity to show it is standing up for privacy, a business David against the U.S. government Goliath. The irony here is immense: Multinationals such as Apple (and Google and Microsoft) collect far more data about individuals than governments do, analyse it far more, and have far fewer constraints on how it gets used.

    It can be argued that this is hypocrisy on the part of Apple, but that doesn't mean they have to adapt to other people's ideas of a consistent philosophy and stop fighting the case.

  • alberioalberio Toronto Member

    @Gargoyle

    A paraphrase. In reality Apple is standing up for their own interests. To the extent it intersects with consumer privacy then they are doing that. So, yes, not universal.

    Even w/o arguing hypocrisy/irony there's a lot of inconsistency.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/22/technology/apple-privacy-icloud/index.html (there isn't any)

    For the time being, Apple is doing us a favor forcing this debate out into the open.

    For the record, I am for privacy and lawful access, but not necessarily back doors. This isn't a contradiction. Where you set the balance point is very difficult and if screwed up will cause huge problems. And sometimes you need to say no. That applies to both sides. It really is complicated. To pretend this is a simple argument is naivety or spin. How it's done is also a huge challenge to get right. There will be mistakes and compromises (good and bad). Also, people need to realize it's a debate that may need to be revisited from time to time because developments will shift that balance point over time. And it's a debate that has to happen out in the open.

  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian

    Apple's new FAQ on the issue: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/

Sign In or Register to comment.