Why is reading difficult
here let me make it simpler
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/
Last edited:
What part of "subsequent" was unclear? The 5C does not have a secure enclave.
Update 3: Reframed “The Devil is in the Details” section and noted that Apple can equally subvert the security measures of the iPhone 5C and later devices that include the Secure Enclave via software updates.
Why not simply update the firmware of the Secure Enclave too?” I initially speculated that the private data stored within the SE was erased on updates, but I now believe this is not true. Apple can update the SE firmware, it does not require the phone passcode, and it does not wipe user data on update. Apple can disable the passcode delay and disable auto erase with a firmware update to the SE. After all, Apple has updated the SE with increased delays between passcode attempts and no phones were wiped.
If the device lacks a Secure Enclave, then a single firmware update to iOS will be sufficient to disable passcode delays and auto erase. If the device does contain a Secure Enclave, then two firmware updates, one to iOS and one to the Secure Enclave, are required to disable these security features. The end result in either case is the same. After modification, the device is able to guess passcodes at the fastest speed the hardware supports.
The recovered iPhone is a model 5C. The iPhone 5C lacks TouchID and, therefore, lacks a Secure Enclave. The Secure Enclave is not a concern. Nearly all of the passcode protections are implemented in software by the iOS operating system and are replaceable by a single firmware update.
Why is reading difficult
here let me make it simpler
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/
believe
I have said before. If the government installed cameras on every street corner, had satellites monitor all outside areas, put tracking devices on all of our cars. I wouldn't mind, I would actually feel more secure.
I have said before. If the government installed cameras on every street corner, had satellites monitor all outside areas, put tracking devices on all of our cars. I wouldn't mind, I would actually feel more secure.
It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down anyplace — whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an internet site — anyplace where radicals are being inspired. The bigger problem we have is our inability to find out where these places are, because we’ve crippled our intelligence programs, both through unauthorized disclosures by a traitor, in Edward Snowden, or by some of the things this president has put in place with the support even of some from my own party to diminish our intelligence capabilities.
So whatever facility is being used — it’s not just a mosque — any facility that’s being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States, should be a place that we look at.
I have said before. If the government installed cameras on every street corner, had satellites monitor all outside areas, put tracking devices on all of our cars. I wouldn't mind, I would actually feel more secure.
Thats reaching, sounds like either one of them is in CYA mode, find it hard to believe the FBI would instruct them to do that instead of having their techs do it themselves...if in that position I wouldnt want some county IT guy touching that thing.
Seems like you are fundamentally too scared of a person to enjoy true liberty.
So he doesn't actually know and the company claims it can't be done that way. I'm convinced.
Now confirmed by both parties. The FBI requested the change:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ould-get-non-icloud-data-like-telegram-chats/
"The same Sunday, the FBI asked the county for help in retrieving data from the phone, Wert said in an interview. “So the county said we could get to the information on the cloud if we changed the password or had Apple change the password,” he said. “The FBI asked us to do that, and we did.”
“People are rallying at Apple stores because giving the government easier access to our data, also gives everyone else, including terrorists, thieves and stalkers, easier access to our data—making all of us less safe, not more safe,” Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement. “The government’s unconstitutional attack on our digital security could put millions of people in danger, so it’s critically important that we support any fight to keep our most sensitive personal, medical, legal and financial information protected.”
Why? Because you say so? You are the one who raised the outrageous spectacle of slavery and I reminded you of one basic feature of slavery: That you are not free to run away from it. ("indentured" as they say) In contrast, Apple has quite a few options, including but not limited to, stopping iPhone production and sales. Corporations engage in this kind of decision making all the time when they want to expand/retreat from their markets.
And if your work facilitates criminal activities or is an impediment to enforcement of law, you do have some culpability. Take a "Swiss bank" I mentioned earlier as an example. That you do not ask where the money come from your customers does not excuse you from duty to report nor does it shield you from civil liability.
A lot of laws post-9/11 were unprecedented when they were enacted. Indeed, we can say new laws are always unprecedented by nature because they are enacted to adapt to new developments. If the world did not change the need for a new law would decrease dramatically.
But I do agree that this is a grey area. That is not particularly surprising if you take into account the speed of technological advancement as well as unprecedented kind of threats the nation faces. However, the argument you are making (with "slavery," "forced laber," etc.) is a different one.
Again, your analogy to slavery is without merit. If what the employee has to do is objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh, then I believe that can be a defense and the employee can be excused. Perhaps this is what Apple is saying, in which case Apple will have surer footing to resist FBI. This is not my opinion, btw, but the state of law. (see the link in my previous post)
Oh, and slavery -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
(What do you count as "forced labor," in your slavery argument? Does "lifting a finger" count as labor in your book?)
Your "force" argument is a familiar one (from Libertarians and Tea Party movement), and there are many rebuttals around the web so I will refer you to one of them. -> What Do Voluntary Mean?
I have to reluctantly point out that your protest has the quality of "Get your government hands off my Medicare." The observation is that those who are most angry about the government and the regulations are not those who are truly burdened by them, but those who have been the beneficiaries of the governmental grants and perceive their privileges are threatened. It adds further to the irony to your slavery rant.
I am not familiar with PGP so I will pass.
That comment wasn't about apple. It was about people who are so concerned with privacy. People on this forum.
I have said before. If the government installed cameras on every street corner, had satellites monitor all outside areas, put tracking devices on all of our cars. I wouldn't mind, I would actually feel more secure.
I think George Orwell's corpse just threw up a little.
So a part of me says yes absolutely, companies should be selecting platforms which they can manage in a way which they deem appropriate, however as someone who deals with this daily as a part of my responsibilities the reality is the consumerization of IT has broad impact....to the point where IT departments are forced to deal with device security and management shortcomings to appease their users, but that is something of a different topic.
As for this case, Apple in some ways was the one who changed the game...the government had been going to them in the past and Apple cooperated, so Apple was in the data recovery business, but now due to a change in their approach towards device security and to limit their liability and involvement in these cases they have forced encryption ...not full disk encryption with a preboot pass phrase, but selective hardware encryption that leverages a pin to unlock
Now you have the government technically asking for the same level of service they had gotten in the past, and no difference in what they are looking to collect off of the device...but due to decisions Apple made to limit their liability and market on security are being told by apple that while they can do it, they won't as it will mean a big financial impact and loss of integrity.
I am torn on the issue, part of me agrees that the company shouldn't be forced to develop that which they say they don't want to, but on the other hand Apple shouldn't have assisted in the past as they set a precedent for their being involved.
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
This ^
Today, Monday, the FBI admitted they told the county to change the password, And Apple released a statement saying there is nothing more they can do to help. And called on the FBI to drop its case.
Open letter to the County of San Bernardino: Hey - maybe if you're worrying about getting the data off one of your phones in case one of your employees dies, then maybe you shouldn't be using phones that encrypt the data. Now that you're realized YOU made a mistake, does not make it someone else's responsibility to fix.
Does anyone know of companies that keep critical data encrypted in such a way that only one employee in the entire company can get to that data, and the data is lost to the company if something happens to the employee?
Apple has already admired they can help, but don't want to.
Apple has already admired they can help, but don't want to.
What is not irrelevant? The 13th Amendment was ratified to abolish slavery. Your contention is that requiring citizens (or corporations) to co-operate in criminal investigation violates the 13th Amendment, because such a compulsion amounts to involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery. Your semantics distinguishing the two (slavery v. involuntary servitude) unfortunately has no bearings on my rebuttal because there is no involuntary servitude going on in this instance; Apple is free to not engage in regulated conducts.Irrelevant. How is forcing a company to produce a product that does not exist not involuntary servitude? This isn't a question of regulation that existed previously to their release of the code or any law passed by Congress.
Ford is culpable if it sells cars without GPS and criminals take advantage of it to hide their criminal activities. Ford is culpable if it sells cars without air bags and passengers are killed or injured because of it, even if it was you who drove the car to the tree. Ford is culpable if it sold cars that do not meet the advertised MPG and might be subject to a class-action suit, even though individual consumers made presumably competent purchase decisions.So Ford is culpable because some people use their products to commit crimes? Please, you are reaching big time and it's been settled by the courts. That is why gun makers can't be held liable for what people do with their products. Sorry but our justice system has repeatedly disagreed with you.
Contrary to your assertion, the new encryption is precisely what this controversy is all about. Different encryption technologies existed prior to iOS 8, yes, but new security challenges emerged along with new, wide-spread uses of encryption.Encryption has existed well before 9/11 so the "speed of technological advancement" isn't really an issue here. Again, we are talking about a subpoena not a law. This isn't currently a question of "is it legal to pass a law to force apple to provide X if their product can do Y" it's a question of "can the judicial system force a company and it's employees to make something that does not exist". Forcing people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime to do work against their will is simply outside of their scope of power.
See foregoing. It might be a serious argument if it came from someone who live in the ISIS territory.I have not once called this slavery.. (snip)
Please cite the law or regulation that was passed by Congress that requires Apple to submit. Again if this is the case the government should already be using said law or regulation that Apple violated long before this issue popped up and enforcing whatever punishment said law or regulation listed.
(c) Persons or Property Subject to Search or Seizure. A warrant may be issued for any of the following:
(1) evidence of a crime;
(2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
(3) property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime; or
(4) a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
Another question for you, lets say Apple agrees but the engineers who wrote the code say that they tried but are unable. What punishment do you think the government should be able to enforce on those engineers? Does the judge, who has zero expertise to know if the engineers put in a good faith effort, get to decide that they didn't try hard enough? Then what, jail them until they do figure it out? Fine them X amount a day? Send them to Gitmo for some waterboarding maybe?
Thank you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
There you go, it's not all that complicated and from your replies will probably interest you.
Again, I have managed quite a few construction projects for the government including the Federal Government. I have done the work in the past and I still do similar work today.
Should the government be able to force me to work on their next project against my will? What about the actual men that did the work on previous projects, should they be able to force them as well regardless of if they are still my employees or not? After all, the government would be "asking" for the same level of service they have gotten from me and my company in the past. How is the exact same argument not applicable?
I'm sorry but just because you have worked for the government before doesn't mean you can be forced to do even the exact same work for them in the future. The government does have the authority to demand that you testify, either in person or by providing something material that exists. If the tool existed then they could demand that Apple produce and/or use it. As of today Congress has passed no law that allows the government to compel them to create that which does not exist.
I don't know why everyone is hung up on Apple "creating precedent", in the context that it is being used precedent is a legal decision and Apple can't make legal decisions. If the court upholds this and does somehow force Apple to create something that doesn't exist that would create precedent.
NPR notes that Apple might have complied with that request as well, had something unusual not happened: Federal Magistrate Judge James Orenstein did not sign the order the government wanted, but instead went public and asked Apple if the company had any objections.
“The judge seemed particularly skeptical that the government relied in part on an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act,” reports NPR’s Joel Rose. “Prosecutors say it gives them authority to compel private companies to help carry out search warrants.”
This ^
Today, Monday, the FBI admitted they told the county to change the password, And Apple released a statement saying there is nothing more they can do to help. And called on the FBI to drop its case.
“So the county said we could get to the information on the cloud if we changed the password or had Apple change the password,” he said. “The FBI asked us to do that, and we did.”
Oh is that what apple "admired" you absolute moron?
go away.
Apple technicians told investigators that they could write the software the FBI wants to unlock Farook’s phone, and technology providers previously have written code to comply with subpoenas and court orders, according to the filing.