OT: Apple says screw you law enforcement!

Apple doesn't currently have a key to control. That is one of the essential points that make the system both secure and invulnerable to law enforcement.

Reply to
trader_4
Loading thread data ...

What evidence do you have that the FBI didn't start very quietly but wound up having to go to court because Apple oabviously won't cooperate? This has been going on for two months, it didn't happen in a day or two.

That would be the sure path, but it could still take years depending on how secure that encryption is. You'd take the cypher algorithm, keys, and crunch it on a supercomputer. But the FBI has seen PWDS they used on other accounts, devices, etc and likely has a list of a whole bunch of possibilities to run through the phone itself, figuring that they may get lucky and crack it that way.

Reply to
trader_4

I wonder what Apple would think if the FBI offered a $100K reward for anyone that can show them how to do what is that they are seeking to do with that model iPhone? It would be interesting. Instead of Apple doing it in their labs, you'd have 1000 of the best hackers around the world working on it.

It would seem that to do what they want done the phone just needs to be flashed with a new version of software. How you can do that with a phone that's locked, IDK. Assuming Apple doesn't already have some backdoor to be able to download and install it, then it would seem that you'd have to somehow manually get that code in there, possibly by having to remove the flash memory chip, copying the data portion to a new chip together with the new OS code, then putting it back in the phone.

Reply to
trader_4

When you're making things in large enough volumes (like Apple), there might not *be* a "FLASH chip". Rather, the FLASH -- or, the portion that is important -- may be embedded on the CPU itself.

Or, a "custom" device.

Especially where size and battery life are important (e.g., the disk drives used in iPods were designed to have performance "just good enough" to play music files; a "disk drive manufacturer" wouldn't have thought of making them that "bad"!)

So, instead of just cracking a code, you also have to reverse engineer a *circuit*.

And, do you do this for *every* phone that can run "apps"? At the same time, risking losing that capability as soon as the manufacturer releases a NEW phone (different circuit, different components, different cipher, etc.)

What do you do for Nokia phones? Prohibit them from being imported??

These people arent' stupid; they KNOW the solution (from their standpoint) is to get the manufacturers to do the work FOR them!

Reply to
Don Y

Maybe someone already has!

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

my guess is the FBI already has everything they can get off this phone and we are looking at Kubiki theater to lull the guys on the other end into some sense of safety. (meanwhile polishing Apple's image) At least that is it how a smart intelligence agency would handle it.

Reply to
gfretwell

Aren't there people who look at court filings or dockets every day, looking for news stories to write.

Reply to
Micky

Per trader_4:

Not for IOS8 - but, from what I have heard so far, they have keys for IOS7 devices.

Or have I got it wrong?

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

There has to be flash memory to hold the OS, unless you want to put it into ROM, which no one does, because then you couldn't do firmware updates. And extremely unlikely it's in a chip that is anything but flash memory. Flash memory and devices like CPUs, signal processors, etc are on processes that are optimized for different things. Bottom line, you need a good size flash memory to hold the OS and data and almost 100% that's what is in that phone.

Extremely unlikely that Apple invented it's own flash memory, figured out how to have it fabbed somewhere, etc, when there are plenty of commercial variants suited to the purpose and there is no compelling competitive advantage. Cell phones are a major market and the flash makers aren't stupid.

Reply to
trader_4

Per trader_4:

That seems to be a point of departure for some of the pundits I have heard giving forth on the matter: yes, the government's explicit, up-front request is just for that single phone.... but some of the pundits are saying that the *real* agenda is that they are trying to build precedent. Slippery slope and all that....

PBS News Hour Weekend just had a little segment about John McAfee of anti-virus fame offering to do the job on that single iPHone for free within some single-digit number of days - and eat his shoe on national television if he fails:

formatting link

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

IDK, 7 from 8, but from what Tim Cook is saying, my understanding is that their position, their philosophy, is that they don't have any keys to the encryption, that they remain solely in the possession of the user. Which is consistent with what the court order, obtained by the FBI, asks for. It doesn't ask for Apple to provide a key, it asks only that they disable the 10 strikes erase and provide a means to enter passwords electronically instead of via the keypad.

Reply to
trader_4

Per snipped-for-privacy@aol.com:

So far, I have not heard anybody observe that if the cops had bent over backwards not to kill the perpetrators and managed to take them alive that they would probably have a lot more information - including the password to the phone.

I would think that there is extremely-high intelligence value in taking people like that alive instead of going along with what seems like their usual wishes to "be martyred".

And I am hearing that being martyred may not be all it's cracked up to be: ========================================================================= After getting nailed by the U.S. Seal team, Osama makes his way to the pearly gates.

There, he is greeted by George Washington.

"How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Osama in the face.

Patrick Henry comes up from behind.

"You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama on the nose.

James Madison comes up next, and says "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama's knee.

Osama is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe, and 65 other people who have the same love for liberty and America.

As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.

As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams "This is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?" =========================================================================

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

I don't doubt that. But the court has to deal with the here and now, the actual issue, not theoretical what ifs. Those are for lawmakers to decide. And Cook is being dishonest, claiming that the govt is asking that they build a backdoor into their products. The govt probably has asked that, certainly would like that, etc, but it isn't what's being asked by the court order.

I made another post where I suggested that possibility. How would Apple like it if the FBI offered a $100K reward to anyone that could show how to do what they ask on an iPhone 5. Apple, do you feel better or worse now? I think Cook has to be an idiot to be gambling the future of the company. How about some place gets blown up, major attack, and it turns out later that the perps had links, communication with that phone that Apple won't help with?

Reply to
trader_4

I wouldn't want to be on the team that develops the key. How long before they get kidnapped by Russian Mafia or other ne'er do well and tortured for the program?

Reply to
Kurt V. Ullman

Reply to
Kurt V. Ullman

All we know is what we've heard in the media. From what I've heard it sounded like to do what the FBI wants Apple would need to rewrite IOS and then "update" that phone with the new version that won't overwrite after 10 attempts. The FBI says "just this phone" but you know it won't end with this phone, there will always be one more phone and then one more after that and another and another.

Once Apple writes the new IOS it WILL wind up "out there" because at some point someone will steal it or the people at apple who wrote the new IOS will sell that knowledge. Once that new IOS gets out it means EVERY stolen apple phone can easily be hacked by anyone who put the new IOS on the phones they steal.

This is not about "encryption", it's about purposely making a reasonably secure OS much insecure against brute force break ins. The current (real) IOS overwrites the phone after 10 failed attempts, the FBI IOS won't overwrite the phone.

There is also the question of why APPLE should be made a slave to work the gvt wants them to do. Apple doesn't own the phone. Apple has no interest in breaking into the phone. Apple's only connection to the phone is that they manufactured it.

Imagine if you were a locksmith who made essentially pick proof locks and the gvt came to you and said there was a house with one of your locks installed on it that they wanted to break into. Do you think the gvt should have the right to tell you that whether or not you wished to pick that lock that YOU DON'T OWN that you must invest your time, labor and smarts to figure out a way to pick your nearly unpickable lock? And if you don't like what they gvt feels like paying your for your effort you can sue them. And that after you have done so your market for your locks will be cut by 30% because new buyers will think "why pay top dollar for what used to be a secure lock when thieves will like steal the newly developed lock pick for it. Instead I'll go buy one that hasn't been shown to be pickable.

Reply to
>>>Ashton Crusher

The government messed up if this article from tthe U.K. Daily Mail is correct:

formatting link
There's an article here mentioning the All Writs Act passed back in 1789 which is the FBI's lever in the court case.

Reply to
Dean Hoffman

Apple wants to protect "your" privacy all the while mining data from "your" phone and the gvnmt has "NO" tech people that can hack an Iphone? Really? I call BULLSHIT. If they can't do it all they need to do is get 13 yr old script kiddie

Reply to
ChairMan

That argument doesn't hold much water. The new code in Apples possession isn't much worse than the source code for the existing phones that it was derived from. If that gets out, then hackers can do what the govt is asking Apple to do and a whole lot more. With the source code, it's easy to find the section of code that deals with the 10 strikes, etc. If Apple can protect it's existing OS code, surely they can protect one more derivative.

It's not clear how easy it would be. For starters, to get the new code into the phone likely required removing the flash memory chip, separating the user data from the OS portion, then reloading it with the new OS version. Apple could also remove phone functionality from the new version they produce, so that it would not operate as a normal cell phone, eliminating the possibility of a stolen phone being turned into a working one.

Which is only a problem if that special code version leaves Apples hands. A reasonable compromise would seem to be for the work to only be done at Apple, with the FBI assisting.

The govts argument will be that this isn't much different than the govt, with a warrant, asking a phone company to retrieve all the calls made from a phone. Or asking a bank to pull up all archival records on a bank account. Or asking the phone company to help tap a phone. Or asking Sears to search their records for all the Winchester model xyz rifles they've sold in the last 5 years. Or asking a safe company to help unlock a new safe. All of those require manpower, even more so 50 years ago when it was all done manually.

It would be interesting to see if in the long history of court orders there have been cases like that where the company refused. My guess is that almost all would comply and help law enforcement. Hard to imagine that the govt hasn't gotten help in opening safes for example. Did some refuse, it go to court? IDK. But I agree this one area may be the only leg Apple has to try to stand on. In which case, the govt can simply go back to court and demand Apple give them the source code so they can do the labor part. It's hard to imagine a court is going to find that unreasonable in a terrorism case, involving national security.

It's funny that in the long history of locks, safes, encrypted phones, etc, this is apparently the first time this has come up. If it has, so far no one has a case to site. I'm sure Apple must be desperately searching. My guess is that it hasn't come up before because other companies recognize the need to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement requests and have complied.

Reply to
trader_4

Way back years ago, when I was working, team of guys tried to crack and gain access to the Kernel of Multics OS at USAF academy system which had security rating of B2 something like that. It took 6 months. OS is man made, man can break it no matter what. Just a matter of how difficult it is. I don't know what is highest security rating out there now.

Reply to
Tony Hwang

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.