Apple rejects order to unlock gunman's phone

[StringJunky]

I can't say (not competent) but I am not sure "peace of mind " is uppermost in my considerations. The terrain seems to be shifting all the time.

I should say: peace of mind knowing that the government response is proportional to any perceived potential threat. Their current direction can only inspire large scale insecurity and paranoia. The fact is people are inherently just nosey, for the sake of it; it's all just a pretext, governmentally, to satisfy that desire imo.

Edited February 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[geordief]

I should say: peace of mind knowing that the government response is proportional to any perceived potential threat. Their current direction can only inspire large scale insecurity and paranoia. The fact is people are inherently just nosey, for the sake of it; it's all just a pretext, governmentally, to satisfy that desire imo.

I accept that "peace of mind" can have different contexts. I don't accept noseyness being the main motivator here.

 

Where it is , then I agree it should not be placated as I do place a(extremely) high value on privacy.

 

Again perhaps we agree in that we both seem to be looking for a proportionality.

 

I am hoping the court cases pending will prove enlightening as , in my opinion that is where some of the finest minds are to be found(certainly far finer than mine) .

Edited February 18, 2016 by geordief

[StringJunky]

....Again perhaps we agree in that we both seem to be looking for a proportionality.

 

I am hoping the court cases pending will prove enlightening as , in my opinion that is where some of the finest minds are to be found(certainly far finer than mine) .

Yes.

I accept that "peace of mind" can have different contexts. I don't accept noseyness being the main motivator here.

I meant it WRT mass surveillance, generally.

[Phi for All]

I should say: peace of mind knowing that the government response is proportional to any perceived potential threat. Their current direction can only inspire large scale insecurity and paranoia. The fact is people are inherently just nosey, for the sake of it; it's all just a pretext, governmentally, to satisfy that desire imo.

 

Sen. Rubio, a Republican candidate for president, just came out against Apple, saying, "Ultimately, being a good corporate citizen is important." Do good corporate citizens ignore ethics and fascist tactics? I didn't know that about them.

[StringJunky]

 

Sen. Rubio, a Republican candidate for president, just came out against Apple, saying, "Ultimately, being a good corporate citizen is important." Do good corporate citizens ignore ethics and fascist tactics? I didn't know that about them.

See my comment in the "Competent Republicans" thread you posted in about him. It's people like him that, once in power, would say: "What have you got to hide?"

[Phi for All]

See my comment in the "Competent Republicans" thread you posted in about him. It's people like him that, once in power, would say: "What have you got to hide?"

 

The ironic part is that the GOP seems so focused on our right to bear arms that they're able to pretend this isn't a huge invasion from big government, all justified by a fear of retaliation that's less probable than being killed in a car wreck. It's government sticking it's nose into business it shouldn't, contrary to every Republican platform plank in the last 100 years.

[StringJunky]

 

The ironic part is that the GOP seems so focused on our right to bear arms that they're able to pretend this isn't a huge invasion from big government, all justified by a fear of retaliation that's less probable than being killed in a car wreck. It's government sticking it's nose into business it shouldn't, contrary to every Republican platform plank in the last 100 years.

Irony? Nay, hypocrisy, writ very large!

[swansont]

It occurs to me that this would not be an issue if law enforcement had been able to use a fingerprint to unlock the phone (if that was enabled) before that option expired. I thought this was a 5S, but I've also seen 5C. Not sure if that has fingerprint-reading capability.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/02/18/fbi-fingerprint-iphone-apple-san-bernardino-attacks/#cbc7807d87fe

 

They confirm it was a 5C, which doesn't have touchID. But that a fingerprint from a corpse would be a viable workaround, since there are fewer legal barriers.

[StringJunky]

From Reuters analysis/opinion:

 

 

Yes, the feds can hack your iPhone. No, it isn’t easy.

The FBI wants Apple to give it the tools to break into the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook. In a brave display on the company home page, Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook refused. He was right to say no. If the Feds really wanted to, they have the skills necessary to break into that phone. This fight isn’t about gathering information on a terrorist. It’s about setting a legal precedent. Read more

[John Cuthber]

If Apple's stance is "We don't know if we should do this or not- lets take it to court, have a proper debate and come to a legally valid decision" then I think that's exactly the right thing to do.

 

I'm also reminded of a software developer making a comment something like.

They want me to make software that is absolutely secure - unless they have a court order- and then it's open.

Well a court order is a piece of paper and I can't write software whose function depends on the existence or non existence of a piece of paper.

[Bill Angel]

I've read that the iPhone 5C uses a Toshiba 16GB flash memory chip. What's so difficult about pulling the chip out of the phone and sticking it into a memory reader?

[John Cuthber]

I've read that the iPhone 5C uses a Toshiba 16GB flash memory chip. What's so difficult about pulling the chip out of the phone and sticking it into a memory reader?

Probably nothing.

But how do you decrypt the data once you have read it?

[Bill Angel]

Probably nothing.

But how do you decrypt the data once you have read it?

In the case of the terrorists phone (an iPhone 5C) the [ encryption] key is generated from a combination of the user-created passcode and a key that is unique to the device (this key is embedded when the phone is manufactured).

See https://stratechery.com/2016/apple-versus-the-fbi-understanding-iphone-encryption-the-risks-for-apple-and-encryption/

 

Assuming that the key that was unique to the device that was embedded when the phone was manufactured is known to Apple, the only thing that is unknown to decrypt the contents is the user created pass code. If the encrypted contents of the phone's memory were copied out and uploaded into a powerful supercomputer, I would think that the code breakers at NSA could retrieve the clear text meaning in a reasonable amount of time.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Bill Angel

[John Cuthber]

I would think that the code breakers at NSA could retrieve the clear text meaning in a reasonable amount of time.

I wouldn't.

That't the whole point of encryption.

[StringJunky]

 

.... But that a fingerprint from a corpse would be a viable workaround, since there are fewer legal barriers.

Looks like NSA/GCHQ/Criminals is going to have a field day with HSBC customers, and likely more in the future.

 

 

HSBC offers voice and fingerprint ID system to customers

 

HSBC is launching voice recognition and touch security services in the UK in a big leap towards the introduction of biometric banking.

The bank says its internet banking customers will no longer have to remember a password or memorable places and dates to access accounts.

Barclays has already introduced voice recognition software, but it is only available to certain clients.

HSBC says its service will be offered to up to 15 million banking customers.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35609833

 

[StringJunky]

A succinct and clear illustration of the argument against backdoors by Apple's CEO: "If you leave a key for the cops under the mat the criminals will find it too"

Edited February 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

Law Enforcement already has tools like Stingray that they are using to access peoples phones and record information without their knowledge.

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/stingray-government-spy-tools-can-record-calls-new-documents-confirm/

 

We bank online, our medical records are online, our home security systems can be remotely accessed, and on and on. We need to know our information isn't dangling in the wind. That every time an interested party wants full access to everythig they can have it. We can set the bar at needing a court ordered warrant but with thousands of investigations (drug smuggling, islamic terror, domestic terror, human trafficing, serial killers, kidnappings, etc) going on at any given moment the "justifiable" requests for access can be endless.

[swansont]

Law Enforcement already has tools like Stingray that they are using to access peoples phones and record information without their knowledge.

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/stingray-government-spy-tools-can-record-calls-new-documents-confirm/

 

 

Which is a great cautionary tale, since it's technology that has been repeatedly used without a warrant, and the police have lied about using it.

[imatfaal]

John (nothing to see in Belize) McAfee, of those annoying programs you delete from new computers, has offered to decrypt it.

 

Whether he can do this is unlikely - unless Apple actually did build in loopholes.

 

And how, in his drug-addled mind, this ties in with being a frikkin LIBERTARIAN presidential candidate - does that fool not even understand the barest minimum of his own political stance.

[Bill Angel]

Tim Cook is Steve Jobs' protege at Apple and Eddy Cue is Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services who reports to CEO Tim Cook.

According to Eddy Cue "Steve really had just two things he cared about in his life Apple - and to some extent Pixar - and his family".

US national security is not on that list. Apple is also now a multi-national corporation with two thirds of a sales overseas, and is holding 181 billion dollars in profits overseas, so it's understandable if for them Apple's corporate interests overshadow U.S. national security interests.

[StringJunky]

Tim Cook is Steve Jobs' protege at Apple and Eddy Cue is Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services who reports to CEO Tim Cook.

According to Eddy Cue "Steve really had just two things he cared about in his life Apple - and to some extent Pixar - and his family".

US national security is not on that list. Apple is also now a multi-national corporation with two thirds of a sales overseas, and is holding 181 billion dollars in profits overseas, so it's understandable if for them Apple's corporate interests overshadow U.S. national security interests.

What's that got to do with this topic? Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs.

Edited February 21, 2016 by StringJunky

[Bill Angel]

What's that got to do with this topic? Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs.

A good article appeared in today's New York Times:

Apple Sees Value in Its Stand to Protect [Personal] Security http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-value-in-privacy-vow.html

 

Also here is a review of a good book to check out:

Becoming Steve Jobs, by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli http://nyti.ms/1FcHcBs

 

In my opinion Tim Cook is simply continuing to implement Steve Jobs' corporate priorities and strategy.

[StringJunky]

A good article appeared in today's New York Times:

Apple Sees Value in Its Stand to Protect [Personal] Security http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-value-in-privacy-vow.html

 

Also here is a review of a good book to check out:

Becoming Steve Jobs, by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli http://nyti.ms/1FcHcBs

 

In my opinion Tim Cook is simply continuing to implement Steve Jobs' corporate priorities and strategy.

When you think about it, it's a no-brainer that it will hurt a company financially if they depend on privacy to help their bottom line. That doesn't mean that their customers don't matter, as a matter of principle. They are a device-driven company, so if their devices aren't secure they lose the vast majority of their revenue streams through loss of customer confidence. Also, Apple products are expensive, partly because they don't subsidise their prices by selling customer info to third parties for marketing purposes. Pragmatically, with that in mind, my support is firmly behind Apple.

Edited February 21, 2016 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

I'm just wondering how hard it would actually be to accomplish.

 

Duplicate the data and then rig up a system to try ten times. On permanent lock reset. Might work if a bit slow.

[Phi for All]

I'm just wondering how hard it would actually be to accomplish.

 

Duplicate the data and then rig up a system to try ten times. On permanent lock reset. Might work if a bit slow.

 

You mean, duplicate the data multiple times, so you get ten tries with each set?