Apple rejects order to unlock gunman's phone

[Moreno]

Why both parties can't agree to such a solution: FBI gives phone to Apple and Apple secretly from anyone else cracks the phone. Then they just transfer to FBI all the data it contained.

 

One more thing FBI could do about this phone is to use an electronic or quantum tunneling microscope to discover its hardware ID. It could be helpful in cracking.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Moreno

[swansont]

Why both parties can't agree to such a solution: FBI gives phone to Apple and Apple secretly from anyone else cracks the phone. Then they just transfer to FBI all the data it contained.

Because that requires making the "master key" OS that could be used to hack into any phone. Once it exists, you can't be sure it will not be misused. You can't guarantee that nobody will get their hands on it; many employees will be involved in writing the code.

 

One more thing FBI could do about this phone is to use an electronic or quantum tunneling microscope to discover its hardware ID. It could be helpful in cracking.

How would that work? Is the hardware ID written somewhere in tiny, tiny letters?

[Moreno]

 

Because that requires making the "master key" OS that could be used to hack into any phone. Once it exists, you can't be sure it will not be misused. You can't guarantee that nobody will get their hands on it; many employees will be involved in writing the code.

 

 

How would that work? Is the hardware ID written somewhere in tiny, tiny letters?

 

This article:

​http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/john-mcafee-better-prepare-to-eat-a-shoe-because-he-doesnt-know-how-iphones-work/

 

I suggest there is no real need to use acids and lasers, really. Some less destructive methods could be...

 

But FBI can't write software codes because they don't know Apple unique codes, I suggest. But since Apple engineers know those codes already, why can't they simply crack the phone themselves? No secrets would be revealed...

Edited March 8, 2016 by Moreno

[Phi for All]

 

This article:

​http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/john-mcafee-better-prepare-to-eat-a-shoe-because-he-doesnt-know-how-iphones-work/

 

I suggest there is no real need to use acids and lasers, really. Some less destructive methods could be...

 

But FBI can't write software codes because they don't know Apple unique codes, I suggest. But since Apple engineers know those codes already, why can't they simply crack the phone themselves? No secrets would be revealed...

 

Really?! The whole point is that once Apple does that, nobody trusts them anymore, because now they have that ability, and are sharing it with global governments. You really can't see how horrible that would be, for Apple and its consumers?

[swansont]

This article:

​http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/john-mcafee-better-prepare-to-eat-a-shoe-because-he-doesnt-know-how-iphones-work/

 

I suggest there is no real need to use acids and lasers, really. Some less destructive methods could be...

Interesting

 

But FBI can't write software codes because they don't know Apple unique codes, I suggest. But since Apple engineers know those codes already, why can't they simply crack the phone themselves? No secrets would be revealed...

Apples engineers may know how to write it but the code does not yet exist.

[Moreno]

Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. Criminals and enemy spies do it a WAY more often. But even if a law obeident person has a whim of that kind, an encryption could be implemented on the paper without any kind of an electronic device. He could make paper print of the encryption code and store it in a fireproof case what is a much more reliable storage method than to use a smartphone which could be lost or stolen. I think that if all electronic devices in a state will become totally impenetrable for a government (and society!) it creates dangerous situation to national security when just a few corporations (some of them foreign!) could control majority of electronic devices in a country but govt. and society can't. If they would decide to participate in a plot against govt. or switch to an enemy's state side...

Edited March 13, 2016 by Moreno

[StringJunky]

Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption.

If I'm not breaking the law, I don't want profiling. The state does not have an inalienable right to know things about its citizens that are not a threat to society.

[Moreno]

If I'm not breaking the law, I don't want profiling. The state does not have an inalienable right to know things about its citizens that are not a threat to society.

 

But I didn't say encryption should be prohibited at all. It could be implemented and stored on paper. Electronic devices on other hand are to dangerous to left them potentially uncontrolled by government or entire society. In large quantities especially. It could lead to catastrophe. This problem goes beyond secure data storage.

[swansont]

Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. Criminals and enemy spies do it a WAY more often. But even if a law obeident person has a whim of that kind, an encryption could be implemented on the paper without any kind of an electronic device. He could make paper print of the encryption code and store it in a fireproof case what is a much more reliable storage method than to use a smartphone which could be lost or stolen. I think that if all electronic devices in a state will become totally impenetrable for a government (and society!) it creates dangerous situation to national security when just a few corporations (some of them foreign!) could control majority of electronic devices in a country but govt. and society can't. If they would decide to participate in a plot against govt. or switch to an enemy's state side...

 

 

The purpose of encryption is not just about government snooping. What if you lose your phone? Is there no information on it tat you might want to keep private, that's not illegal?

 

it could be a work phone, with proprietary information. I could be your bank account information. It could be personal information that could be embarrassing without being illegal. There's a lot of reasons people might want to ensure their phone is secure.

 

The point here is that no corporation controls the device. They don't have any way to access to the information.

[John Cuthber]

Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. Criminals and enemy spies do it a WAY more often. But even if a law obeident person has a whim of that kind, an encryption could be implemented on the paper without any kind of an electronic device. He could make paper print of the encryption code and store it in a fireproof case what is a much more reliable storage method than to use a smartphone which could be lost or stolen. I think that if all electronic devices in a state will become totally impenetrable for a government (and society!) it creates dangerous situation to national security when just a few corporations (some of them foreign!) could control majority of electronic devices in a country but govt. and society can't. If they would decide to participate in a plot against govt. or switch to an enemy's state side...

People who say things like "Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. " and "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" should be deprived of clothes and made to live their life in full view of the public until they realise they were wrong.

(and that's before I get started on spelling "obedient" correctly)

[StringJunky]

People who say things like "Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. " and "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" should be deprived of clothes and made to live their life in full view of the public until they realise they were wrong.

(and that's before I get started on spelling "obedient" correctly)

That's the long and the short of it.

[Phi for All]

People who say things like "Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. " and "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" should be deprived of clothes and made to live their life in full view of the public until they realise they were wrong.

 

In the US, testimony you give to the police can NEVER help you. It can only be used AGAINST you. If your lawyer tried to put the police on the stand at your trial, to corroborate something you told them, the prosecutor can have it thrown out as hearsay. If they need to use it against you, however, your testimony to the police is ironclad.

 

People who exercise their right to silence, and get a lawyer to speak for them, are usually the ones who's cases are dropped, or who win their cases. People who tell all because they have nothing to hide often go to jail because they're the only ones who talked.

[StringJunky]

Apple fight could escalate with demand for 'source code' (Reuters)

 

The latest filing in the legal war between the planet’s most powerful government and its most valuable company gave one indication of how the high-stakes confrontation could escalate even further.

 

In what observers of the case called a carefully calibrated threat, the U.S. Justice Department last week suggested that it would be willing to demand that Apple turn over the "source code" that underlies its products as well as the so-called "signing key" that validates software as coming from Apple.

 

Together, those two things would give the government the power to develop its own spying software and trick any iPhone into installing it. Eventually, anyone using an Apple device would be unable to tell whether they were using the real thing or a version that had been altered by officials to be used as a spy tool. Read more>>>>

 

This is a link to the story about Lavabit mentioned in that news article and how that played out when they were pressured to reveal all its SSL keys,.. they shut down.

Edited March 15, 2016 by StringJunky

[overtone]

Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption.

 

 

I want my wife, my children, my lawyer, my doctor, my sheriff, all local judges, politicians, and bankers, to be able to hide their personal info from my enemies. I don't want my enemies to be able to blackmail or pressure people whose discretion and fair judgment is important to me.

 

The government is one of my enemies, potentially.

Edited March 15, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

Perhaps the FBI just needed the right incentives to find alternative entry paths...That and a unified collective (dare I say) firewall among industry tech giants and security experts:

 

http://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-now-says-may-crack-iphone-without-apples-help

Just as the FBI’s standoff with Apple seemed to be coming to a head, the government has abruptly changed course. And it may be backing down altogether from the most public battle in the growing war between law enforcement and tech firms over encryption.

 

On Monday afternoon, the Justice Department filed a motion for a continuance on a hearing set to happen tomorrow in Riverside, California, where it would have argued its case that Apple must help it to crack the iPhone 5C of dead San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook. The FBI hasn’t given up on accessing the data in Farook’s phone. But it now says it may not need Apple’s assistance to crack the device after all, which it had previously told a judge it could legally compel using the 1789 law known as the All Writs Act.

 

“On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone,” the Justice Department’s lawyers wrote in a court filing.

[StringJunky]

Perhaps the FBI just needed the right incentives to find alternative entry paths...That and a unified collective (dare I say) firewall among industry tech giants and security experts:

 

http://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-now-says-may-crack-iphone-without-apples-help

 

 

U.S. drops legal action against Apple over encrypted iPhone

 

The U.S. Justice Department said it successfully accessed data stored on an encrypted iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters and asked a court to withdraw an order compelling Apple to assist, according to a court filing on Monday.

The technology company fought a court order obtained by the FBI last month that required it to write new software to disable passcode protection and allow access to the phone used by one of the shooters, Rizwan Farook.

Apple declined immediate comment on Monday.

U.S. officials said last week that they were hopeful they would be able to unlock the iPhone without help from Apple.

In a two-page court filing on Monday, the Justice Department said the government "no longer requires" Apple's assistance.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUKKCN0WU1RF

Apple are probably hot on the trail of the vulnerability. Do you think it's a hardware vulnerability rather than cracking the encryption?

Edited March 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

It remains unclear. Here's something I read a few minutes ago:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-government-is-reportedly-ending-its-quest-to-have-apple-help-it-access-data-on-an-encrypted-iphone-2016-3

It is still unclear what the government did to access the data on Farook's phone. Speculation about the "third-party" has centered on an experimental technique called NAND flash mirroring and an Israeli company, Cellebrite, that specializes in digital forensic tools.

 

Apple lawyers said last week that they did not know the technique the FBI was using and said that they would seek to force the FBI to reveal it.

 

An FBI spokesman declined to reveal what data was found on Farook's iPhone or how law enforcement gained access in a phone call with reporters.

[StringJunky]

It remains unclear. Here's something I read a few minutes ago:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-government-is-reportedly-ending-its-quest-to-have-apple-help-it-access-data-on-an-encrypted-iphone-2016-3

When all's said and done, in the wider view, it's the best outcome because both parties have fulfilled their professional obligations to their respective dependent clients.. Apple has now got to plug that hole so that it can go back to the original situation.

[iNow]

They need to figure out what the hole is before it can be plugged, though. Given the vitriolic back and forth these last several weeks, what are the chances the folks at the FBI are going to be all chummy and share that info with them readily?

[StringJunky]

They need to figure out what the hole is before it can be plugged, though. Given the vitriolic back and forth these last several weeks, what are the chances the folks at the FBI are going to be all chummy and share that info with them readily?

They'll probably say 'No' on the grounds of national security. I don't think they should. Apple needs to sort it itself. To demand of the FBI would be hypocrisy. Consider, that Apple has pursued their case on the principle of corporate/personal privacy . The FBI are only doing their job and, naturally, they have secrets. It is in the interests of security that they withold this information; it is their abiding principle. It might seem strange, but one has to think of both sides and hope for some sort of equilibrium between the two, where both can function as intended. Neither are 'the enemy', after all.

Edited March 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I'm reluctant to accept this as probable, but another possibility is that tge FBI is simply lying.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/justice-department-drops-lawsuit-against-apple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/

... at this point, it’s unclear whether Apple will get additional details about this exploit.

 

According to CNN, the Department of Justice said the method only works on this phone in particular. But it’s hard to believe this argument as there’s no reason the FBI wouldn’t be able to unlock other iPhones 5c running the same version of iOS 9. Moreover, if the FBI found a software exploit, this exploit should work with all iPhones running on this version of iOS 9 (and most likely the current version of iOS, iOS 9.3) — even those with a Secure Enclave and a Touch ID sensor. It’s like the government wants to make sure it can ask Apple to unlock other phones in the future.

(snip)

Now let’s step back for a minute and reflect on the government’s course of actions in this case. Going forward, it’s going to be hard to trust the government when it comes to encryption issues as the government has insisted for months that it was impossible to unlock this iPhone without Apple. The government was either negligent or blatantly lying.

 

The All Writs Act is a serious matter and the government shouldn’t have used it without exploring all options first. And if the government was trying to set a precedent and leverage a terrorist attack to make Apple comply with a privacy-invading request, then it’s a shameful strategy.

[StringJunky]

I'm reluctant to accept this as probable, but another possibility is that tge FBI is simply lying.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/justice-department-drops-lawsuit-against-apple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/

Yes, that is very possible.

 

 

According to CNN, the Department of Justice said the method only works on this phone in particular.

What a crock of s***. It won't be the first they've lied in the name of national security. It's an integral part of their MO.

 

Note: My thoughts here are a reflection of UK security sevices as well. All the same principles apply.

Edited March 29, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Yeah, that does seem to be a rather rubbish claim.

[StringJunky]

Yeah, that does seem to be a rather rubbish claim.

You are too kind.

[Carrock]

Tech savvy criminals will presumably now abandon this iPhone and use a secure method of encryption.

 

A law against secure storage of data in America and elsewhere would generate a lot of new jobs.

 

Perhaps it's time to build on the successes of the war against drugs and the war against terror with a new war against security.