Apple ordered to hack San Bernardino shooter's phone

[MintberryCrunch 83]

Apple has opposed a judge's order to unlock the encrypted phone of the San Bernardino "terrorist" shooter. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/

Donald Trump has come out in criticism of Apple's decision. Most people seem to be behind them, though. What do you think?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The court is asking for Apple's assistance in a criminal matter.  The miscreant is dead, but was known to affiliated with world terror organizations.  Apple has lots of money for lawyers and should cooperate with the proviso that is is a one time thing.

If anyone thinks for one microsecond that the NSA couldn't crack this phone, shake your head.  Apple ain't that good, but to keep the security outfits out of their patch, they should cooperate in a limited manner.

There is every reason to believe that the contents of this phone's memory may lead to one or more terrorist cells in the U.S. and elsewhere, so what is all the fuss about?

Second thought:  What if Apple can't crack the phone?  The reason for refusal may be inability.

[Hamish 1,370]

3 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

What if Apple can't crack the phone?  The reason for refusal may be inability.

Let's all hope thats the case, it's the stance publicly they've taken for years around their security.

It will set a very bad precedent if they are forced to do so. Sheds light on the possibility of NSA surveillance failings if they don't already have the communication data from the phone if it phone is connected to a known terrorist group.

 

Read Apples side of the story, very interesting.

[krbe 193]

3 hours ago, MintberryCrunch said:

Donald Trump has come out in criticism of Apple's decision. Most people seem to be behind them, though. What do you think?

If they're being told to break the encryption for a known terrorist this time, who will it be next time? Blanket data transfer of information on all phones in a particular area when a rape took place? The opening up of a phone that somehow managed to download Dabiq or something else naughty?

Of course Donald Trump criticises the decision, the man is hurt because Forrest Gump had all his money invested in fruit while he wasted daddy's money on airliners.

[Duke87 1,070]

6 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Second thought:  What if Apple can't crack the phone?  The reason for refusal may be inability.

As I understand it part of the issue here is that Apple isn't simply being asked to crack the phone, which they cannot do anymore than the FBI can. Apple is being asked to create an updated version of iOS with a deliberate security flaw that the FBI can exploit, and push the update onto this single phone (how they can do that without unlocking the phone first, I don't know. Maybe the guy had his phone set to install updates automatically).

The reason Apple is refusing to cooperate is because they realize that once they create this "update" it isn't going to only get used just this once. It is going to get used over and over and become a tool that can be used for surveillance and potentially exploited by hackers.
Such is the nature of encryption, there is no viable middle ground: either data is encrypted so that no one, not even the manufacturer, not even law enforcement, can get it without knowing the password - or it is not secured because if it is possible to access the data by guessing the password or bypassing the need to, then we effectively have no cybersecurity and criminal hacking groups have free reign to break in anywhere they see fit (as do governments both domestic and foreign).

What also makes this case atypical is that the owner of the phone is dead. If he were alive, a search warrant would enable the FBI to make him give them the password or be charged with obstruction of justice. But he's not, so he can't talk.
This also then raises the question of why they even have a warrant to search the phone. If the perp is dead, there is no need to gather evidence against him. The FBI is merely fishing for leads on any potential buddies this guy might have still out there, which seems to me to be a misuse of the concept of a search warrant since the subject of the warrant is not the subject of investigation.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Unless someone else has the phone, it's battery is likely dead so Apple would be incapable of pushing the update.

[hym 358]

8 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

The court is asking for Apple's assistance in a criminal matter.  The miscreant is dead, but was known to affiliated with world terror organizations.  Apple has lots of money for lawyers and should cooperate with the proviso that is is a one time thing.

There is no such thing as "this is a one time thing" when you're dealing with the government.  Doing it once establishes precedent for doing it again, and judges aren't likely going to be inclined to think there is a reasonable justification for why you can only do something once.

Quote

If anyone thinks for one microsecond that the NSA couldn't crack this phone, shake your head.  Apple ain't that good, but to keep the security outfits out of their patch, they should cooperate in a limited manner.

Actually, it is not unreasonable to think that the NSA cannot break the phone.  In the world of software, the limiting factor is often the quality of your people.  Apple and the NSA compete for the same caliber of person (sometimes even the same people).  It's not unreasonable to think that Apple holds the upper hand here. Cryptography heavily favors the person doing the encrypting.  We don't know if it's possible to develop truly unbreakable encryption, but it is well established that we can create encryption that is unbreakable in a reasonable time frame. (Even the NSA admits this, which is part of why it funds its own quantum computing research.)

To use a second example, the FBI has the legal authority to wiretap a cell phone.  About a decade ago, the FBI had to ask Verizon for technical assistance with carrying out wiretaps on Verizon customers.  The reason?  The FBI could capture the data associated with the phones it wanted to wiretap, but because all data moving across Verizon's network is encrypted with a custom encryption scheme, the FBI found itself unable to decipher the data it was capturing.

Quote

There is every reason to believe that the contents of this phone's memory may lead to one or more terrorist cells in the U.S. and elsewhere, so what is all the fuss about?

The growing encroachment of government authority on the rights and privacy of Americans.  In the past 15 years, the government has taken an increasingly "I have the right to whatever I want" attitude towards modern technology, including everything from computers and cell phones, to the data generated by property the average American may not even realize is collecting data about them.  (All new cars sold in the US contain a black box recorder for facilitating accident and recall investigations.  Very few people realize that device is capable of recording data that can be used to work out private details of a person's life that ordinarily would be considered off limits to even the government.)

More broadly, the federal government is trying to have its cake and eat it too.  While the general concept is arguably anti-democratic, most reasonable people would agree that the federal government has information it has a genuine need to keep secret.  To do that, it has to develop its own security systems (something it has proven woefully incapable of doing) or it has to partner with the same technology industry it is actively trying to undermine.  Just as you can't support restricting someone's freedom of speech without threatening your own right to speak, the government can't ask for special keys and backdoors without undermining its own efforts to keep its secrets safe.  This is one of those things where you have to pick a side that you're going to support.  You can either support increased data security for everyone, which will improve your own data security, or you can try to undermine that security with special access systems, and watch those same technologies get exploited against you.

Quote

Second thought:  What if Apple can't crack the phone?  The reason for refusal may be inability.

That is what Apple has previously claimed.  Theoretically, iPhone and Android smartphones now come with encryption enabled by default, and both Apple and Google both claim they don't have the ability to break the encryption.  This is due to the Snowden scandal, which has put federal government in an unpleasant situation.  The federal government is highly dependent on the US technology industry, as the tech industry supplies the federal government with a lot of things it doesn't have the ability to provide for itself.  Thanks to the government's "I can do what I want" attitude, it has compromised the relationship the federal government once had with the industry, and has effectively convinced industry leadership that the federal government is the real threat.  In response, Apple, Google, and other companies have started taking increased steps to protect their customers (and consequently, themselves) from intrusion by the federal government.  As the government continues its ham-fisted approach to navigating this new relationship, it risks encouraging Apple, Google, etc. to adopt progressively stronger security measures until they eventually reach the "nuclear option": total encryption of all data moving through the company's network with no ability for the host company to decrypt any of it.

[Sabretooth78 808]

6 hours ago, hym said:

There is no such thing as "this is a one time thing" when you're dealing with the government.  Doing it once establishes precedent for doing it again, and judges aren't likely going to be inclined to think there is a reasonable justification for why you can only do something once.

Agreed - slippery slope.  Despite being a Mac user, lately I tend to almost reflexively disagree with everything Apple comes out with, particularly as it relates to design decisions.  Once I read a little deeper though, I fully agree with the stance.

We already let 9/11 make America substantially less so.  The only thing that would come out of software backdoors are a few more cuts towards death at 1000.  What these people did was horrible but this constant erosion of freedoms is collectively hurting us more, and the best punishment the perps could have is to be forgotten - erased if you will, from the universe.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

On some serious thinking and looking back on my security training, I believe Apple is right.  Besides, by now, any intelligence that might be hidden on that phone is now obsolete, so it is indeed nothing more than a phishing expedition by the FBI.  If the real object is to make Apple create a backdoor into their security system, they should tell the court and the FBI to go to hell.

I don't believe in back-doors.  Anybody remember what happened when some kid typed in "Play thermonuclear war" in one of the Armageddon movies?  "Boomelay, boomelay, boomelay, boom." -- Vachel Lindsay.

[krbe 193]

On the one hand there is the slippery slope of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies requiring access on increasingly flimsier grounds; on the other, it will embolden countries like China to require the same. Say goodbye to any hope of trying them to play by your rules when that happen.

Thirdly, civil society -- across the world -- is likely to fight back. If bitcoin is scary, imagine what happens when anonymity is rolled out across the board covering all kinds of information.

Fourthly, and they are probably on to this already: Criminals and terrorists will invest heavily in R&D to cover their traces. Since computers and mobile phones don't grab headlines as easily as explosions, decapitated heads, drug labs or custom made submarines, don't expect to see the media all over it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Here is the whole case in plain English.

If you think this is a waste of court time and federal money, you should write your congressman and/or Senator and let them know.

[Easy Bakes 253]

BTW with all the media attention on cracking this particular phone dont you think anyone who had contact with him has already disposed of any evidence ? Weeks later?

 

 

 

[AkemiAzula 280]

Given the government is elected does distrusting the government not invaludate the concept of democracy?

Are we thus distrusting ourselves, the people, and therefore admitting the people do not know best?

Methinks only singularity can end this farce...

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Mark_Kochan said:

Given the government is elected does distrusting the government not invaludate the concept of democracy?

You elect Parliament and in some countries, the leader of the executive branch.

The bloated administrative branch is wholly unelected; the American thing about replacing people in the administration with each new president is such an enormous task to fill in a short span of time that it is utopian to believe you actually get people you would have voted for.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

6 hours ago, krbe said:

You elect Parliament and in some countries, the leader of the executive branch.

The bloated administrative branch is wholly unelected; the American thing about replacing people in the administration with each new president is such an enormous task to fill in a short span of time that it is utopian to believe you actually get people you would have voted for.

One of the nicer things about a Westminster system is that the cabinet are elected and sit in the house.  Cabinet members are selected by the PM after seeing what talent is available from the elected members.  The government sits in the house and is vulnerable to the debate.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Former Homeland Security Moron err Secretary Chertoff still spewing incompetence...  Apparently being responsible for the whole Katrina disaster (Mike "Brownie", while undoubtedly incompetent, was a scapegoat) wasn't enough.

FBI Clash Could Cause Apple To Lose Customers, Says Former Homeland Security Secretary

Could, but so could anything else.  Won't.

Quote

While the tech industry sees individual privacy as the top priority, he argued that Americans “in the rest of the country” are more fearful about security than they are concerned with privacy.

Well, just as before, you don't speak for me - and living as I do out here "in the rest of the country."  Ben Franklin, anyone?

Quote

“It’s a mistake to believe that there’s a high degree of trust in Silicon Valley,” he said. “There’s a view that American business is out for American business, and working people are getting screwed.”

I don't think he's channeling the correct distrust.  Sure, we're all leery of Google but nobody is confusing them for Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs.  Apples to oranges and irrelevant to the topic and yet I bet even that pales in comparison to the distrust of the government; FBI included.  But apparently he expects us to allow Big Brother to save the day and for all of us to worship at its heels.  Spouting the same old republican BS which has been rejected time and again and not even trying to hide it.

Stick to not being in charge of DHS, it's better that way (which isn't saying much).

[KiethMarkus2014 14]

On 18/02/2016 at 10:58 PM, OcramsRzr said:

Unless someone else has the phone, it's battery is likely dead so Apple would be incapable of pushing the update.

Please explain in more detail, clearly if the phone is dead it could just be charged lol

[Ocram's Razr 964]

49 minutes ago, KiethMarkus2014 said:

Please explain in more detail, clearly if the phone is dead it could just be charged lol

Who would charge it?

[KiethMarkus2014 14]

2 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Who would charge it?

Anyone with an iPhone charger. it's not like a charger is exclusive to one phone.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

40 minutes ago, KiethMarkus2014 said:

Anyone with an iPhone charger. it's not like a charger is exclusive to one phone.

Who is in possession of the phone?

[KiethMarkus2014 14]

I'm assuming the FBI would be if they want Apple to hack it lol

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The hubris of John McAfee.

After hubris, the Greeks say, follows nemesis.  For a person interested in security in a big way, Mr. McAfee should know better.  He should not help the FBI grease the slippery slope to a big brother state.

[hym 358]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

The hubris of John McAfee.

After hubris, the Greeks say, follows nemesis.  For a person interested in security in a big way, Mr. McAfee should know better.  He should not help the FBI grease the slippery slope to a big brother state.

From the article, it's my understanding that he thinks he is doing the opposite.  Basically, he thinks he's offering the FBI an alternative to building a back door, thus giving it a reason to avoid forcing the court showdown over whether Apple can be forced to make a back door.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

How can Apple claim its phone should not have to be decrypted when the NSA undoubtedly uses smartphones and other electronic devices for covert surveillance? Hasn't the NSA being hacking every known electronic device they can for the purposes of surveillance and data collection, something they have been doing for years and years now? So why is Apple making a fuss about nothing?

Hasn't there always been back doors with these devices?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Fact is, we don't know what the NSA is capable of.  In all security matters it is secrecy that counts the most.  They secretly collect secret data under a blanket of secrecy.  The only hope is that they are all honest patriots and that includes the oversight committee, if any.

We have the same thing with CSEC.  Trust has to go a long way when you first practice to secretly snoop.

I think what is happening here is an interagency squabble, FBI vs. NSA.  There are far too many policing outfits that don't communicate well with each other even though they have the same goals.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Hasn't the time limit on any useful info this particular phone has passed by now?

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Actually, it was probably as obsolete as a new car the day after the shooting.

[inspire224 13]

I say crack it and boycott Apple until they get the country first in their minds!

 

EDIT:  

Actually I tossed my iPhone away and I am going to get a Motorolo probably.....maybe Samsung! Much respect for Tim Cook though! Not a bad man.

 Like this

 

Instead of double-posting, please use the "EDIT" button to edit in what you would like to add.  Thank you for your cooperation.

-ST Staff

[Sabretooth78 808]

Those who put the ideals their country were founded upon first (i.e. true patriots) will realize with little thought required which side of this argument they should be on.

As will those who would prefer to live in an fascist state governed by fear also realize, but with absolutely no thought as usual.

Disclaimer:  I have never owned an iPhone and have no desire to ever.  Only Apple products I have ever owned are Macs.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I love how Apple is the opposite of SnapChat when it comes to privacy.