Discussion: Judge: US Can't Force Apple To Provide Encrypted iPhone Data

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #246642

2

The most ridiculous aspect of this case is that the FBI is trying to force Apple to create a product that doesn’t exist, at Apple’s expense no less. What the hell is wrong with that picture?

Also, among the many bullshit aspects of this is that the FBI has already admitted that, if the phone was unlocked, it is highly unlikely there is anything worthwhile in it.

This is just a ploy to get their hands on a tool that doesn’t exist but they’d really, really, really like to have. After all, the combined multi-trillion dollar talents of the NSA, CIA, FBI, et al, just can’t seem to do this (which, by the way, is supposedly part of their raison d’ĂȘtre).

Ever hear of Total Information Awareness? And where is that slimy bastard Poindexter these days? Fuck the NSA, CIA and FBI. They’ve already proven time and again they can’t do their jobs. Why do they even exist?

10 Likes
3

If the government spent 1% of its time doing the RIGHT THING, we wouldn’t be cultivating those who hate us, not for our ‘freedoms’, but because of our actions. Instead, they are judge shopping for an ideologue that will be in favor of the Cheney doctrine. “If there is a 1% chance that something will happen, then anything we do is OK.”

1 Like
4

I hope that the special rights that are being given to corporations are available to humans as well. The human brain contains a lot of encrypted information that witnesses may be forced to provide to law enforcement and to government agencies,

2 Likes
5


as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few years decades ago," Orenstein wrote.

And that advance will not slow-- but increase in rapidity.

jw1

1 Like
6

@TominAZ: I am not sure of your premise. The nature of the Wahabbi Sunni terrorist threat is unique. Even if you granted them their caliphate and everything in their wildest dreams, they would still hate. Their faith, their belief systems, values, political, educational, social and cultural circumstances fosters a murderous hate of the other in susceptible individuals.

3 Likes
7

That’s one of the most interesting aspects of this case. I was aware how difficult it is to break strong encryption via brute force (I work in a slightly oddball field at the intersection of healthcare and IT, so had professional familiarity with the matter). But the NSA’s apparent helplessness in this case is nonetheless a tad surprising to me, and very revealing, given their truly enormous resources. All those monster data centers, funded on the claim they could break encrypted communications when American national security is threatened. Clearly the real purpose has more to do with information sifting – scanning huge quantities of data for useful nuggets – than breaking encryption algorithms, given how difficult this is with even one phone.

On a completely different note, this is also a huge marketing coup for Apple. One of the historical knocks against them has been a perception their devices aren’t good/safe for business, and inferior in that one respect to companies like Blackberry. The FBI is basically writing Apple’s rebuttal for them.

7 Likes
8

I’m very glad that we have President Obama and great Americans - like Hillary Clinton - to protect us from Government overreach, such as this.

Wait, what? Obama is the head of the Federal Government? Is the Leader of the Justice Department? Hillary Clinton has NEVER spoken out against this type of Government shenanigans?

Well, I’ll be.

9

So even without valid warrant in hand with legitimate probable cause, criminals have impenetrable safe havens for their data.

So much for the 4th amendment.,

1 Like
10

You seem mighty pleased with yourself! Did you talk yourself into supporting Trump, wanna go to his rallies? Gonna make America great again?

2 Likes
11

To truly crack 256-bit AES encryption is not possible. It literally would take billions of years, no matter how much computing power you throw at it. The only way to beat it is to guess the password that was used to generate the key. Normally those 4 or 6-digit passwords we use for phones would be trivial to guess, but Apple has complicated that process by adding a randomly generated string to your phone password, and storing it in a special security module that can only be queried unsuccessfully 10 times. The FBI wants Apple to load firmware on the phone that disables that limit.

My read is that that is technically possible and not very costly (a couple hours of a high level developer’s time). This seems an odd place to stand on principle. They already turned over all kinds of iCloud data and such. At the end of the day, the FBI does and should have the ability to search property when they have acquired a court order to do so. Isn’t it just as bad knowing that Apple has the power to access your stuff whenever they choose? If you really want to be safe from prying eyes, encrypt it yourself with a real password (15 alphanumeric characters or so). Even then, you may be compelled to reveal the password or face jail time. It’s happened.

3 Likes
12

I don’t really get you “so much for” snark BTW.

So this judge is some kind of what, Snowden activist? Main article says

In October, Orenstein invited Apple to challenge the government’s use of a 227-year-old law to compel Apple to help it recover iPhone data in criminal cases.

13

It isn’t really snark so much. If there is valid probable cause, and a valid warrant, then Apple should be compelled to unlock the target phone in question.

That is precisely how the letter, spirit and intent of how the 4th amendment works.

I 100% reject the premise that there can and should be sacrosanct zones for data which can never-ever be accessed even with valid warrant and probable cause.

And this case (just like the San Bernardino one) is not about the totally fabricated misdirection that somehow Apple will be forced to build a backdoor into the OS for iOs devices across the platform. This is about cracking specific individual phones (the one in this specific case, the other in the San Bernardino case).

5 Likes
14

Best part? The judge was nominated by George W. Yet another W judge slapping down the “Warren Turr” (as W pronounced it).

15

The thing is the security Apple has. Isn’t it so many tries and it deletes everything? If one does not have a key and the code is complex than ten tries is not going to be enough if you are starting with no frame of reference.

With a large number of tries available than some sort of computer program could undo the matter given enough time. Eventually. Given the encryption is something Apple should have the key to it is not that crazy to think it would be easier for Apple to undo it than anybody else.

Really, this is also an example of the government doing what it should in these cases.

2 Likes
16

It is hard to say if there is anything worth anything on the phone until they would see it though. There may be something valuable on it. And it could be a waste of time. This happens when a warrant is obtained too. The location may have nothing of use but the burden is for them to show that there is good cause to believe that there could be.

Really, this is an interesting case and honestly Apple playing the martyr in this is a bit pathetic to me. The whole other countries would start demanding things is possible but it is hard to imagine that they have not already. Here there is an order from a judge to allow looking at the phone. The government apparently cannot so they are asking the company to do something about it.

It sort of sets everything on its head if there are things that are absolutely secure or nearly so. What if there was information only present on the hone but nobody could get in. What if those doing illegal things just made sure they used phones that nobody could get in. Legit case or not going in. Seems odd to pretend that anybodies personel security should potentially compromise somebody elses and that the burden of proof should be so high.

1 Like
17

What are you talking about? If the government is forces Apple to create a new version of their OS that allows the FBI to unlock their phones, that totally IS a backdoor that could be used across their platforms. That’s not fabricated misdirection. That’s the whole point of what the FBI is demanding. Apple currently does not have the capability to unlock these phones and the FBI is trying to force them to create software that will let them do that.

And if they do it, then every law enforcement agency on the planet will demand that they get it too, including oppressive regimes. Ironically, this demand by the FBI is more than even the Chinese government asks for. But if Apple makes this new OS for the Feds, then the Chinese will demand it too. And of course, every hacker will try to get their hands on it. I’m not sure why you imagine this is totally fabricated, since it’s the very thing we’re talking about.

As it is, Apple provides law enforcers with iCloud backups and whatever else they can. But ultimately, you can’t build backdoors that only the good guys can use. To pretend that this is only about one or two phones is ridiculously naive.

8 Likes
18

No. It isn’t. Because that disabled OS is ONLY loaded onto the target phone in custardy and not deployed into any other device. And the FBI has not even requested that they have the software, access to the software. They just want those specific phones in these specific cases which they have valid warrants and probable cause, unlocked.

Apple could take the target phones, make them crackable to a brute-force unlock, then reinstall the non-disabled OS back onto it without the data encryption turned on for that device and hand it back to LE.

1 Like
19

But once the “special” OS is known to exist, the government could later apply for its use over and over again–possibly even demand the code. The view, and I think it correct, is that this is a “never or always” matter.

2 Likes
20

[quote=“owlcroft, post:19, topic:33693”]
But once the “special” OS is known to exist, the government could later apply for its use over and over again[/quote]

So?

As long as LE has a valid warrant and probable cause in each case, I have zero problem with that. Which is exactly how the 4th Ammendmen is supposed to work.

Nonsense. This is wholly “slippery-slope” supposition is simply out of your imagination and not supported by any substantive precedence, law, or case or example.

1 Like