Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:02 am
The court order asks Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance” in creating a new mobile operating system. This iOS would disable a feature in the iPhone that automatically erases its data after too many failed attempts for access. This way the FBI can attempt to unlock the phone by submitting an endless series of passcodes via something known as a brute-force attack.
National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers warns that encryption is making it “much more difficult” for the agency to intercept the communications of terrorist groups like the Islamic State, citing November’s Paris attacks as a case where his agency was left in the dark because the perpetrators used new technologies to disguise their communications.
...
“Is it harder for us to generate the kind of knowledge that I would like against some of these targets? Yes,” Rogers said. “Is that directly tied in part to changes they are making in their communications? Yes. Does encryption make it much more difficult for us to execute our mission. Yes.”
Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump, for one, urged Apple to drop its guard. "Who do they think they are? They have to open it up," he said. "We have to use common sense."
You're the last person in the universe qualified to talk about "common sense."
"In this specific case, I'm trending toward the government, but I've got to tell you in general I oppose the government's effort, personified by FBI Director Jim Comey," Hayden told Capital Download in an interview about his memoir, Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror. "Jim would like a back door available to American law enforcement in all devices globally. And, frankly, I think on balance that actually harms American safety and security, even though it might make Jim's job a bit easier in some specific circumstances."
Depending on how you look at it, that could suggest only a small majority side with the FBI (51 percent versus 49 percent who oppose it or are undecided), or it could suggest a clear majority in the FBI's favor (51 percent to 38 percent).
Another factor is that while many people favor security in the abstract, they might be less willing to see their own personal data put at risk, Tyson said. According to the latest study, among those who personally own an iPhone, the views were more evenly divided, with 47 percent saying Apple should help unlock the phone, and 43 percent saying it should not.
I find that really hard to believe.TPRJones wrote:The problem is by creating the one-off OS changes that will allow this phone to be unlocked and giving that to the FBI they also hand over the unlock code to every other smart phone they produce. You simply can't trust the FBI to use it once and delete it; they'll start using it any time they have a chance.
There's no middle ground there.
Doubt it. Once you open that window, even a crack, you risk a complete security meltdown. And fuck bill. That's exactly how legal precedent works.TheCatt wrote:I find that really hard to believe.TPRJones wrote:The problem is by creating the one-off OS changes that will allow this phone to be unlocked and giving that to the FBI they also hand over the unlock code to every other smart phone they produce. You simply can't trust the FBI to use it once and delete it; they'll start using it any time they have a chance.
There's no middle ground there.
Surely Apple could unlock/break the things themselves, then give the phone + code to the FBI, the end?
Chain of custody issue.TheCatt wrote:I find that really hard to believe.TPRJones wrote:The problem is by creating the one-off OS changes that will allow this phone to be unlocked and giving that to the FBI they also hand over the unlock code to every other smart phone they produce. You simply can't trust the FBI to use it once and delete it; they'll start using it any time they have a chance.
There's no middle ground there.
Surely Apple could unlock/break the things themselves, then give the phone + code to the FBI, the end?
There's workarounds for that, according to a quick google.GORDON wrote:Chain of custody issue.TheCatt wrote:I find that really hard to believe.TPRJones wrote:The problem is by creating the one-off OS changes that will allow this phone to be unlocked and giving that to the FBI they also hand over the unlock code to every other smart phone they produce. You simply can't trust the FBI to use it once and delete it; they'll start using it any time they have a chance.
There's no middle ground there.
Surely Apple could unlock/break the things themselves, then give the phone + code to the FBI, the end?
This is precisely it. The FBI wants to remove the "10 strikes and self-destruct" rule that iPhone data adheres to. An OS update affects more than this single piece of hardware. Even if that update is only placed in the hands of the FBI and never leaks out, I still don't like it because of the potential for abuse. I predict a huge spike in aftermarket smartphone software if the fascist feds get their way.TPRJones wrote:From what I understand the FBI refuses to take that approach. They want Apple to give them the OS patched to allow easy access and let the FBI do the actual breaking.
K... so there is a 3rd way. At any rate, I support that approach. I don't support the patched-OS version.TPRJones wrote:From what I understand the FBI refuses to take that approach. They want Apple to give them the OS patched to allow easy access and let the FBI do the actual breaking.
"The only way to find out is to open up that phone and get in there," he said. "A lot of the families of the victims, we're kind of angry and confused as to why Apple is refusing to do this."
Farook had worked as a county health inspector. Larson said the government has a strong case because of Farook's diminished privacy interests as a "dead, murderous terrorist" and because the phone was owned by his employer, the county government. "You're weighing that against the interest of enforcement in an investigation and the victims and their interest in obtaining this knowledge," he said.
"We have a constitution and we have civil liberties in this country. Terrorists want to take that away from us," he said in an appearance on "CBS This Morning." Gregory Clayborn, whose 27-year-old daughter, Sierra, died in the attack, said he hasn't been asked to join the case but believes Apple is obligated to unlock the phone.
"This makes me a little bit angry with Apple," Clayborn said. "It makes me question their interest in the safety of this country."
the newspaper quotes Gates as saying.
"It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records," Gates continued. "Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said 'don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times."'