6 ms·

DoJ to Apple: we can force you to decrypt

74 points by k4jh 11y ago

gdwatson 11y ago
The full headline on BoingBoing is much better than the abbreviated version: "DoJ to Apple: your software is licensed, not sold, so we can force you to decrypt." The HN headline just means that DoJ hasn't given up the fight; the full headline makes it clear that there's a novel legal argument involved.
amdolan 11y ago
The wording that the link discusses is in the pdf[0] section 1.a. on pg 13. Which, for reasons beyond my understanding, argues the point "Apple is not 'far removed' from this matter". The DOJ is discussing a phone that pre-dates iOS 8. I think the main argument in the linked document is that Apple has the ability to unlock pre iOS 8 phones, and has done it before. Again, that "Apple is not 'so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled.” The OP seems wrong but IANAL. > it doesn't have the technical capability to do so; Is factually incorrect in this case... Right? [0] https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.376325/gov.uscourts.nyed.376325.15.0.pdf https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.3...
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  Like with iMessage, their claim "we can't" seems to have the catch "today, without changing the code and patching it". While they have a whole bunch of safeguards, they're still actually incomplete as far as I can tell. In other words, Apple design their security measures under the assumption that they themselves are not the enemy. That's not good enough anymore. If you get compromised, you become the enemy. The designer should lock even themselves out, the end user should be the one in control.
  - lewisl9029 11y ago
    This is exactly why I wish we had more decentralized software that runs only on the client. It's the only way to truly lock yourself out of your users' data. Even so-called zero-knowledge centralized software like iMessage is only a centrally mandated update away from turning their backs on their privacy policy.
    - shalmanese 11y ago
      If I try to send you a message and your phone is off and my phone is off by the time you turn your phone on, where does the message live until you turn your phone back on? It has to live somewhere not controlled by either of us if we don't want unacceptable degradations in usability.
      - chatmasta 11y ago
        can't it just live on the sender's device until the receiver is online? think about sending an iMessage on the subway... "undelivered" doesn't mean that your message is sitting on Apple servers somewhere. it means it's still on your phone and you can try sending it again when you have a better uplink.
        shalmanese 11y ago
        When you can't reach Apple, it's undelivered. But there's also the case where you can reach Apple but Apple can't reach the recipient. Then, the message sits on Apple's servers until the recipient can be reached.
      - Natanael_L 11y ago
        Encrypted on the server, TextSecure / Signal has solved that already with 3DH + axolotl.
        shalmanese 11y ago
        Right, but that's not software that runs only on the client. There's still a server sitting in the middle. iMessage theoretically also does this. The difference is how key exchange is handled, with iMessage preferring a more usable but potentially less secure approach.
snissn 11y ago
If my phone is protected with a 4 digit pin, and someone has physical access to it, why is it so hard to decrypt? Can someone point me to an explanation of the hardware that protects my data?
- astrange 11y ago
  https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf page 10.
  - ludbb 11y ago
    The more relevant part about passcodes (4 or 6 digits) is described on page 12. It's not fully specified, but since the PDF mentions "iteration count" then Apple is using some sort of KDF after you enter your PIN to make brute force attacks harder to perform. It also mentions the following delays: Delays between passcode attempts Attempts Delay Enforced 1-4 none 5 1 minute 6 5 minutes 7-8 15 minutes 9 1 hour There's also an optional setting you can enable so that after 10 failed consecutive attempts the device's data is wiped.
    - Someone 11y ago
      Minor correction: "IOS supports six-digit, four-digit, and arbitrary-length alphanumeric passcodes" Also note how they mention "six-digit" before "four-digit". Six digits is the default on new installations now (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/apple-to-require-6-digit-passcodes-on-newer-iphones-ipads-under-ios-9/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/apple-to-require-6-digi...)
      - ludbb 11y ago
        Sure, that correction is correct ;) but it's not mentioned in that section of the mentioned documented. It leads me to believe that the restrictions described do not apply to them.
rdl 11y ago
I'm glad Apple has both virtually unlimited resources and a clear desire to win this. It may not be existential risk to them, but enh. If this goes badly and loses on all appeals it is over.
- kalessin 11y ago
  Isn't the ability to sell their phone in other markets (e.g: APAC) a clear desire to win? I'm not gonna buy or recommend a phone if I know my competitors can tap into it anytime?
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Apple and other US tech companies struck a deal with China that reportedly involved handing out decryption keys as well. http://qz.com/356233/apples-capitulation-to-china-undermines-obamas-tough-talk-on-snooping/ http://qz.com/356233/apples-capitulation-to-china-undermines... http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-presses-china-on-bank-technology-rules-1425009951 http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-presses-china-on-bank-technol... RIM at the time fought Saudi Arabia on the same thing, but has also eventually given up. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/07/rim-deal-saudi-arabia-access-blackberry-user-data/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/07/rim-deal-saudi-arabia... Companies will always do what it's profitable for them, for RIM Saudi Arabia at the time was a big enough market, today it's China. While there might be some backlash, most people don't care and while you might need to invest money in spinning this if a country doesn't allow you to sell the products in the first place you lose by default. ATM there seems to be sufficient public pressure to fight against these decisions in the US and Europe, but not so much in other regions, and if China gets to access your phone YBA the US won't be in a position to give up on it either, not that they seem to want to at least at this point in time regardless of that reality.
Natanael_L 11y ago
Yet another reason for why you as the device owner should be the authority over your own phone. If you're the only one to decide what software runs on it, this crap can't be enforced against you.
Analemma_ 11y ago
While the DoJ's legal argument here is insane and it deserves to be thrown out with prejudice, software companies have happily used the "we're not selling this to you, we're licensing it to you" argument to justify all kinds of gross anti-consumer behavior - including Apple, when they used it to crush Psystar. It's a long shot, but I wonder if the DoJ prevails here it'll make companies think a little harder about whether licensing is the correct way to distribute software, and if consumers might end up getting some rights back because of it.
- a3n 11y ago
  If DoJ prevails, I would think that the original thoughts that decided licensing was better for a company than selling would still prevail, and they'll just comply with the new legal environment. It is a delicious twist, though.

74 points by k4jh 11y ago

The full headline on BoingBoing is much better than the abbreviated version: "DoJ to Apple: your software is licensed, not sold, so we can force you to decrypt." The HN headline just means that DoJ hasn't given up the fight; the full headline makes it clear that there's a novel legal argument involved.

amdolan 11y ago

The wording that the link discusses is in the pdf[0] section 1.a. on pg 13. Which, for reasons beyond my understanding, argues the point "Apple is not 'far removed' from this matter". The DOJ is discussing a phone that pre-dates iOS 8. I think the main argument in the linked document is that Apple has the ability to unlock pre iOS 8 phones, and has done it before. Again, that "Apple is not 'so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled.” The OP seems wrong but IANAL. > it doesn't have the technical capability to do so; Is factually incorrect in this case... Right? [0] https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.376325/gov.uscourts.nyed.376325.15.0.pdf https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.3...

Natanael_L 11y ago
Like with iMessage, their claim "we can't" seems to have the catch "today, without changing the code and patching it". While they have a whole bunch of safeguards, they're still actually incomplete as far as I can tell. In other words, Apple design their security measures under the assumption that they themselves are not the enemy. That's not good enough anymore. If you get compromised, you become the enemy. The designer should lock even themselves out, the end user should be the one in control.
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  This is exactly why I wish we had more decentralized software that runs only on the client. It's the only way to truly lock yourself out of your users' data. Even so-called zero-knowledge centralized software like iMessage is only a centrally mandated update away from turning their backs on their privacy policy.
  - shalmanese 11y ago
    If I try to send you a message and your phone is off and my phone is off by the time you turn your phone on, where does the message live until you turn your phone back on? It has to live somewhere not controlled by either of us if we don't want unacceptable degradations in usability.
    - chatmasta 11y ago
      can't it just live on the sender's device until the receiver is online? think about sending an iMessage on the subway... "undelivered" doesn't mean that your message is sitting on Apple servers somewhere. it means it's still on your phone and you can try sending it again when you have a better uplink.
      - shalmanese 11y ago
        When you can't reach Apple, it's undelivered. But there's also the case where you can reach Apple but Apple can't reach the recipient. Then, the message sits on Apple's servers until the recipient can be reached.
    - Natanael_L 11y ago
      Encrypted on the server, TextSecure / Signal has solved that already with 3DH + axolotl.
      - shalmanese 11y ago
        Right, but that's not software that runs only on the client. There's still a server sitting in the middle. iMessage theoretically also does this. The difference is how key exchange is handled, with iMessage preferring a more usable but potentially less secure approach.

snissn 11y ago

If my phone is protected with a 4 digit pin, and someone has physical access to it, why is it so hard to decrypt? Can someone point me to an explanation of the hardware that protects my data?

astrange 11y ago
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf page 10.
- ludbb 11y ago
  The more relevant part about passcodes (4 or 6 digits) is described on page 12. It's not fully specified, but since the PDF mentions "iteration count" then Apple is using some sort of KDF after you enter your PIN to make brute force attacks harder to perform. It also mentions the following delays: Delays between passcode attempts Attempts Delay Enforced 1-4 none 5 1 minute 6 5 minutes 7-8 15 minutes 9 1 hour There's also an optional setting you can enable so that after 10 failed consecutive attempts the device's data is wiped.
  - Someone 11y ago
    Minor correction: "IOS supports six-digit, four-digit, and arbitrary-length alphanumeric passcodes" Also note how they mention "six-digit" before "four-digit". Six digits is the default on new installations now (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/apple-to-require-6-digit-passcodes-on-newer-iphones-ipads-under-ios-9/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/apple-to-require-6-digi...)
    - ludbb 11y ago
      Sure, that correction is correct ;) but it's not mentioned in that section of the mentioned documented. It leads me to believe that the restrictions described do not apply to them.

rdl 11y ago

I'm glad Apple has both virtually unlimited resources and a clear desire to win this. It may not be existential risk to them, but enh. If this goes badly and loses on all appeals it is over.

kalessin 11y ago
Isn't the ability to sell their phone in other markets (e.g: APAC) a clear desire to win? I'm not gonna buy or recommend a phone if I know my competitors can tap into it anytime?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Apple and other US tech companies struck a deal with China that reportedly involved handing out decryption keys as well. http://qz.com/356233/apples-capitulation-to-china-undermines-obamas-tough-talk-on-snooping/ http://qz.com/356233/apples-capitulation-to-china-undermines... http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-presses-china-on-bank-technology-rules-1425009951 http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-presses-china-on-bank-technol... RIM at the time fought Saudi Arabia on the same thing, but has also eventually given up. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/07/rim-deal-saudi-arabia-access-blackberry-user-data/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/07/rim-deal-saudi-arabia... Companies will always do what it's profitable for them, for RIM Saudi Arabia at the time was a big enough market, today it's China. While there might be some backlash, most people don't care and while you might need to invest money in spinning this if a country doesn't allow you to sell the products in the first place you lose by default. ATM there seems to be sufficient public pressure to fight against these decisions in the US and Europe, but not so much in other regions, and if China gets to access your phone YBA the US won't be in a position to give up on it either, not that they seem to want to at least at this point in time regardless of that reality.

Natanael_L 11y ago

Yet another reason for why you as the device owner should be the authority over your own phone. If you're the only one to decide what software runs on it, this crap can't be enforced against you.

Analemma_ 11y ago

While the DoJ's legal argument here is insane and it deserves to be thrown out with prejudice, software companies have happily used the "we're not selling this to you, we're licensing it to you" argument to justify all kinds of gross anti-consumer behavior - including Apple, when they used it to crush Psystar. It's a long shot, but I wonder if the DoJ prevails here it'll make companies think a little harder about whether licensing is the correct way to distribute software, and if consumers might end up getting some rights back because of it.

a3n 11y ago
If DoJ prevails, I would think that the original thoughts that decided licensing was better for a company than selling would still prevail, and they'll just comply with the new legal environment. It is a delicious twist, though.