41 ms·

Apple unlock: Judge compares request to execution order

138 points by Libertatea 11y ago

wahsd 11y ago
The thing I hope corporations and people will at some point realize is that the very reason the founders of the USA constructed the nation through the Constitution and Bill of Rights the way they did was to barricade society against the very kind of government demon that is rearing it's vile head these days. If you take these kinds of cases and carry them to their logical conclusion, there is nothing that will bar the government from using mind reading technology to read your mind even if it is just to assess your "mental state" and preemptively remove you from society, monitor you on a constant basis, set up traps and tricks to ensnare you, etc. The worst kind of enemy is the enemy saboteur from within, which the US and other governments are starting to become.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  If you don't mind anime, look into PSYCHO-PASS. It's literally what you described.
- Jgrubb 11y ago
  I think what you're witnessing here is people and corporations realizing just that.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Being the first generation to live in free Portugal after 40 years of dictatorship I never understood how Americans, specially given the McCarthy phase, ever trusted the government to play nice and by the rules.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    Easily - McCarthy was going after evil commies, and we're not evil commies, and we hate evil commies! Full steam ahead, Mr. McCarthy!
enlightenedfool 11y ago
So, now they can go to a higher court or something? Or do they respect the opinion of this judge. Other courts in the past had different opinion right? Why is the law so vague that the judicial system can't come to one conclusion?
- Raurin 11y ago
  This is a new and frightening technology to many veterans of the justice system. These are the people who thought computers were a fad or a joke, and they're perpetually surprised at how popular computers have become. If they appeal, it'll go to a higher court which could overrule the lower court. If a higher court refuses to hear the case (as the supreme court often does), then the ruling of the highest ruling court stands. The law is vague because current laws were written by people who didn't understand the tech or were writing to govern or regulate a different technology entirely.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  the typical path this will follow is will go to the Appeals level and might work its way to the Supreme Court if enough of a push is made. Likely the government will push it up with the idea they can make it happen. Another angle they are going to follow is pushing Congress to legislate the requirement. So the real question is when does this happen? Will Congress get involved at the behest of the Justice Department and mandate access? If so, how long before phone companies are required to lock out devices running a version of the software that does not comply? I still want an erase/panic code for my phone, both through pass phrase and touch sensor. That way I could hand over an unlocked phone that is effectively returned to manufacturer specs.
  - niccaluim 11y ago
    At which point you get nailed for tampering with evidence.
    - patrickmay 11y ago
      A dead man's switch addresses this threat model. If you don't enter the passphrase every 24 hours, the phone resets to factory default. The powers that be would be highly unamused. It would make for some interesting case law.
SonaMathews 11y ago
There is always a conflict for any order given by any judge
teekert 11y ago
I strongly feel that my personal computing devices are extensions of my brain. They help me think, contain personal thoughts, notes and pictures, allow me to communicate with people I love and determine who I am even to some degree (i.e. without them I would not be punctual). I deeply hate the fact that anybody thinks anything on my personal devices belongs to them. I think my devices should fall under the inviolability of the physical body and that decrypting them is akin to forcing me to testify against myself. I do realize how hypocritical I sound carrying an Android device (Googles customers are the advertisers) but I can be a bit idealistic and pragmatic at the same time, can't I?
- brianwawok 11y ago
  I can dream of a world both that can deliver targeted advertising where required, but also avoid leaking my personal data... More like facebook style "Male - 40 - Lives in Flordia" would be all that got leaked..
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- laotzu 11y ago
  The electric medium of the internet as an extension of the brain is a concept which Marshall McLuhan analyzed back in the 1960s. You might be interested in some of the things he wrote: >My main theme is the extension of the nervous system in the electric age, and thus, the complete break with five thousand years of mechanical technology. This I state over and over again. I do not say whether it is a good or bad thing. To do so would be meaningless and arrogant. >In the electric age, when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of our every action. It is no longer possible to adopt the aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner. >Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence.
goffley3 11y ago
It's hard to believe something like this wouldn't fall under the fourth or fifth amendment.
- nickodell 11y ago
  The fifth amendment doesn't apply. This isn't self-incrimination. As to whether the fourth amendment applies - that's the question they're answering in court. Is this a search, in which case the government can compel Apple to disclose useful information, or is the DoJ asking for Apple to do something on their behalf?
- otterley 11y ago
  The Government already has a warrant; so the Fourth Amendment is satisfied. The question in this case is whether the Government can compel Apple to help them execute the warrant.
- rtpg 11y ago
  There's some interesting case law around locked things. One train of thought is that the govt can force you to give the key to a safe, but can't force you to give the combination to a safe. The Apple extension would be that the govt can force unlocking by Apple (since they have a key) but not by you. All the more you reason to make it technically impossible ...
  - sbov 11y ago
    Do they have a key? I thought the point of the recent iPhone encryption is that they don't have a key?
    - rtpg 11y ago
      In the case mentioned, the phone was running an older version of iOS where they could, in fact, unlock the phone. But the recent ones make it impossible, yeah
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
laotzu 11y ago
>Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. Leasing our eyes and ears and nerves to commercial interests is like handing over the common speech to a private corporation, or like giving the earth's atmosphere to a company as a monopoly. -Marshall McLuhan
- wyager 11y ago
  He was wrong; we're having much more trouble with public (i.e. governmental) manipulation.
  - laotzu 11y ago
    Such trouble would not be so feasible if it weren't for the centralized nature of commercial ISPs and big tech (Facebook, Google, Apple) in general and their collaboration with the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
    - wyager 11y ago
      I'd hardly call being forced under threat of imprisonment "collaboration".
      - laotzu 11y ago
        Whether they want to collaborate or not is trivial. What is important is that they possess the information and tools for easy dragnet surveillance in the first place. Moving towards more distributed network tech like Mesh Networks is the only viable solution to dragnet surveillance I know of.
pflanze 11y ago
What I don't understand is: what's different with iOS8 and 9 so that they can't do it anymore? If the difference is that the older version's user data is not encrypted, then why are they asking Apple to unlock it versus unsoldering the flash chip on the phone themselves? Is there a law that prevents the government from doing so?
- nickodell 11y ago
  Why does the DoJ care whether they can compel Apple to help them? Well, there's a pretty big difference between non-destructively copying someone's phone, and taking the phone apart and unsoldering the memory chip. Second, if the DoJ starts doing that, the next obvious step for Apple is to put the encryption key in a hardware security module that the DoJ can't crack. This is an arms race that they can't possibly win.
  - phkahler 11y ago
    >> Well, there's a pretty big difference between non-destructively copying someone's phone, and taking the phone apart and unsoldering the memory chip. If you use a password as a key to encrypt data on the device, no amount of hardware or software access is going to reveal the data.
    - nickodell 11y ago
      Absent a hardware security module, most users don't pick passwords long enough or secure enough to dissuade offline bruteforcing.
- drakenot 11y ago
  Removing the flash chips wouldn't do anything for you. The encryption key is combined with a UID value stored in the Secure Enclave (assigned during manufactoring). The Secure Enclave is a blackbox which receives values, combines them with its secret key and then spits out the final value. [0] A high iteration count is also used which also makes this process take around 80ms. Cracking of the passcode must be done "on device" unless someone can extract the UID from the Secure Enclave. Additionally, any device using an A7 or newer has incorrect passcode rate limits enforced by the Secure Enclave as well. As to what is different between iOS7 vs iOS8/9, I'm not entirely sure. Matthew Green speculates[1] that they may load special firmware that bypasses the "lock" screen which is purely a UI hack. Apparently before iOS8 only a subset of user data was being encrypted compared to what is being encrypted now. [0] https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf [1] http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/10/why-cant-apple-decrypt-your-iphone.html http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/10/why-cant-app...
venomsnake 11y ago
Can't believe I am writing it, but I am siding with the government here. Apple arguments are just weak. They created their device with the ability for them to decrypt it, not only the owner. So do as you are told.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
I think its interesting that Apple has been doing this years, suddenly has a change of heart and now the DOJ is trying to get a judge to get them to do that. I guess this goes deeper than just the searching of the phone. Is Apple not allowed to ever change its mind, on anything?
thegayngler 11y ago
Apple doesn't have the authority to execute a warrant.

138 points by Libertatea 11y ago

wahsd 11y ago

The thing I hope corporations and people will at some point realize is that the very reason the founders of the USA constructed the nation through the Constitution and Bill of Rights the way they did was to barricade society against the very kind of government demon that is rearing it's vile head these days. If you take these kinds of cases and carry them to their logical conclusion, there is nothing that will bar the government from using mind reading technology to read your mind even if it is just to assess your "mental state" and preemptively remove you from society, monitor you on a constant basis, set up traps and tricks to ensnare you, etc. The worst kind of enemy is the enemy saboteur from within, which the US and other governments are starting to become.

mfoy_ 11y ago
If you don't mind anime, look into PSYCHO-PASS. It's literally what you described.
Jgrubb 11y ago
I think what you're witnessing here is people and corporations realizing just that.
pjmlp 11y ago
Being the first generation to live in free Portugal after 40 years of dictatorship I never understood how Americans, specially given the McCarthy phase, ever trusted the government to play nice and by the rules.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Easily - McCarthy was going after evil commies, and we're not evil commies, and we hate evil commies! Full steam ahead, Mr. McCarthy!

enlightenedfool 11y ago

So, now they can go to a higher court or something? Or do they respect the opinion of this judge. Other courts in the past had different opinion right? Why is the law so vague that the judicial system can't come to one conclusion?

Raurin 11y ago
This is a new and frightening technology to many veterans of the justice system. These are the people who thought computers were a fad or a joke, and they're perpetually surprised at how popular computers have become. If they appeal, it'll go to a higher court which could overrule the lower court. If a higher court refuses to hear the case (as the supreme court often does), then the ruling of the highest ruling court stands. The law is vague because current laws were written by people who didn't understand the tech or were writing to govern or regulate a different technology entirely.
Shivetya 11y ago
the typical path this will follow is will go to the Appeals level and might work its way to the Supreme Court if enough of a push is made. Likely the government will push it up with the idea they can make it happen. Another angle they are going to follow is pushing Congress to legislate the requirement. So the real question is when does this happen? Will Congress get involved at the behest of the Justice Department and mandate access? If so, how long before phone companies are required to lock out devices running a version of the software that does not comply? I still want an erase/panic code for my phone, both through pass phrase and touch sensor. That way I could hand over an unlocked phone that is effectively returned to manufacturer specs.
- niccaluim 11y ago
  At which point you get nailed for tampering with evidence.
  - patrickmay 11y ago
    A dead man's switch addresses this threat model. If you don't enter the passphrase every 24 hours, the phone resets to factory default. The powers that be would be highly unamused. It would make for some interesting case law.

SonaMathews 11y ago

There is always a conflict for any order given by any judge

teekert 11y ago

I strongly feel that my personal computing devices are extensions of my brain. They help me think, contain personal thoughts, notes and pictures, allow me to communicate with people I love and determine who I am even to some degree (i.e. without them I would not be punctual). I deeply hate the fact that anybody thinks anything on my personal devices belongs to them. I think my devices should fall under the inviolability of the physical body and that decrypting them is akin to forcing me to testify against myself. I do realize how hypocritical I sound carrying an Android device (Googles customers are the advertisers) but I can be a bit idealistic and pragmatic at the same time, can't I?

brianwawok 11y ago
I can dream of a world both that can deliver targeted advertising where required, but also avoid leaking my personal data... More like facebook style "Male - 40 - Lives in Flordia" would be all that got leaked..
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
laotzu 11y ago
The electric medium of the internet as an extension of the brain is a concept which Marshall McLuhan analyzed back in the 1960s. You might be interested in some of the things he wrote: >My main theme is the extension of the nervous system in the electric age, and thus, the complete break with five thousand years of mechanical technology. This I state over and over again. I do not say whether it is a good or bad thing. To do so would be meaningless and arrogant. >In the electric age, when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of our every action. It is no longer possible to adopt the aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner. >Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence.

goffley3 11y ago

It's hard to believe something like this wouldn't fall under the fourth or fifth amendment.

nickodell 11y ago
The fifth amendment doesn't apply. This isn't self-incrimination. As to whether the fourth amendment applies - that's the question they're answering in court. Is this a search, in which case the government can compel Apple to disclose useful information, or is the DoJ asking for Apple to do something on their behalf?
otterley 11y ago
The Government already has a warrant; so the Fourth Amendment is satisfied. The question in this case is whether the Government can compel Apple to help them execute the warrant.
rtpg 11y ago
There's some interesting case law around locked things. One train of thought is that the govt can force you to give the key to a safe, but can't force you to give the combination to a safe. The Apple extension would be that the govt can force unlocking by Apple (since they have a key) but not by you. All the more you reason to make it technically impossible ...
- sbov 11y ago
  Do they have a key? I thought the point of the recent iPhone encryption is that they don't have a key?
  - rtpg 11y ago
    In the case mentioned, the phone was running an older version of iOS where they could, in fact, unlock the phone. But the recent ones make it impossible, yeah
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

laotzu 11y ago

>Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. Leasing our eyes and ears and nerves to commercial interests is like handing over the common speech to a private corporation, or like giving the earth's atmosphere to a company as a monopoly. -Marshall McLuhan

wyager 11y ago
He was wrong; we're having much more trouble with public (i.e. governmental) manipulation.
- laotzu 11y ago
  Such trouble would not be so feasible if it weren't for the centralized nature of commercial ISPs and big tech (Facebook, Google, Apple) in general and their collaboration with the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
  - wyager 11y ago
    I'd hardly call being forced under threat of imprisonment "collaboration".
    - laotzu 11y ago
      Whether they want to collaborate or not is trivial. What is important is that they possess the information and tools for easy dragnet surveillance in the first place. Moving towards more distributed network tech like Mesh Networks is the only viable solution to dragnet surveillance I know of.

pflanze 11y ago

What I don't understand is: what's different with iOS8 and 9 so that they can't do it anymore? If the difference is that the older version's user data is not encrypted, then why are they asking Apple to unlock it versus unsoldering the flash chip on the phone themselves? Is there a law that prevents the government from doing so?

nickodell 11y ago
Why does the DoJ care whether they can compel Apple to help them? Well, there's a pretty big difference between non-destructively copying someone's phone, and taking the phone apart and unsoldering the memory chip. Second, if the DoJ starts doing that, the next obvious step for Apple is to put the encryption key in a hardware security module that the DoJ can't crack. This is an arms race that they can't possibly win.
- phkahler 11y ago
  >> Well, there's a pretty big difference between non-destructively copying someone's phone, and taking the phone apart and unsoldering the memory chip. If you use a password as a key to encrypt data on the device, no amount of hardware or software access is going to reveal the data.
  - nickodell 11y ago
    Absent a hardware security module, most users don't pick passwords long enough or secure enough to dissuade offline bruteforcing.
drakenot 11y ago
Removing the flash chips wouldn't do anything for you. The encryption key is combined with a UID value stored in the Secure Enclave (assigned during manufactoring). The Secure Enclave is a blackbox which receives values, combines them with its secret key and then spits out the final value. [0] A high iteration count is also used which also makes this process take around 80ms. Cracking of the passcode must be done "on device" unless someone can extract the UID from the Secure Enclave. Additionally, any device using an A7 or newer has incorrect passcode rate limits enforced by the Secure Enclave as well. As to what is different between iOS7 vs iOS8/9, I'm not entirely sure. Matthew Green speculates[1] that they may load special firmware that bypasses the "lock" screen which is purely a UI hack. Apparently before iOS8 only a subset of user data was being encrypted compared to what is being encrypted now. [0] https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf [1] http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/10/why-cant-apple-decrypt-your-iphone.html http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/10/why-cant-app...

venomsnake 11y ago

Can't believe I am writing it, but I am siding with the government here. Apple arguments are just weak. They created their device with the ability for them to decrypt it, not only the owner. So do as you are told.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

I think its interesting that Apple has been doing this years, suddenly has a change of heart and now the DOJ is trying to get a judge to get them to do that. I guess this goes deeper than just the searching of the phone. Is Apple not allowed to ever change its mind, on anything?

thegayngler 11y ago

Apple doesn't have the authority to execute a warrant.