4 ms·

There's a simple way to defeat Apple's argument. The judge could simply ask Apple to flash the new firmware on that phone, let the FBI run the brute force under

There's a simple way to defeat Apple's argument. The judge could simply ask Apple to flash the new firmware on that phone, let the FBI run the brute force under their supervision and obtain the contents they need, and then flash back a non-compromised version of the OS. The government would never have access to a phone with a compromised version of an OS that they could use to repeat this trick. Rather, the government would have to obtain court orders and have forensics done under supervision. This isn't a backdoor and doesn't affect consumers, and sets a really high bar to trying to scale this for the government because it requires Apple as the gatekeeper every time to agree to do the one-off hack. The cynic in me thinks that this letter is more about brand image. Apple wants to claim they can't hack their own phones, even if the government asks, but clearly in the case of the iPhone 5C it IS possible for them to do it, and this creates a contradiction with their public marketing and privacy position. If they didn't release this open letter, then simply complying with the judges order would make them look bad.

ccvannorman 11y ago
1) Merely creating the software/firmware in the first place is extremely dangerous, allowing for a failure point of any engineer or custodian of the firmware to leak it, destroying everything. 2) The strong precedent will be set that governments can get whatever they want from our devices by whatever means necessary, and it will only get worse.
will_be_ironman 11y ago
If Apple doesn't fight this, a precedent will be set, allowing for the government to compel companies to release user information or ways of circumventing encryption in the future. 2) the government doesn't need to have access to the firmware for it to become dangerous, the sheer fact that this can be created is dangerous. What's to stop a determined, hacker from doing the same thing in the confines of his/her bedroom once it's confirmed that this is possible?
nroach 11y ago
The problem is that once created, it would be easier for future warrants to ask Apple to simply re-perform the same trick it's done in the past. Apple's core argument is that allow this once opens the door to doing it repeatedly because right now Apple doesn't have the toolchain to do this. Once the toolchain exists, its deployment is trivial.
- peeters 11y ago
  > The problem is that once created, it would be easier for future warrants to ask Apple to simply re-perform the same trick it's done in the past. That's not a problem at all. The issue is how the existence of the tool affects warrantless access. Where did we get the idea that it's bad in itself for law enforcement agencies to be able to break crypto when they have a warrant?
  - jsmthrowaway 11y ago
    Because breakable crypto isn't crypto?
  - nroach 11y ago
    Outside the all writs act, parties generally can't be compelled to perform activities by the court that they don't already perform in the course of business. So this is significant (warrant or otherwise) because it's the court asking apple to create a process de novo that didn't exist before.
- cromwellian 11y ago
  So? At least in American jurisdiction, the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to unbreakable crypto. It says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Upon probable cause, the government may issue warrants. The US government, backed by the people of the United States, have a right to compel a private corporation to comply with reasonable searches and seizures on probable cause with a warrant. The government is not asking Apple to deploy nuclear weapons, nor ship all iPhones with a hack. They are specifically asking for help with one vulnerable phone, an iPhone 5C. They may be asked to do this multiple times, but they can keep whatever engineers and tools they use internally private. I mean, let's get real for a second. The toolchain already exists. Apple has the source code, hardware simulators, debugging harnesses, and the original engineers. There's no magic. As long as those things exist, the danger of a hack getting public is real, especially if the source for iOS is ever stolen, or one of the core engineers goes rogue. If Apple's own internal security can't keep a more polished tool under wraps, they won't be able to keep the subcomponents of it under wraps. There's a reasonable middle ground between "government has a backdoor and can scan and read everything" and "it's impossible for the government to even obtain legal warrants on probable cause for a very targeted piece of information" What's being discussed in this case is not Snowden-level drag-net snooping. We're not even talking about a wire-tap. We're literally talking about the government finding a Safe/Vault inside the house of a murderer, and talking to the manufacturer of the Safe/Vault to get them to pick the lock without destroying the evidence inside. The Vault-maker in this scenario doesn't even have to give over the blueprints of the proprietary lock mechanism, they just need to open this one vault.
topspin 11y ago
"The cynic in me thinks that this letter is more about brand image." The cynic in me agrees. My cynic also notes the sudden indifference to corporate power publicly defying a federal judge. I cynically believe that if the shooters had been fundy white supremacists Apple would have quietly dumped the phone long ago. Cook is no dummy and picks his battles with care. That's why he makes the big bucks.

ccvannorman 11y ago

1) Merely creating the software/firmware in the first place is extremely dangerous, allowing for a failure point of any engineer or custodian of the firmware to leak it, destroying everything. 2) The strong precedent will be set that governments can get whatever they want from our devices by whatever means necessary, and it will only get worse.

will_be_ironman 11y ago

If Apple doesn't fight this, a precedent will be set, allowing for the government to compel companies to release user information or ways of circumventing encryption in the future. 2) the government doesn't need to have access to the firmware for it to become dangerous, the sheer fact that this can be created is dangerous. What's to stop a determined, hacker from doing the same thing in the confines of his/her bedroom once it's confirmed that this is possible?

nroach 11y ago

The problem is that once created, it would be easier for future warrants to ask Apple to simply re-perform the same trick it's done in the past. Apple's core argument is that allow this once opens the door to doing it repeatedly because right now Apple doesn't have the toolchain to do this. Once the toolchain exists, its deployment is trivial.

peeters 11y ago
> The problem is that once created, it would be easier for future warrants to ask Apple to simply re-perform the same trick it's done in the past. That's not a problem at all. The issue is how the existence of the tool affects warrantless access. Where did we get the idea that it's bad in itself for law enforcement agencies to be able to break crypto when they have a warrant?
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  Because breakable crypto isn't crypto?
- nroach 11y ago
  Outside the all writs act, parties generally can't be compelled to perform activities by the court that they don't already perform in the course of business. So this is significant (warrant or otherwise) because it's the court asking apple to create a process de novo that didn't exist before.
cromwellian 11y ago
So? At least in American jurisdiction, the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to unbreakable crypto. It says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Upon probable cause, the government may issue warrants. The US government, backed by the people of the United States, have a right to compel a private corporation to comply with reasonable searches and seizures on probable cause with a warrant. The government is not asking Apple to deploy nuclear weapons, nor ship all iPhones with a hack. They are specifically asking for help with one vulnerable phone, an iPhone 5C. They may be asked to do this multiple times, but they can keep whatever engineers and tools they use internally private. I mean, let's get real for a second. The toolchain already exists. Apple has the source code, hardware simulators, debugging harnesses, and the original engineers. There's no magic. As long as those things exist, the danger of a hack getting public is real, especially if the source for iOS is ever stolen, or one of the core engineers goes rogue. If Apple's own internal security can't keep a more polished tool under wraps, they won't be able to keep the subcomponents of it under wraps. There's a reasonable middle ground between "government has a backdoor and can scan and read everything" and "it's impossible for the government to even obtain legal warrants on probable cause for a very targeted piece of information" What's being discussed in this case is not Snowden-level drag-net snooping. We're not even talking about a wire-tap. We're literally talking about the government finding a Safe/Vault inside the house of a murderer, and talking to the manufacturer of the Safe/Vault to get them to pick the lock without destroying the evidence inside. The Vault-maker in this scenario doesn't even have to give over the blueprints of the proprietary lock mechanism, they just need to open this one vault.

topspin 11y ago

"The cynic in me thinks that this letter is more about brand image." The cynic in me agrees. My cynic also notes the sudden indifference to corporate power publicly defying a federal judge. I cynically believe that if the shooters had been fundy white supremacists Apple would have quietly dumped the phone long ago. Cook is no dummy and picks his battles with care. That's why he makes the big bucks.