8 ms·

Of course the industry response is muted; this is the chilling effect that we were all worried about. Most Big Co's don't want to put themselves in opposition t

Of course the industry response is muted; this is the chilling effect that we were all worried about. Most Big Co's don't want to put themselves in opposition to an organization as powerful and well-funded as the US intelligence apparatus. I'm sure they are all on Apple's side, but are less willing to speak out about it because they fear the consequences. If you're cynical, you might think that this case is all about setting precedent and trying to scare one of the FBI's biggest opponents on the topic of data security (Cook). We know they have other options for cracking the phone in question (decapping, side channels, etc.). They want legal precedent for installing backdoors, and they want to scare Apple and other companies out of providing security features. No wonder those companies are hesitant to speak up.

asgfoi 11y ago
Do you think they choose to ask Apple to do this in such a public way, because they are very confident the phone will contain information that will help with the investigation, which will make a positive precedent about this method for future requests, and also provide 'lobbying power' when new laws will be considered?
- sosuke 11y ago
  The phone might not even have to contain anything useful for it to be said to have been helpful by the elimination of that avenue of research. "Apple helped by showing the phone had no information on the attack and we've moved on to other investigative avenues." One could twist things all day long to fit a goal.
- travoc 11y ago
  They can be confident because they are free to assert whatever they want about the contents of the phone. Nobody will have access to information that contradicts their assertions.
- dmix 11y ago
  The iPhone in question was his (government) work phone and they already found a bunch of their other 'burner' phones in a trash bin, which they got access to. I find it unlikely he used his work phone for planning when they purposefully ditched other devices. Additionally, I doubt he knew the iPhone encryption would block investigators from accessing the data, so the fact they can't access it is most likely just coincidental that the device's battery was dead. But this is just speculation... I'm definitely in the camp that believes this is a legal stunt by the FBI to set a precedent using a highly publicized terrorism case which the public will support. A previous All Writs Act claim in 2014 by the FBI for a credit card fraud case involving an encrypted iPhone didn't change Apple's position on the matter, so they are trying again with a higher stakes case.
  - asgfoi 11y ago
    Yes I agree. I can't be a coincidence. They deliberately picked the best weapon in this debate, biased public opinion.
petra 11y ago
Could it be possible that the government want to lose in this case(and in the media) - creating a strong illusion that the iPhone is 100% safe from spying ? How valuable such an illusion would be ?
- mentat 11y ago
  Most people who think about this stuff often seem to think that TAO already has access and the only purpose is to create a precedent to use this legal process against anyone.
  - Fr0styMatt88 11y ago
    What is TAO?
    - genkaos 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations
  - Phlarp 11y ago
    Do you really think that the information in this phone is otherwise beyond the reach of all mankind? Spare a few snowflake engineers and managers at Apple? There are dozens if not hundreds of viable methods to obtain this info, FBI is choosing to pursue the court order route instead of any of the other forensic tools available to them. The simple fact of the matter is that the encrypted data and the key to decrypt it both live in a piece of physical hardware on the device-- no matter how well obfuscated it is, it can still be analyzed and recovered by a sufficiently advanced technical entity. This is exactly the type of work that NSA TAO exists to accomplish, and they are widely regarded as one of the best organizations of this kind in the world.
- sp332 11y ago
  In fact, they swore to it. https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/700394031218499584 https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/700394031218499584
unfunco 11y ago
I don't think it's about opposing the government, the line in Apple's letter that symbolises for me the importance of their argument is "because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business." – for many other companies, the contents of your device is absolutely their business, it's how they maintain revenue. If Facebook can't read your data, then they can't sell your eyeballs to advertisers.
- teacup50 11y ago
  If the contents are none of Apple's business, why did Apple give themselves (via their signing keys) a backdoor that allows them to replace the firmware out from under the owner of an ostensibly locked device? If Apple couldn't do an end-run on the key derivation protection mechanisms, then they couldn't use that backdoor to aid the FBI. "Can't do it" is a strong defense. "Won't do it" isn't.
  - unfunco 11y ago
    You'll have to excuse any naivety on my part, but is that for all devices or for <= 5C? I was under the impression that was not possible for the 6 and 6S because of the secure enclave, and that the device had to be unlocked for a firmware update to occur.
    - teacup50 11y ago
      The weight of evidence is that they can update the secure enclave firmware in place, too, without losing keying material.
    - thinkling 11y ago
      People are disputing that now; apparently Apple has hinted that they could defeat the Secure Enclave on the newer phones. e.g.: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/17/panzarino-apple-fbi http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/17/panzarino-apple-...
  - gmoore 11y ago
    Actually - it seems to me that "won't do it" - when based on principle, is a much better defense.

asgfoi 11y ago

Do you think they choose to ask Apple to do this in such a public way, because they are very confident the phone will contain information that will help with the investigation, which will make a positive precedent about this method for future requests, and also provide 'lobbying power' when new laws will be considered?

sosuke 11y ago
The phone might not even have to contain anything useful for it to be said to have been helpful by the elimination of that avenue of research. "Apple helped by showing the phone had no information on the attack and we've moved on to other investigative avenues." One could twist things all day long to fit a goal.
travoc 11y ago
They can be confident because they are free to assert whatever they want about the contents of the phone. Nobody will have access to information that contradicts their assertions.
dmix 11y ago
The iPhone in question was his (government) work phone and they already found a bunch of their other 'burner' phones in a trash bin, which they got access to. I find it unlikely he used his work phone for planning when they purposefully ditched other devices. Additionally, I doubt he knew the iPhone encryption would block investigators from accessing the data, so the fact they can't access it is most likely just coincidental that the device's battery was dead. But this is just speculation... I'm definitely in the camp that believes this is a legal stunt by the FBI to set a precedent using a highly publicized terrorism case which the public will support. A previous All Writs Act claim in 2014 by the FBI for a credit card fraud case involving an encrypted iPhone didn't change Apple's position on the matter, so they are trying again with a higher stakes case.
- asgfoi 11y ago
  Yes I agree. I can't be a coincidence. They deliberately picked the best weapon in this debate, biased public opinion.

petra 11y ago

Could it be possible that the government want to lose in this case(and in the media) - creating a strong illusion that the iPhone is 100% safe from spying ? How valuable such an illusion would be ?

mentat 11y ago
Most people who think about this stuff often seem to think that TAO already has access and the only purpose is to create a precedent to use this legal process against anyone.
- Fr0styMatt88 11y ago
  What is TAO?
  - genkaos 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations
- Phlarp 11y ago
  Do you really think that the information in this phone is otherwise beyond the reach of all mankind? Spare a few snowflake engineers and managers at Apple? There are dozens if not hundreds of viable methods to obtain this info, FBI is choosing to pursue the court order route instead of any of the other forensic tools available to them. The simple fact of the matter is that the encrypted data and the key to decrypt it both live in a piece of physical hardware on the device-- no matter how well obfuscated it is, it can still be analyzed and recovered by a sufficiently advanced technical entity. This is exactly the type of work that NSA TAO exists to accomplish, and they are widely regarded as one of the best organizations of this kind in the world.
sp332 11y ago
In fact, they swore to it. https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/700394031218499584 https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/700394031218499584

unfunco 11y ago

I don't think it's about opposing the government, the line in Apple's letter that symbolises for me the importance of their argument is "because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business." – for many other companies, the contents of your device is absolutely their business, it's how they maintain revenue. If Facebook can't read your data, then they can't sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

teacup50 11y ago
If the contents are none of Apple's business, why did Apple give themselves (via their signing keys) a backdoor that allows them to replace the firmware out from under the owner of an ostensibly locked device? If Apple couldn't do an end-run on the key derivation protection mechanisms, then they couldn't use that backdoor to aid the FBI. "Can't do it" is a strong defense. "Won't do it" isn't.
- unfunco 11y ago
  You'll have to excuse any naivety on my part, but is that for all devices or for <= 5C? I was under the impression that was not possible for the 6 and 6S because of the secure enclave, and that the device had to be unlocked for a firmware update to occur.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    The weight of evidence is that they can update the secure enclave firmware in place, too, without losing keying material.
  - thinkling 11y ago
    People are disputing that now; apparently Apple has hinted that they could defeat the Secure Enclave on the newer phones. e.g.: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/17/panzarino-apple-fbi http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/17/panzarino-apple-...
- gmoore 11y ago
  Actually - it seems to me that "won't do it" - when based on principle, is a much better defense.