5 ms·

I'm actually a little surprised that the FBI would go so public with the request? Anyone have any insights here? Did they think perhaps there would be public o

I'm actually a little surprised that the FBI would go so public with the request? Anyone have any insights here? Did they think perhaps there would be public outcry the other direction meaning Apple would look like it was harboring terrorist information if they didn't comply to a public request?

skywhopper 11y ago
It's a political move. The FBI wants this capability for all iPhones. But this particular case is very difficult politically to argue with to the general public. The FBI realized they had a strong political force available to them, and they seized it. They are attempting to either force Apple's hand, make them give into public pressure, or--best of all for the FBI--to convince lawmakers to pass a law requiring companies to provide backdoors. The FBI will gladly keep sealed its requests that Apple unlock phones in more ambiguous cases, because it would be easy for Apple to publicly refute. But this case is just too good for the people at the FBI who want keys to everyone's data.
Zigurd 11y ago
They think they can win it and/or they think it will cost Apple a significant enough hit to the stock price to make it painful not to bend over.The FBI people who pushed it this far are arrogant assholes and I hope they end up being well-known assholes.
mentalpiracy 11y ago
They might have, it's certainly been a theme in some comments by supporters of the unlocking. He public move may be more about setting clear legal precedent - if Apple is forced to do this, the government certainly will rely on this decision again in the future. You cannot set clear legal precedent under seal (outside the FISA court anyway)
stevetrewick 11y ago
Establishing a Manichean media narrative framing Apple (and by extension all crypto providers) as enemies of America who hinder the righteous war on terror. Then if their legal case fails, public outrage, Something Must Be Done, legislative action rendering the AWA moot, achievement unlocked : all your phone are belong to US. Or is that too tinfoil hat ?
duaneb 11y ago
> Did they think perhaps there would be public outcry the other direction meaning Apple would look like it was harboring terrorist information if they didn't comply to a public request? This is exactly what is happening. It's a political hail mary to get the easiest-to-see use case of forcing privacy violations on american corporations and users legally protected in court precedent. Of course, under this interpretation, there's the disturbing implication they had to wait this long (after the revelation about PRISM) to find a case that so well matched their political agenda. It's also a little worrying that they are going public, because normally that's not necessary for court verdicts. Perhaps they're preparing for legislative action if the case fails?
- swyman 11y ago
  Any insight into which presidential candidates have the most privacy-friendly views here?
  - ghayes 11y ago
    I don't know why you're being down-voted. The US is in the midst of an election cycle that may very well pertain to the "legislative action" of the parent comment (in so far as the executive has an effect on the legislature). From a recent article [0], it states (summarizing): Pro-Privacy: Cruz (R), Paul (R), Sanders (D) Pro-Surveillance: Trump (R), Rubio (R), Bush (R) Moderate: Carson (R), Clinton (D) [0] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-presidential-candidates-stand-on-privacy-and-surveillance/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-pres...
    - matwood 11y ago
      You're leaving out Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He's already come out in full support of Apple and privacy. In the recent GOP town hall, Cruz did not come across as supporting privacy or Apple at all. Rubio took the most measured stance and seemed at least to understand the issue the best. He did not support Apple, but said he understood that breaking into the phone would make it available to all and the government needs to work more closes with SV for a solution. Of course that could just mean PRISM V2.
citizensixteen 11y ago
>I'm actually a little surprised that the FBI would go so public with the request? Anyone have any insights here? The simplest explanation is that the FBI wants a legal precedent more than they want the information on the phone. If they get precedent they can request a "hack" into a phone whenever they feel the need, legally. The worry in this case is the troubling precedent it would set. https://lawfareblog.com/not-slippery-slope-jump-cliff https://lawfareblog.com/not-slippery-slope-jump-cliff Quotation from, Not a Slippery Slope, but a Jump off the Cliff By Nicholas Weaver. The request to Apple is accurately paraphrased as "Create malcode designed to subvert security protections, with additional forensic protections, customized for a particular target's phone, cryptographically sign that malcode so the target's phone accepts it as legitimate, and run that customized version through the update mechanism". (I speak of malcode in the technical sense of "code designed to subvert a security protection or compromise the device", not in intent.) The same logic behind what the FBI seeks could just as easily apply to a mandate forcing Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others to push malicious code to a device through automatic updates when the device isn't yet in law enforcement's hand. So the precedent the FBI seeks doesn't represent just "create and install malcode for this device in Law Enforcement possession" but rather "create and install malcode for this device". Let us assume that the FBI wins in court and gains this precedent. This does indeed solve the "going dark" problem as now the FBI can go to Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, or Google with a warrant and say "push out an update to this target". Once the target's device starts running the FBI's update then encryption no longer matters, even the much stronger security present in the latest Apple devices. So as long as the FBI identifies the target's devices before arrest there is no problem with any encryption. But at what cost?
- greggarious 11y ago
  Even if we ignore the privacy cost, there's an economic cost - no one wants pre-owned software :)
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Unless you go full RMS, you are using pre-owned software. The fact that it is only legal precedent preventing this from happening already shows the software is already pre-owned.

skywhopper 11y ago

It's a political move. The FBI wants this capability for all iPhones. But this particular case is very difficult politically to argue with to the general public. The FBI realized they had a strong political force available to them, and they seized it. They are attempting to either force Apple's hand, make them give into public pressure, or--best of all for the FBI--to convince lawmakers to pass a law requiring companies to provide backdoors. The FBI will gladly keep sealed its requests that Apple unlock phones in more ambiguous cases, because it would be easy for Apple to publicly refute. But this case is just too good for the people at the FBI who want keys to everyone's data.

Zigurd 11y ago

They think they can win it and/or they think it will cost Apple a significant enough hit to the stock price to make it painful not to bend over.The FBI people who pushed it this far are arrogant assholes and I hope they end up being well-known assholes.

mentalpiracy 11y ago

They might have, it's certainly been a theme in some comments by supporters of the unlocking. He public move may be more about setting clear legal precedent - if Apple is forced to do this, the government certainly will rely on this decision again in the future. You cannot set clear legal precedent under seal (outside the FISA court anyway)

stevetrewick 11y ago

Establishing a Manichean media narrative framing Apple (and by extension all crypto providers) as enemies of America who hinder the righteous war on terror. Then if their legal case fails, public outrage, Something Must Be Done, legislative action rendering the AWA moot, achievement unlocked : all your phone are belong to US. Or is that too tinfoil hat ?

duaneb 11y ago

> Did they think perhaps there would be public outcry the other direction meaning Apple would look like it was harboring terrorist information if they didn't comply to a public request? This is exactly what is happening. It's a political hail mary to get the easiest-to-see use case of forcing privacy violations on american corporations and users legally protected in court precedent. Of course, under this interpretation, there's the disturbing implication they had to wait this long (after the revelation about PRISM) to find a case that so well matched their political agenda. It's also a little worrying that they are going public, because normally that's not necessary for court verdicts. Perhaps they're preparing for legislative action if the case fails?

swyman 11y ago
Any insight into which presidential candidates have the most privacy-friendly views here?
- ghayes 11y ago
  I don't know why you're being down-voted. The US is in the midst of an election cycle that may very well pertain to the "legislative action" of the parent comment (in so far as the executive has an effect on the legislature). From a recent article [0], it states (summarizing): Pro-Privacy: Cruz (R), Paul (R), Sanders (D) Pro-Surveillance: Trump (R), Rubio (R), Bush (R) Moderate: Carson (R), Clinton (D) [0] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-presidential-candidates-stand-on-privacy-and-surveillance/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-pres...
  - matwood 11y ago
    You're leaving out Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He's already come out in full support of Apple and privacy. In the recent GOP town hall, Cruz did not come across as supporting privacy or Apple at all. Rubio took the most measured stance and seemed at least to understand the issue the best. He did not support Apple, but said he understood that breaking into the phone would make it available to all and the government needs to work more closes with SV for a solution. Of course that could just mean PRISM V2.

citizensixteen 11y ago

>I'm actually a little surprised that the FBI would go so public with the request? Anyone have any insights here? The simplest explanation is that the FBI wants a legal precedent more than they want the information on the phone. If they get precedent they can request a "hack" into a phone whenever they feel the need, legally. The worry in this case is the troubling precedent it would set. https://lawfareblog.com/not-slippery-slope-jump-cliff https://lawfareblog.com/not-slippery-slope-jump-cliff Quotation from, Not a Slippery Slope, but a Jump off the Cliff By Nicholas Weaver. The request to Apple is accurately paraphrased as "Create malcode designed to subvert security protections, with additional forensic protections, customized for a particular target's phone, cryptographically sign that malcode so the target's phone accepts it as legitimate, and run that customized version through the update mechanism". (I speak of malcode in the technical sense of "code designed to subvert a security protection or compromise the device", not in intent.) The same logic behind what the FBI seeks could just as easily apply to a mandate forcing Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others to push malicious code to a device through automatic updates when the device isn't yet in law enforcement's hand. So the precedent the FBI seeks doesn't represent just "create and install malcode for this device in Law Enforcement possession" but rather "create and install malcode for this device". Let us assume that the FBI wins in court and gains this precedent. This does indeed solve the "going dark" problem as now the FBI can go to Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, or Google with a warrant and say "push out an update to this target". Once the target's device starts running the FBI's update then encryption no longer matters, even the much stronger security present in the latest Apple devices. So as long as the FBI identifies the target's devices before arrest there is no problem with any encryption. But at what cost?

greggarious 11y ago
Even if we ignore the privacy cost, there's an economic cost - no one wants pre-owned software :)
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Unless you go full RMS, you are using pre-owned software. The fact that it is only legal precedent preventing this from happening already shows the software is already pre-owned.