5 ms·
Except of course what FBI is proposing wouldn't give access to "anybody". Just unfettered access for FBI, CIA and NSA by way of gag orders and national security
by melted 11y ago
Except of course what FBI is proposing wouldn't give access to "anybody". Just unfettered access for FBI, CIA and NSA by way of gag orders and national security letters, forcing Apple to break security of their hardware and not speak about it publicly. Of note is the fact that it wouldn't even give direct access to FBI, since they don't have the firmware keys (yet).
- interpol_p 11y agoYeah but if you don't trust those companies to be secure and to maintain that security throughout all their employees and contractors (see: Snowden). Then you must assume giving someone access is the same as giving everyone access.
- kbenson 11y agoIn this example, the FBI is the "trusted third party", but by giving them access, we inevitably open access for everyone, as the system is no longer strongly secure. The trusted third party in the quote isn't asking for access for everybody either, but in the end that's what happens.
- melted 11y agoApple isn't giving access. Apple would be required (by court, unless they manage to fight this off) to install a signed custom build of the OS in order to give access to that particular device. FBI would not have this build, nor a key to create their own signed custom build.
- lox 11y agoYup, that's the FBI's pitch. The issue is that it sets a legal precedent as well as potentially leaking a backdoored iOS to the world. Yes I know "signed for a specific device", best of luck with that.