4 ms·

>But the FBI wants to use the case to give it one more go at pushing for backdoors. Really? The FBI said it was 100% totally fine with giving the phone to Appl

by rtpg 11y ago

>But the FBI wants to use the case to give it one more go at pushing for backdoors. Really? The FBI said it was 100% totally fine with giving the phone to Apple and just having remote access to the phone in this one specific case. That is to say, not having Apple turn over the tools of the trade. I feel like a lot of people here should try to play devil's advocate on this case. I'm (kind of) for Apple in this case, but I think the general representation of the gov't's stated request has been completely morphed from what was asked. The devil's advocate is that this is an Apple PR move. Apple spent a bunch of time trumping up how safe their new phones are against this very thing, and that they even backported most of it. But the fact is that Apple _can_ install a backdoor without even requiring the phone PIN code! On the older phones at least. The FBI asked for the contents, not the tool to get the contents. A thing that has been mentioned elsewhere, but: by fighting this case (a single phone unlock with a specific warrant), we are mixing this case with the more dangerous and important fight of having backdoor laws be codified. As it stands, Apple _can and should_ make the most un-backdoorable phones possible. Legislation that could be enacted because of this fight could make us lose the war on the right to not have backdoors. The fact is that the iOS update mechanism _is already a_ backdoor. Which exists for many reasons (and, to my understanding, is already mostly fixed by asking for a PIN code when updating now).

sehugg 11y ago
The FBI said it was 100% totally fine with giving the phone to Apple and just having remote access to the phone in this one specific case. It's really up to the court to decide that, and this post makes the argument that it may not be possible to keep the tools under wraps if the case progresses: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
- rtpg 11y ago
  Thanks for that read. The amount of validation required for the tool to be used in court seems to really cause the danger of a leak to go sky high... I think the DoJ might be discounting that risk with their reasoning of "Apple can just delete it" As an aside, I find it funny that the author finds it "stupid" that the jury is allowed to ask questions in a California court. I would almost declare that a constitutional right (judged by a jury of the peers)
  - uxp 11y ago
    The author finds it stupid that the jury was allowed to ask questions to the author of a forensics tool about the technicalities and inner workings of the forensics tool, like "Wouldn't it be easier if you just jailbroke the phone?" As a defendant, you do have a constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers. As a professional providing a highly specialized service to a court, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have non-peers (laymen) ask technical questions about the inner workings of a tool that, for all intents and purposes, is basically magic levers and knobs. Edit: I don't mean to imply that juries shouldn't question forensic evidence gathering methods (far from it actually), but I can see where the author finds the practice comical at best, and dangerous at worst.
    - mewse 11y ago
      If it's basically the output of magic levers and knobs and processes which are not allowed to be inspected or questioned or understood by the jury, then one could make a pretty persuasive argument that it can't really be considered to be "evidence", in any meaningful sense of the term.
      - uxp 11y ago
        > If it's basically the output of magic levers and knobs and processes which are not allowed to be inspected or questioned or understood by the jury I specifically edited my comment to say that I was not trying to imply that juries should not question processes of evidence gathering. To state so is disingenuous. Look at it this way: If can assume that few readers of HN are in chemistry, and any of us were on a jury of a case where a chemist was comparing trace chemicals found in a container that was owned by a defendant on trial for some heinous crime, we would want to know the methods used to gather and inspect those trace chemicals. But what would you think if you were the chemist and you were asked "Why couldn't you just use a cotton swab and look at them under a big microscope?" when the process involved a complex series of baths to hydrate the residue on the container and then separate and concentrate the combined compounds into individual and inspectable forms? I know, if I had spent most of an afternoon talking about the process I had taken to do my work, and was asked that question, I would feel frustrated and defeated. Clearly that juror had no idea of what I was talking about.
natch 11y ago
>The FBI said (Ooh, you almost lost me. They say all kinds of stuff. You should not necessarily take it at face value.) They are fine with having Apple do it because what they really care about is being able to say, next time, "what's the fuss, you've already done it once for that other phone that other time." To achieve that goal, where the software sits doesn't matter.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Honestly, assuming that Apple had a magic way of getting to the information on the phone that is guaranteed to not be exploited (Tim Cook's fingerprint or something. Bad example for obvious reasons ;).... is there another issue here? From where I stand, the argument against bulk data collection was "they need a warrant! and not from some kangaroo court!". Here, the government has a warrant, for this specific phone. Apple is defending itself because (as sibling mentioned) it's likely that if Apple acted on this request in the ordered way that there's a very high chance of undermining all iPhone security. But absent the (very important) technical context , do people really have a problem with the FBI wanting to look at the phone's data? If there was no encryption I doubt there would be much of a debate here. If you couldn't get a warrant for the phone used by a guy who just shot up a bunch of people, I don't know what you could get a warrant for.
  - natch 11y ago
    From where you stand, you have your opinion, and that's fine, but you ought to consider the fact that Apple has thought about this stuff a hell of a lot more deeply than you have. Watch the Tim Cook interview, where he explains the stuff you aren't thinking about. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone-cracking-software/story?id=37173343 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-coo...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by rtpg 11y ago

sehugg 11y ago

The FBI said it was 100% totally fine with giving the phone to Apple and just having remote access to the phone in this one specific case. It's really up to the court to decide that, and this post makes the argument that it may not be possible to keep the tools under wraps if the case progresses: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645

rtpg 11y ago
Thanks for that read. The amount of validation required for the tool to be used in court seems to really cause the danger of a leak to go sky high... I think the DoJ might be discounting that risk with their reasoning of "Apple can just delete it" As an aside, I find it funny that the author finds it "stupid" that the jury is allowed to ask questions in a California court. I would almost declare that a constitutional right (judged by a jury of the peers)
- uxp 11y ago
  The author finds it stupid that the jury was allowed to ask questions to the author of a forensics tool about the technicalities and inner workings of the forensics tool, like "Wouldn't it be easier if you just jailbroke the phone?" As a defendant, you do have a constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers. As a professional providing a highly specialized service to a court, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have non-peers (laymen) ask technical questions about the inner workings of a tool that, for all intents and purposes, is basically magic levers and knobs. Edit: I don't mean to imply that juries shouldn't question forensic evidence gathering methods (far from it actually), but I can see where the author finds the practice comical at best, and dangerous at worst.
  - mewse 11y ago
    If it's basically the output of magic levers and knobs and processes which are not allowed to be inspected or questioned or understood by the jury, then one could make a pretty persuasive argument that it can't really be considered to be "evidence", in any meaningful sense of the term.
    - uxp 11y ago
      > If it's basically the output of magic levers and knobs and processes which are not allowed to be inspected or questioned or understood by the jury I specifically edited my comment to say that I was not trying to imply that juries should not question processes of evidence gathering. To state so is disingenuous. Look at it this way: If can assume that few readers of HN are in chemistry, and any of us were on a jury of a case where a chemist was comparing trace chemicals found in a container that was owned by a defendant on trial for some heinous crime, we would want to know the methods used to gather and inspect those trace chemicals. But what would you think if you were the chemist and you were asked "Why couldn't you just use a cotton swab and look at them under a big microscope?" when the process involved a complex series of baths to hydrate the residue on the container and then separate and concentrate the combined compounds into individual and inspectable forms? I know, if I had spent most of an afternoon talking about the process I had taken to do my work, and was asked that question, I would feel frustrated and defeated. Clearly that juror had no idea of what I was talking about.

natch 11y ago

>The FBI said (Ooh, you almost lost me. They say all kinds of stuff. You should not necessarily take it at face value.) They are fine with having Apple do it because what they really care about is being able to say, next time, "what's the fuss, you've already done it once for that other phone that other time." To achieve that goal, where the software sits doesn't matter.

rtpg 11y ago
Honestly, assuming that Apple had a magic way of getting to the information on the phone that is guaranteed to not be exploited (Tim Cook's fingerprint or something. Bad example for obvious reasons ;).... is there another issue here? From where I stand, the argument against bulk data collection was "they need a warrant! and not from some kangaroo court!". Here, the government has a warrant, for this specific phone. Apple is defending itself because (as sibling mentioned) it's likely that if Apple acted on this request in the ordered way that there's a very high chance of undermining all iPhone security. But absent the (very important) technical context , do people really have a problem with the FBI wanting to look at the phone's data? If there was no encryption I doubt there would be much of a debate here. If you couldn't get a warrant for the phone used by a guy who just shot up a bunch of people, I don't know what you could get a warrant for.
- natch 11y ago
  From where you stand, you have your opinion, and that's fine, but you ought to consider the fact that Apple has thought about this stuff a hell of a lot more deeply than you have. Watch the Tim Cook interview, where he explains the stuff you aren't thinking about. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone-cracking-software/story?id=37173343 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-coo...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]