6 ms·

If the government hacks the iPhone themselves, they don't get the legal precedent they are so desperate to establish in this case. This paves the way for legisl

If the government hacks the iPhone themselves, they don't get the legal precedent they are so desperate to establish in this case. This paves the way for legislation that forces technology companies to install backdoors in software/hardware. This case is not about the data on the phone itself, the government is simply continuing its march towards comprehensive surveillance systems. Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-mem... "Silicon Valley celebrated last fall when the White House revealed it would not seek legislation forcing technology makers to install “backdoors” in their software -- secret listening posts where investigators could pierce the veil of secrecy on users’ encrypted data, from text messages to video chats. But while the companies may have thought that was the final word, in fact the government was working on a Plan B. In a secret meeting convened by the White House around Thanksgiving, senior national security officials ordered agencies across the U.S. government to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone, the marquee product of one of America’s most valuable companies, according to two people familiar with the decision."

ekianjo 11y ago
Plan B seemed to be "wait till terrorist action occurs and use it to make it look unreasonable to prevent back doors". This always works, in about every country.
rtpg 11y ago
> This paves the way for legislation that forces technology companies to install backdoors in software/hardware But... the fact that Apple can do anything is a result of the OS update backdoor in the first place in this case! If this were a 5S this entire court case wouldn't be possible. This court ruling is not "Apple needs to install a backdoor". It's "Apple needs to exploit the backdoor they have a key to".
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  Bingo. Not enough people in here are understanding the legal side of this. Someone in this community could quite reasonably root against apple, on the basis that a DOJ loss would give the DOJ a lot of fuel to push for legislation mandating backdoors. It's a very different situation when Apple can reasonably do something to undermine encryption and when there's nothing they can do, and the precedent going forward from this case is negligible considering that the 5C is the last holdout of an enclave-less iPhone. What we should fear is legislation that bars the creation of truly secure phones. A ruling for Apple might aid in the creation and passing of such legislation.
  - citizensixteen 11y ago
    >Not enough people in here are understanding the legal side of this. This is just one more step towards winning the Crypto Wars- The Crypto Wars is an unofficial name for the U.S. government's attempts to limit the public's and foreign nations' access to cryptography strong enough to resist decryption by national intelligence agencies (especially USA's NSA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
- pja 11y ago
  The argument is that once they have this precedent in hand, they can then use it to force Apple to alter the code in the secure enclave of all current Apple devices so that the security services can gain access to them on demand. Or else, even if this case doesn’t give them sufficient precedent to force that kind of access, it’s certainly a legal stepping stone along that route, which is precisely why the FBI is taking the case all the way even though it’s clearly not necessary in this specific case - the NSA is perfectly capable of gaining access to the phone in question if they want to & according to Snowden they even have the legal right to do so since it was a work-issued phone where the issuee had signed over the right to scrutinise it at any time.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    >The argument is that once they have this precedent in hand, they can then use it to force Apple to alter the code in the secure enclave of all current Apple devices so that the security services can gain access to them on demand. Sure... if there's a warrant for a specific phone, and that Apple even has a way to update the Secure Enclave (my understanding is that updating the Secure Enclave wipes the contents). One overreach I could see happening from this precedent is getting Apple to participate in a targeted wiretap: Target brings phone to iStore, Apple "accidentally" wipes Secure Enclave (installing backdoor), and target could now have phone hacked later. Contrived, but I think this would be precedent. But in no way is this ruling a precedent to push out a backdoor to every iPhone ever made. And the precedent that Apple must help unlock an iPhone has existed for over 100 years I think. Based off of the whole "digital key" == "Physical key" logic of the courts, if Apple didn't want to help exploit the backdoor, a judge could probably rule to force Apple to hand over its actual signing keys for updates. Awful, but the precedent is totally there
grandalf 11y ago
This seems consistent with the "never let a tragedy go to waste" mindset.

ekianjo 11y ago

Plan B seemed to be "wait till terrorist action occurs and use it to make it look unreasonable to prevent back doors". This always works, in about every country.

rtpg 11y ago

> This paves the way for legislation that forces technology companies to install backdoors in software/hardware But... the fact that Apple can do anything is a result of the OS update backdoor in the first place in this case! If this were a 5S this entire court case wouldn't be possible. This court ruling is not "Apple needs to install a backdoor". It's "Apple needs to exploit the backdoor they have a key to".

nickysielicki 11y ago
Bingo. Not enough people in here are understanding the legal side of this. Someone in this community could quite reasonably root against apple, on the basis that a DOJ loss would give the DOJ a lot of fuel to push for legislation mandating backdoors. It's a very different situation when Apple can reasonably do something to undermine encryption and when there's nothing they can do, and the precedent going forward from this case is negligible considering that the 5C is the last holdout of an enclave-less iPhone. What we should fear is legislation that bars the creation of truly secure phones. A ruling for Apple might aid in the creation and passing of such legislation.
- citizensixteen 11y ago
  >Not enough people in here are understanding the legal side of this. This is just one more step towards winning the Crypto Wars- The Crypto Wars is an unofficial name for the U.S. government's attempts to limit the public's and foreign nations' access to cryptography strong enough to resist decryption by national intelligence agencies (especially USA's NSA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
pja 11y ago
The argument is that once they have this precedent in hand, they can then use it to force Apple to alter the code in the secure enclave of all current Apple devices so that the security services can gain access to them on demand. Or else, even if this case doesn’t give them sufficient precedent to force that kind of access, it’s certainly a legal stepping stone along that route, which is precisely why the FBI is taking the case all the way even though it’s clearly not necessary in this specific case - the NSA is perfectly capable of gaining access to the phone in question if they want to & according to Snowden they even have the legal right to do so since it was a work-issued phone where the issuee had signed over the right to scrutinise it at any time.
- rtpg 11y ago
  >The argument is that once they have this precedent in hand, they can then use it to force Apple to alter the code in the secure enclave of all current Apple devices so that the security services can gain access to them on demand. Sure... if there's a warrant for a specific phone, and that Apple even has a way to update the Secure Enclave (my understanding is that updating the Secure Enclave wipes the contents). One overreach I could see happening from this precedent is getting Apple to participate in a targeted wiretap: Target brings phone to iStore, Apple "accidentally" wipes Secure Enclave (installing backdoor), and target could now have phone hacked later. Contrived, but I think this would be precedent. But in no way is this ruling a precedent to push out a backdoor to every iPhone ever made. And the precedent that Apple must help unlock an iPhone has existed for over 100 years I think. Based off of the whole "digital key" == "Physical key" logic of the courts, if Apple didn't want to help exploit the backdoor, a judge could probably rule to force Apple to hand over its actual signing keys for updates. Awful, but the precedent is totally there

grandalf 11y ago

This seems consistent with the "never let a tragedy go to waste" mindset.