3 ms·

>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 de

by 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

pja 11y ago
In the medium term, my guess is that they want to force Apple to alter the code in the secure enclave of all iPhones manufactured so that in the future the phones can be backdoored on demand either by Apple under warrant or the FBI themselves. In the former case the NSA would of simply acquire the necessary keys by whatever means they preferred. At the moment, for phones with a secure enclave, this isn’t possible: Apple intention was to create a system that they themselves can’t crack precisely in order to prevent anyone else from being able to crack their phones. It’s possible that the NSA has physical attacks that can work around the secure encalve now, but these are always vulnerable to future improvements in the devices - the government would vastly prefer to have some kind of mandated access. Winning this case is a step along the path of building up the legal precedent for them to be able to do this. Sure, by itself it won’t be sufficient, but they don’t expect it to be - it’s a stepping stone along the route.

by rtpg 11y ago

pja 11y ago

In the medium term, my guess is that they want to force Apple to alter the code in the secure enclave of all iPhones manufactured so that in the future the phones can be backdoored on demand either by Apple under warrant or the FBI themselves. In the former case the NSA would of simply acquire the necessary keys by whatever means they preferred. At the moment, for phones with a secure enclave, this isn’t possible: Apple intention was to create a system that they themselves can’t crack precisely in order to prevent anyone else from being able to crack their phones. It’s possible that the NSA has physical attacks that can work around the secure encalve now, but these are always vulnerable to future improvements in the devices - the government would vastly prefer to have some kind of mandated access. Winning this case is a step along the path of building up the legal precedent for them to be able to do this. Sure, by itself it won’t be sufficient, but they don’t expect it to be - it’s a stepping stone along the route.