7 ms·
<<The FBI is the opposite in every way, mostly because of budget constraints and the subsequent lack of training. I hope that this is a good learning opportunit
by exw 11y ago
<<The FBI is the opposite in every way, mostly because of budget constraints and the subsequent lack of training. I hope that this is a good learning opportunity for them and a chance for them to increase their training budget in this area.>>
Besides the legal precedents and other associated drama, I think is one of Apple's major concerns, and one of the reasons they implemented the "we don't have the keys" approach to their encryption. If the FBI can always just call on Apple (or Google) to fix whatever mistakes they made, there is little motivation for training / getting better on this front, effectively making Apple the computer forensics arm of the government.
- marcoperaza 11y ago>I think is one of Apple's major concerns, and one of the reasons they implemented the "we don't have the keys" approach to their encryption. They do have the keys. A 4-digit pin is useless if you have Apple's private key.
- djrogers 11y agoCompletely false, as has been endlessly detailed by nearly everyone at this point.
- marcoperaza 11y agoPlease enlighten me. Is this not exactly what the FBI is asking for? For Apple to flash a custom version of iOS that doesn't have the software rate-limiting and auto-wipe, which only someone with Apple's private key can do. A four-digit PIN is only secure in combination with those features. Having Apple's code-signing key is in fact "having the keys", except in the most pedantic literal sense.
- cyphar 11y agoSoftware update signing keys, which can't be disabled by the end user. This is what most people would consider "a flawed security model". Even UEFI lets you change the trusted booting keys.
- qb45 11y agoThe request they submitted to Apple was clearly written by competent people. They knew exactly what and why they wanted to do, how Apple can help and why only Apple can help.
- nitrogen 11y agoThere is one thing the FBI is very good at, and that's writing a compelling narrative. It's possible that there are highly competently people who know everything, but it's also possible there are moderately but not dazzlingly competent people who are really good at writing a story that feels complete and keeps one from asking questions outside the narrative.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- oh_sigh 11y agoYou don't just make up deep technical knowledge with a compelling narrative.
- qb45 11y agoThough, on second thought, I have to add that we don't know how many back-and-forth mail exchanges happened before they were able to come up with the officially published request. Maybe they were just competent at working around excuses from Apple.
- jeffmould 11y agoI think part of that is Apple is/was actively working with the FBI to find alternative solutions. I would bet that the engineers described what would need to happen, i.e. the new OS. As is often the case, the Apple engineers probably documented alternative solutions. The FBI took that "solution" and ran with what they described. It's the "well Apple told us this is the only way to do this, but they won't do it for us" scenario.
- 11y ago
- cmurf 11y agoExactly. Yet another reason to fight the court order. We should expect FBI to be competent, embarrassed if they aren't, and fix the problem. It's not a good state of affairs when a company is more trusted to do forensics.
- walshemj 11y agoI think like the police in UK once a FBI officer gets experienced in computer security the leave for the better paid private sector.