4 ms·

Actually that's irrelevant because the government can always coerce companies or individuals to introduce backdoors if there aren't any. Software developers hav

Actually that's irrelevant because the government can always coerce companies or individuals to introduce backdoors if there aren't any. Software developers have the arrogance to think that technology can solve political issues.

interpol_p 11y ago
The difference in this case is that a backdoor can be introduced after the fact. That is, it is possible to load a new version of iOS onto this locked phone with the backdoor in place. Ideally, one should not be able to update a locked phone in such a way as to introduce a backdoor to allow for brute force passcode attempts.
- bad_user 11y ago
  First of all this isn't about brute forcing passcode attempts, it is about bypassing the passcode altogether. If the phone is open and can be made to automatically download and install a software upgrade, then this is possible, even if the storage is encrypted. Also, given that Apple is the phone maker, they can of course be coerced to produce phones with this capability, whether they want it or not. There is is no "ideally" ;-)
matwood 11y ago
> Actually that's irrelevant because the government can always coerce companies or individuals to introduce backdoors if there aren't any. The FBI is trying to do just that and Apple is fighting it. That is why this case is so important.
- noelsusman 11y ago
  Except they're not. If the FBI was trying to force Apple to keep this avenue of attack open in all future versions of iOS then I would be 100% behind Apple, but that's not what's going on. The FBI is asking Apple to exploit an already existing vulnerability.
  - matwood 11y ago
    Do you not think this is where it is headed? The FBI has been complaining about device security for awhile. They finally have a 'terror' case to use in order to try and swing public opinion. To think that the FBI only wants a single phone (we have found out later they have many) unlocked, and only wants it to work until Apple closes the security hole is naive.
sbov 11y ago
Not that I agree with backdoors, but Congress should be able to. The courts shouldn't.

interpol_p 11y ago

The difference in this case is that a backdoor can be introduced after the fact. That is, it is possible to load a new version of iOS onto this locked phone with the backdoor in place. Ideally, one should not be able to update a locked phone in such a way as to introduce a backdoor to allow for brute force passcode attempts.

bad_user 11y ago
First of all this isn't about brute forcing passcode attempts, it is about bypassing the passcode altogether. If the phone is open and can be made to automatically download and install a software upgrade, then this is possible, even if the storage is encrypted. Also, given that Apple is the phone maker, they can of course be coerced to produce phones with this capability, whether they want it or not. There is is no "ideally" ;-)

matwood 11y ago

> Actually that's irrelevant because the government can always coerce companies or individuals to introduce backdoors if there aren't any. The FBI is trying to do just that and Apple is fighting it. That is why this case is so important.

noelsusman 11y ago
Except they're not. If the FBI was trying to force Apple to keep this avenue of attack open in all future versions of iOS then I would be 100% behind Apple, but that's not what's going on. The FBI is asking Apple to exploit an already existing vulnerability.
- matwood 11y ago
  Do you not think this is where it is headed? The FBI has been complaining about device security for awhile. They finally have a 'terror' case to use in order to try and swing public opinion. To think that the FBI only wants a single phone (we have found out later they have many) unlocked, and only wants it to work until Apple closes the security hole is naive.

sbov 11y ago

Not that I agree with backdoors, but Congress should be able to. The courts shouldn't.