4 ms·

The only two reactions to this news seems to be cynicism and praise. I think both voices in response to Apple's letters are valid and useful for improving user

The only two reactions to this news seems to be cynicism and praise. I think both voices in response to Apple's letters are valid and useful for improving user security in the future, and yet incomplete by themselves. Sure, Apple should be praised for refusing to give government agencies the ability to unlock an iPhone, but a significant part of their motivation is not altruistic. It's in Apple's self-interest to make a stand in this case, but we can't always trust corporations to prioritize customer privacy over caving to government pressure. Similarly, Apple has already admitted that a backdoor exists for all iPhones. In my opinion, this is an inexcusable security hole at best, and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply with government requests for encrypted information. However, the fact that the FBI has made this request in the first place, and that Apple is in a position to decline (at least initially) and make it public, is a good sign that the three-letter agencies may not be as all-knowing as some may fear.

jonknee 11y ago
> Similarly, Apple has already admitted that a backdoor exists for all iPhones. In my opinion, this is an inexcusable security hole at best, and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply with government requests for encrypted information. A backdoor does not exist and Apple is fighting the government to create one.
- KZeillmann 11y ago
  I think the implication is that Apple can push an iOS upgrade with security holes, and without an open-source system, we can't know if it has security issues or not. (At least that's the impression I've gleaned from the other comments) I don't own an iPhone, so I don't know how the update process works.
- allemagne 11y ago
  The backdoor is the fact that Apple has the ability to push updates without a user's permission, as multiple other users have pointed out.
mindslight 11y ago
> and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply with government requests for encrypted information Apple's backdoor is for straightforward business reasons - they want to retain digital ownership of people's devices to take a cut from app distribution. Plus, keeping control is harder than giving up control. Keeping control allows total flexibility, like the flexibility to undermine security that's under discussion. Removing control requires careful planning to avoid later problems with no flexibility to fix them.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  No, they could have made the device actually secure without losing any ability to take a cut from app distribution. Later iOS versions do it (although it seems to be unsettled weather a backdoor is still possible in those versions). The iOS version in question has a very obvious backdoor, which Apple is understandably getting really defensive about and doesn't want that fact made obvious.
- allemagne 11y ago
  I'm not sure I see what you're arguing. Implementing a more secure system is never convenient, but that obviously has nothing to do with whether it's justified. As for my quoted statement, how can you really disagree? Having a system where "only the good guys" (i.e. Apple, right?) can break the security of any device is precisely what law enforcement has been asking for for years, and what HN users and the tech-savvy in general have been railing against. Now that Apple has completely admitted that this system exists, users are downvoted here for pointing it out?
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I'm merely disagreeing on Apple's motives. Yes, the voyeurs want backdoors, and yes Apple has built a backdoor. But I don't think Apple has created this backdoor for law enforcement. I think it's simply due to them, like any other company, having a hard time giving up control and creating open platforms. Don't sweat the downvotes. There seem to be a lot of Apple customers that don't have a technical clue about what guarantees other systems actually provide or what capabilities are theoretically possible. I surmise they view computing systems solely in terms of productized offerings from companies, and thus Apple is the leader of the pack for privacy and this case is key to preserving that privacy.

jonknee 11y ago

> Similarly, Apple has already admitted that a backdoor exists for all iPhones. In my opinion, this is an inexcusable security hole at best, and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply with government requests for encrypted information. A backdoor does not exist and Apple is fighting the government to create one.

KZeillmann 11y ago
I think the implication is that Apple can push an iOS upgrade with security holes, and without an open-source system, we can't know if it has security issues or not. (At least that's the impression I've gleaned from the other comments) I don't own an iPhone, so I don't know how the update process works.
allemagne 11y ago
The backdoor is the fact that Apple has the ability to push updates without a user's permission, as multiple other users have pointed out.

mindslight 11y ago

> and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply with government requests for encrypted information Apple's backdoor is for straightforward business reasons - they want to retain digital ownership of people's devices to take a cut from app distribution. Plus, keeping control is harder than giving up control. Keeping control allows total flexibility, like the flexibility to undermine security that's under discussion. Removing control requires careful planning to avoid later problems with no flexibility to fix them.

vectorjohn 11y ago
No, they could have made the device actually secure without losing any ability to take a cut from app distribution. Later iOS versions do it (although it seems to be unsettled weather a backdoor is still possible in those versions). The iOS version in question has a very obvious backdoor, which Apple is understandably getting really defensive about and doesn't want that fact made obvious.
allemagne 11y ago
I'm not sure I see what you're arguing. Implementing a more secure system is never convenient, but that obviously has nothing to do with whether it's justified. As for my quoted statement, how can you really disagree? Having a system where "only the good guys" (i.e. Apple, right?) can break the security of any device is precisely what law enforcement has been asking for for years, and what HN users and the tech-savvy in general have been railing against. Now that Apple has completely admitted that this system exists, users are downvoted here for pointing it out?
- mindslight 11y ago
  I'm merely disagreeing on Apple's motives. Yes, the voyeurs want backdoors, and yes Apple has built a backdoor. But I don't think Apple has created this backdoor for law enforcement. I think it's simply due to them, like any other company, having a hard time giving up control and creating open platforms. Don't sweat the downvotes. There seem to be a lot of Apple customers that don't have a technical clue about what guarantees other systems actually provide or what capabilities are theoretically possible. I surmise they view computing systems solely in terms of productized offerings from companies, and thus Apple is the leader of the pack for privacy and this case is key to preserving that privacy.