4 ms·

This is straightforward: Apple already has a backdoor into the key derivation firmware (technically, the OS). If they didn't have it, they couldn't be required

This is straightforward: Apple already has a backdoor into the key derivation firmware (technically, the OS). If they didn't have it, they couldn't be required to use it.

snowwrestler 11y ago
The question isn't whether Apple has a capability, the question is why can they be forced to use that capability on a phone owned by a 3rd party? Apple has many capabilities--they're a $500 billion dollar technology company. Which capabilities are not available to the FBI via an All Writs warrant?
- teacup50 11y ago
  You're conflating very different scopes of "capability" and responsibility. I'll quote the DoJ's legal brief on how Apple is not "far removed" from this phone owned by a 3rd party: "... the government is seeking to use capabilities that Apple has purposefully retained in a situation where the former user of the phone is dead ..." "... iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple ... Just because Apple has sold the phone to a customer and that customer has created a passcode does not mean that the close software connection ceases to exist; Apple has designed the phone and software updates so that Apple's continued involvement and connection is required." "More generally, the burden associated with compliance with legal process is measured based on the direct costs of compliance, not on other more general considerations about reputations or the ramifications of compliance".
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    The DoJ is just re-iterating what everyone knows, which is that Apple can push software updates to a phone. That does not in any way explain why Apple should be compelled to write new software, that they would not otherwise choose to write, before pushing it as an update. Apple retained the ability to push updates to improve the performance and security of products, not to make it easier to hack them. There is a difference!
    - teacup50 11y ago
      Apple can push software updates to a locked phone without the owner's permission. Nobody else can. That's a big difference.

This is straightforward: Apple already has a backdoor into the key derivation firmware (technically, the OS). If they didn't have it, they couldn't be required to use it.

snowwrestler 11y ago

The question isn't whether Apple has a capability, the question is why can they be forced to use that capability on a phone owned by a 3rd party? Apple has many capabilities--they're a $500 billion dollar technology company. Which capabilities are not available to the FBI via an All Writs warrant?

teacup50 11y ago
You're conflating very different scopes of "capability" and responsibility. I'll quote the DoJ's legal brief on how Apple is not "far removed" from this phone owned by a 3rd party: "... the government is seeking to use capabilities that Apple has purposefully retained in a situation where the former user of the phone is dead ..." "... iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple ... Just because Apple has sold the phone to a customer and that customer has created a passcode does not mean that the close software connection ceases to exist; Apple has designed the phone and software updates so that Apple's continued involvement and connection is required." "More generally, the burden associated with compliance with legal process is measured based on the direct costs of compliance, not on other more general considerations about reputations or the ramifications of compliance".
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  The DoJ is just re-iterating what everyone knows, which is that Apple can push software updates to a phone. That does not in any way explain why Apple should be compelled to write new software, that they would not otherwise choose to write, before pushing it as an update. Apple retained the ability to push updates to improve the performance and security of products, not to make it easier to hack them. There is a difference!
  - teacup50 11y ago
    Apple can push software updates to a locked phone without the owner's permission. Nobody else can. That's a big difference.