3 ms·

They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to. It's not rare for a company to provide info/help to law enforc

They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to. It's not rare for a company to provide info/help to law enforcement when asked/compelled. It was easy to do on iOS 7. The ask in this case is totally different.

timr 11y ago
"They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to." No, there really aren't. From the article: "The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government service." Moreover, the "ask" in this case is nearly identical. Apple is being asked only to bypass the 10-failed-attempt device wipe, so that investigators can enumerate all 10,000 codes: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-knows-apple-already-has-the-desired-key/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stak... ...which means that it's effectively exactly the same thing that Apple has done in previous cases. The only technological difference is one that has been manufactured by Apple. This whole thing boils down to a question of whether or not Apple should facilitate a brute-force attack on a single phone, under a search warrant, for a known criminal. And they've done same thing 70-some times in the past.
- aljones 11y ago
  but it wasn't a brute force attack those 70 times so how is it the same thing?
  - timr 11y ago
    This is also a brute force attack. The terrorist had a four-digit passcode. They're going to try 0000-9999 and find the one that works. They just need Apple to disable the software that wipes the device after ten bad passcode attempts. Everything that you've read about a "backdoor" or a "key" is totally uninformed commentary on the matter. The intarwebz are outraged (outraged!), but they don't even understand the debate.
    - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
      >this is also a brute force attack The other times weren't though. > they don't even understand the debate Look in a mirror lately?
      - timr 11y ago
        Yes, they were. Apple installed software which brute-forced a four-digit PIN in those other cases, same as what's being asked here.
        aljones 11y ago
        This is not true. Such tools exist, but are not what Apple used. They just extracted data. It wasn't encrypted so that was all they needed to do.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
It is just as easy to do in this case. iOS 7 does not include code for extracting data from a locked device. Apple flashed a special build onto those phones to do that. Similarly, Apple is being asked to flash a special build that allows PIN brute-forcing, and if they don't want the build to leave their premises, they've been given the option of brute-forcing the PIN themselves.
- aljones 11y ago
  The order explicitly requires the cracking tool to not be written to flash. Just as easy? Maybe if you ignore the effort to create it and secure it. I really can't believe writing secure software is being trivialized in the comments here.
  - timr 11y ago
    That part is exactly the same as what they've done 70-some times previously. They didn't make some FBI agent sit there and tap out 0000 through 9999...they installed a piece of software to do it quickly. The software was signed with their key so that it would install on an iPhone. The only difference is that this time the software they install would also have to turn off the delete-after-ten-attempts thing. (You're probably having a hard time with this because the debate sounds absoultely ridiculous when the facts are laid out plainly. Totally understandable. The technical debate is absolutely ridiculous. The legal debate is the only one that matters, but it's not technical at all.)

timr 11y ago

"They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to." No, there really aren't. From the article: "The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government service." Moreover, the "ask" in this case is nearly identical. Apple is being asked only to bypass the 10-failed-attempt device wipe, so that investigators can enumerate all 10,000 codes: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-knows-apple-already-has-the-desired-key/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stak... ...which means that it's effectively exactly the same thing that Apple has done in previous cases. The only technological difference is one that has been manufactured by Apple. This whole thing boils down to a question of whether or not Apple should facilitate a brute-force attack on a single phone, under a search warrant, for a known criminal. And they've done same thing 70-some times in the past.

aljones 11y ago
but it wasn't a brute force attack those 70 times so how is it the same thing?
- timr 11y ago
  This is also a brute force attack. The terrorist had a four-digit passcode. They're going to try 0000-9999 and find the one that works. They just need Apple to disable the software that wipes the device after ten bad passcode attempts. Everything that you've read about a "backdoor" or a "key" is totally uninformed commentary on the matter. The intarwebz are outraged (outraged!), but they don't even understand the debate.
  - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
    >this is also a brute force attack The other times weren't though. > they don't even understand the debate Look in a mirror lately?
    - timr 11y ago
      Yes, they were. Apple installed software which brute-forced a four-digit PIN in those other cases, same as what's being asked here.
      - aljones 11y ago
        This is not true. Such tools exist, but are not what Apple used. They just extracted data. It wasn't encrypted so that was all they needed to do.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

It is just as easy to do in this case. iOS 7 does not include code for extracting data from a locked device. Apple flashed a special build onto those phones to do that. Similarly, Apple is being asked to flash a special build that allows PIN brute-forcing, and if they don't want the build to leave their premises, they've been given the option of brute-forcing the PIN themselves.

aljones 11y ago
The order explicitly requires the cracking tool to not be written to flash. Just as easy? Maybe if you ignore the effort to create it and secure it. I really can't believe writing secure software is being trivialized in the comments here.
- timr 11y ago
  That part is exactly the same as what they've done 70-some times previously. They didn't make some FBI agent sit there and tap out 0000 through 9999...they installed a piece of software to do it quickly. The software was signed with their key so that it would install on an iPhone. The only difference is that this time the software they install would also have to turn off the delete-after-ten-attempts thing. (You're probably having a hard time with this because the debate sounds absoultely ridiculous when the facts are laid out plainly. Totally understandable. The technical debate is absolutely ridiculous. The legal debate is the only one that matters, but it's not technical at all.)