5 ms·

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking f

by Pyxl101 11y ago

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other circumstances.

varenc 11y ago
That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated. > "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.
- empressplay 11y ago
  FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this? Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        I think you greatly underestimate what it takes to rise to the top of a tech company. Pretending to be an idiot in tech matters doesn't generally work.
    - deathanatos 11y ago
      > When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie. Not that I believe Apple's CEO is lying, however… You don't knowingly lie if you think the risk of getting caught is unacceptably high. That last part is important, I think, and indeed, you state, "because he knows someone will find out", so I know you get it. However, I don't think we should forget that a great deal of the concern we have presently in this thread about the government's capability in introspecting our technology is indirectly the result of the DNI lying under oath¹. ¹I know your post says subpoena, but it seems similar enough that its worth reminding…
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. As in, Apple can't make this change and guarantee that nobody else will use it. In the same way that any software change (which they do regularly) could open up a security flaw. That doesn't mean it's likely, or any more likely than any other software update.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        > No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. I wouldn't put it past the NSA to have snapped up a former iOS developer for explicitly the purpose of breaking into iPhones. An ex employee could certainly call him out. > Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. Cook is trying to be as clear as possible to a public who doesn't understand encryption or why Apple is standing up to the FBI. That's a lot to swallow, and yes his letter is carefully worded for good reason. Given that there is a backdoor that Apple could create, it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too.
        vectorjohn 11y ago
        > it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too. This sounds like a misunderstanding. No clever third parties are going to find a way to break code signing. To exploit the security hole Apple already created would require having Apple's signing certificate so that a phone could install the code. If it wasn't for the certificate, it would be quite a bit more trivial to hack a firmware to do a malicious thing and install it on any phone.
vectorjohn 11y ago
Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.
- spencefu 11y ago
  It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.
- mr_luc 11y ago
  It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need." Except that invention != turning over information. The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do. Which is a massive, blatant power grab.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious changes.
    - 11y ago

by Pyxl101 11y ago

varenc 11y ago

That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated. > "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.

empressplay 11y ago
FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
- studentrob 11y ago
  The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this? Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      I think you greatly underestimate what it takes to rise to the top of a tech company. Pretending to be an idiot in tech matters doesn't generally work.
  - deathanatos 11y ago
    > When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie. Not that I believe Apple's CEO is lying, however… You don't knowingly lie if you think the risk of getting caught is unacceptably high. That last part is important, I think, and indeed, you state, "because he knows someone will find out", so I know you get it. However, I don't think we should forget that a great deal of the concern we have presently in this thread about the government's capability in introspecting our technology is indirectly the result of the DNI lying under oath¹. ¹I know your post says subpoena, but it seems similar enough that its worth reminding…
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. As in, Apple can't make this change and guarantee that nobody else will use it. In the same way that any software change (which they do regularly) could open up a security flaw. That doesn't mean it's likely, or any more likely than any other software update.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. I wouldn't put it past the NSA to have snapped up a former iOS developer for explicitly the purpose of breaking into iPhones. An ex employee could certainly call him out. > Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. Cook is trying to be as clear as possible to a public who doesn't understand encryption or why Apple is standing up to the FBI. That's a lot to swallow, and yes his letter is carefully worded for good reason. Given that there is a backdoor that Apple could create, it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too.
      - vectorjohn 11y ago
        > it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too. This sounds like a misunderstanding. No clever third parties are going to find a way to break code signing. To exploit the security hole Apple already created would require having Apple's signing certificate so that a phone could install the code. If it wasn't for the certificate, it would be quite a bit more trivial to hack a firmware to do a malicious thing and install it on any phone.

vectorjohn 11y ago

Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.

spencefu 11y ago
It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.
mr_luc 11y ago
It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need." Except that invention != turning over information. The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do. Which is a massive, blatant power grab.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious changes.
  - 11y ago