4 ms·

> "They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case." Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent ha

by mythz 11y ago

> "They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case." Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent has anything to do with this specific case which has close to 0% chance of providing any real-world information and more to do with the fact that this tragedy is used as political theatre and being exploited for maximum PR and political influence. > "Should governments be able to access information at all or should they be blind, that's essentially what we are talking about" That's one way to frame the debate, the other is "Do We Have a Right to Security?" https://securosis.com/blog/do-we-have-a-right-to-security https://securosis.com/blog/do-we-have-a-right-to-security Given the US Govt is coming from a position of no trust who've shown a willingness to over reach and break the law whilst continuing to deceive and mislead the public - US citizens have every right to privacy that's insulated from the Government: http://blog.easydns.org/2016/02/22/the-us-government-has-no-credibility-to-compel-anybody-to-weaken-security/ http://blog.easydns.org/2016/02/22/the-us-government-has-no-...

exw 11y ago
<<Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent has anything to do with this specific case which has close to 0% chance of providing any real-world information and more to do with the fact that this tragedy is used as political theatre and being exploited for maximum PR and political influence.>> Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that you are calling BillG naive. You really think that somehow you have more insight into the situation than BillG, who has access to pretty much any resource and source of information?
- mythz 11y ago
  > Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that you are calling BillG naive. Actions speak louder than words, I don't care who you are. In this case his words are adding to the dangerous narrative the US Govt wants this debate to be framed on: exploiting a tragic case of terrorism to unlock the legal precedent with 175 other phones waiting in the wings: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-... With the FBI having court orders out for 13 similar cases: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar-encryption-cases-court-documents http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar... If he's not naive, he's been actively complicit as part of the "Old Microsoft" (before security of user data affected their global Azure business model) who was more than happy to provide what ever access they could to the NSA which saw "Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch" and "Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls": http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...
  - teacup50 11y ago
    The dangerous narrative is Apple's reframing of this debate to shift attention away from the simple truth: Apple already has a backdoor. This is DRM, not crypto. They control these devices, top-to-bottom, regardless of the owner's actual wishes.
  - davidw 11y ago
    To play the devil's advocate, LE can get a court order to search your house, your car, your file folder, tap your phone, and so on, and that's viewed as fair by most people, since there are some checks and balances: they have to convince a judge (we're not talking about the secret NSA court stuff), and have to stick to some rules when they do it. Why should they not be able to search phones on a case by case basis, with a court order? That's something reasonable people are going to ask. Edit: This is a pretty good analysis of why turning over a tool to the FBI is a terrible idea: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 - but the FBI is saying they don't want that. The guy in the blog disagrees. Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why shouldn't a court be able to order a search?
    - mythz 11y ago
      > Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why shouldn't a court be able to order a search? It should be more than clear by now they're not asking for a single iPhone's data - (the iPhone data in this case is useless). They're asking for Apple to create a new version of iOS (i.e. that doesn't yet exist) that weakens their own security protections to provide a backdoor allowing the FBI to hack into the iPhone themselves, which a) sets a legal precedent, b) allows them to keep going back to Apple crack new phones c) gives them access to software with a back door they can study and reverse engineer. The FBI have carefully chosen this case to go public on (specifically denying Apple's request to have the case sealed) precisely because out of all its pending court orders to unlock iPhone's, this is the one that stands the best chance to gain political and public influence necessary to set the legal precedent. Once set, it will compel Technology companies to create tools to weaken their own security, using their own resources against them, forcing them to include themselves as an Adversary who they need to protect their customers data from. Not to mention if Apple is forced to concede to the US Govt, it will be forced to concede to other governments as well. China have previously demanded to have a master key for all electronics sold in China which they had to back down from due to political and public pressure, if Apple concedes to the US Govt other governments will undoubtedly be demanding the same.
- ptomato 11y ago
  Calling him naive is certainly more charitable than the other explanation.
jonas21 11y ago
His point is not about this particular case. He's saying that it has to do with a particular case, i.e. that the FBI is not asking that Apple install a backdoor on every iPhone.
- jahewson 11y ago
  Yes but that's not what's going to court - the FBI are asserting that they have a blanket power to request Apple to hack their own product. It's a matter of law, not specific to this case and the outcome will set a landmark legal precedent. So BillG is really wrong to state otherwise. Matters of law are never just about a single case.
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    If the FBI simply wanted into this specific phone there exist companies that will do it, right now. Even high-end hardware security modules are not rated against a competent attacker with unlimited resources, in physical control of the module, who can attack it destructively. In fact, they must largely know there isn't any really important evidence on the phone so they have time to play these games.
alainv 11y ago
Yes, this is very naive. They're actually asking for a forensic instrument - asserting that it is for a one-time use is absurd on the face of it. The most thorough deconstruction of this argument I've seen is here: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
- danans 11y ago
  That analysis is very informative about how forensic instruments are validated, but that procedure would only apply for information that the FBI hopes to present as evidence in a court. The assailants in this attack are dead, so there's nobody to prosecute (unless accomplices are found). It seems like in this case the FBI wants to sift through the phone for leads into other potential terrorists, and they want to establish the precedent that no manufacturer should be allowed to add true unbreakable encryption to some device in the future, encryption that would preclude even what they are asking of Apple now. Whether they have a right to that information in this particular situation, under current laws, even for the purposes of preventing terrorism, is a matter for the courts (probably the Supreme Court) to decide. Whether Americans have a right to use personal strong encryption will have to be legislated by Congress, not by the bluster and propaganda of the FBI, Apple, and the tech industry.

by mythz 11y ago

exw 11y ago

<<Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent has anything to do with this specific case which has close to 0% chance of providing any real-world information and more to do with the fact that this tragedy is used as political theatre and being exploited for maximum PR and political influence.>> Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that you are calling BillG naive. You really think that somehow you have more insight into the situation than BillG, who has access to pretty much any resource and source of information?

mythz 11y ago
> Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that you are calling BillG naive. Actions speak louder than words, I don't care who you are. In this case his words are adding to the dangerous narrative the US Govt wants this debate to be framed on: exploiting a tragic case of terrorism to unlock the legal precedent with 175 other phones waiting in the wings: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-... With the FBI having court orders out for 13 similar cases: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar-encryption-cases-court-documents http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar... If he's not naive, he's been actively complicit as part of the "Old Microsoft" (before security of user data affected their global Azure business model) who was more than happy to provide what ever access they could to the NSA which saw "Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch" and "Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls": http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...
- teacup50 11y ago
  The dangerous narrative is Apple's reframing of this debate to shift attention away from the simple truth: Apple already has a backdoor. This is DRM, not crypto. They control these devices, top-to-bottom, regardless of the owner's actual wishes.
- davidw 11y ago
  To play the devil's advocate, LE can get a court order to search your house, your car, your file folder, tap your phone, and so on, and that's viewed as fair by most people, since there are some checks and balances: they have to convince a judge (we're not talking about the secret NSA court stuff), and have to stick to some rules when they do it. Why should they not be able to search phones on a case by case basis, with a court order? That's something reasonable people are going to ask. Edit: This is a pretty good analysis of why turning over a tool to the FBI is a terrible idea: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 - but the FBI is saying they don't want that. The guy in the blog disagrees. Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why shouldn't a court be able to order a search?
  - mythz 11y ago
    > Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why shouldn't a court be able to order a search? It should be more than clear by now they're not asking for a single iPhone's data - (the iPhone data in this case is useless). They're asking for Apple to create a new version of iOS (i.e. that doesn't yet exist) that weakens their own security protections to provide a backdoor allowing the FBI to hack into the iPhone themselves, which a) sets a legal precedent, b) allows them to keep going back to Apple crack new phones c) gives them access to software with a back door they can study and reverse engineer. The FBI have carefully chosen this case to go public on (specifically denying Apple's request to have the case sealed) precisely because out of all its pending court orders to unlock iPhone's, this is the one that stands the best chance to gain political and public influence necessary to set the legal precedent. Once set, it will compel Technology companies to create tools to weaken their own security, using their own resources against them, forcing them to include themselves as an Adversary who they need to protect their customers data from. Not to mention if Apple is forced to concede to the US Govt, it will be forced to concede to other governments as well. China have previously demanded to have a master key for all electronics sold in China which they had to back down from due to political and public pressure, if Apple concedes to the US Govt other governments will undoubtedly be demanding the same.
ptomato 11y ago
Calling him naive is certainly more charitable than the other explanation.

jonas21 11y ago

His point is not about this particular case. He's saying that it has to do with a particular case, i.e. that the FBI is not asking that Apple install a backdoor on every iPhone.

jahewson 11y ago
Yes but that's not what's going to court - the FBI are asserting that they have a blanket power to request Apple to hack their own product. It's a matter of law, not specific to this case and the outcome will set a landmark legal precedent. So BillG is really wrong to state otherwise. Matters of law are never just about a single case.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  If the FBI simply wanted into this specific phone there exist companies that will do it, right now. Even high-end hardware security modules are not rated against a competent attacker with unlimited resources, in physical control of the module, who can attack it destructively. In fact, they must largely know there isn't any really important evidence on the phone so they have time to play these games.

alainv 11y ago

Yes, this is very naive. They're actually asking for a forensic instrument - asserting that it is for a one-time use is absurd on the face of it. The most thorough deconstruction of this argument I've seen is here: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645

danans 11y ago
That analysis is very informative about how forensic instruments are validated, but that procedure would only apply for information that the FBI hopes to present as evidence in a court. The assailants in this attack are dead, so there's nobody to prosecute (unless accomplices are found). It seems like in this case the FBI wants to sift through the phone for leads into other potential terrorists, and they want to establish the precedent that no manufacturer should be allowed to add true unbreakable encryption to some device in the future, encryption that would preclude even what they are asking of Apple now. Whether they have a right to that information in this particular situation, under current laws, even for the purposes of preventing terrorism, is a matter for the courts (probably the Supreme Court) to decide. Whether Americans have a right to use personal strong encryption will have to be legislated by Congress, not by the bluster and propaganda of the FBI, Apple, and the tech industry.