14 ms·

I think it's important to dispel this fiction that Apple will be "unlocking" anything. To use the word "unlock" seriously blurs the lines of what's going on he

I think it's important to dispel this fiction that Apple will be "unlocking" anything. To use the word "unlock" seriously blurs the lines of what's going on here. They're merely asked to flash it with software that removes a delay in submitting passcodes and removes the wiping function after ten failures. That's not unlocking it. If Apple complies with the order, the FBI will still be getting an encrypted iPhone back, and they'll still have to sit around and try to decrypt it.

brians 11y ago
If the new software they are to write also tried 10000 pass codes, would that count?
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  No, because if his password wasn't 0000-9999, Apple still would have complied with the order and the phone would still be encrypted. They're not ordered to decrypt it. And I think when a layman hears "unlock", they're led to believe that means decrypt.
  - Falkon1313 11y ago
    I think when a layman hears "unlock" they're more likely to picture a scene from a police detective drama when the investigators ask a landlord to unlock a deceased tenant's apartment so that they can investigate. If it were rephrased as "Hello Mr. Landlord, we're ordering you to open a machine shop and pay several employees to develop a new lockpicking device that could be copied infinitely for free and which would allow us, or anyone really... a North Korean agency, an organized crime syndicate, or a jealous and abusive ex-lover perhaps, to more easily break into any of the homes of billions of people around the world with or without reason or warrant?" then the layman might perceive it a little differently. That seems to be like the message that Apple's trying to communicate, but I don't know if they're getting it across clearly enough for most people.
    - nickysielicki 11y ago
      > "[...] to more easily break into [...] That's where your analogy breaks down. This hardly makes it easier. If North Korea or FBI or NSA or a criminal organization wanted to break into your iPhone, and this backdoor existed and was distributed, they would have to externally flash it with firmware and then hook up a controller that tricks the digitizer so that they can brute force the passcode, trying each one synchronously on a shitty mobile processor SoC. Is that really less complicated than externally reading the memory itself and using John the Ripper and a supercomputer? Is it meaningfully less complicated?
      - Piskvorrr 11y ago
        Yes, else this would be happening. The passcode is not the complete key, and there's a reason the Secure Enclave is named that way.
        nickysielicki 11y ago
        The 5C has no secure enclave.
halter73 11y ago
A distinction without a difference. The FBI wouldn't ask for the modified software if it wouldn't allow them to easily unlock the phone.
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  Today FBI has the resources to desolder the chip and put it into all sorts of controllers where they can prod and poke at the encrypted data. What if this guy used a long passcode? They're still going to try to get in, and the only difference is that they'll move the heavy lifting off of the iPhone and try to crack it with beefy computer. And to do that, they'll have to lift the chip off the SoC anyway. My point is that when people say Apple will "unlock" the phone, it insinuates that the only thing standing between FBI and the data is Apple. And that isn't true. Even if Apple complies, they're they're not guaranteed to get in. Furthermore, Apple could comply and they still might find themselves pursuing an angle that they're already capable of. FBI are going through all these court hearings and process all for the sake of trying 0000-9999. In other words, this is obviously bullshit on the side of the FBI. The question is why they're doing that. I suggest that it's not about legal precedent, because newer iPhones can't be undermined like this and the All Writs Act can't compell Apple to stop producing such devices, it can only (arguably) compell them to undermine devices if it's within their reach. (IANAL so please call me out if I'm wrong about that.) I suspect it's about PR, because when they lose they can throw their hands up and the news pundits will scream about terrorists winning in our courts. Washington will then push their backdoor legislation that they've been asking for over the past few months. Legal precedent isn't what they're after, IMHO. The legal precedent that would be set wouldn't be applicable to where things are headed. They're looking for public appeal.

brians 11y ago

If the new software they are to write also tried 10000 pass codes, would that count?

nickysielicki 11y ago
No, because if his password wasn't 0000-9999, Apple still would have complied with the order and the phone would still be encrypted. They're not ordered to decrypt it. And I think when a layman hears "unlock", they're led to believe that means decrypt.
- Falkon1313 11y ago
  I think when a layman hears "unlock" they're more likely to picture a scene from a police detective drama when the investigators ask a landlord to unlock a deceased tenant's apartment so that they can investigate. If it were rephrased as "Hello Mr. Landlord, we're ordering you to open a machine shop and pay several employees to develop a new lockpicking device that could be copied infinitely for free and which would allow us, or anyone really... a North Korean agency, an organized crime syndicate, or a jealous and abusive ex-lover perhaps, to more easily break into any of the homes of billions of people around the world with or without reason or warrant?" then the layman might perceive it a little differently. That seems to be like the message that Apple's trying to communicate, but I don't know if they're getting it across clearly enough for most people.
  - nickysielicki 11y ago
    > "[...] to more easily break into [...] That's where your analogy breaks down. This hardly makes it easier. If North Korea or FBI or NSA or a criminal organization wanted to break into your iPhone, and this backdoor existed and was distributed, they would have to externally flash it with firmware and then hook up a controller that tricks the digitizer so that they can brute force the passcode, trying each one synchronously on a shitty mobile processor SoC. Is that really less complicated than externally reading the memory itself and using John the Ripper and a supercomputer? Is it meaningfully less complicated?
    - Piskvorrr 11y ago
      Yes, else this would be happening. The passcode is not the complete key, and there's a reason the Secure Enclave is named that way.
      - nickysielicki 11y ago
        The 5C has no secure enclave.

halter73 11y ago

A distinction without a difference. The FBI wouldn't ask for the modified software if it wouldn't allow them to easily unlock the phone.

nickysielicki 11y ago
Today FBI has the resources to desolder the chip and put it into all sorts of controllers where they can prod and poke at the encrypted data. What if this guy used a long passcode? They're still going to try to get in, and the only difference is that they'll move the heavy lifting off of the iPhone and try to crack it with beefy computer. And to do that, they'll have to lift the chip off the SoC anyway. My point is that when people say Apple will "unlock" the phone, it insinuates that the only thing standing between FBI and the data is Apple. And that isn't true. Even if Apple complies, they're they're not guaranteed to get in. Furthermore, Apple could comply and they still might find themselves pursuing an angle that they're already capable of. FBI are going through all these court hearings and process all for the sake of trying 0000-9999. In other words, this is obviously bullshit on the side of the FBI. The question is why they're doing that. I suggest that it's not about legal precedent, because newer iPhones can't be undermined like this and the All Writs Act can't compell Apple to stop producing such devices, it can only (arguably) compell them to undermine devices if it's within their reach. (IANAL so please call me out if I'm wrong about that.) I suspect it's about PR, because when they lose they can throw their hands up and the news pundits will scream about terrorists winning in our courts. Washington will then push their backdoor legislation that they've been asking for over the past few months. Legal precedent isn't what they're after, IMHO. The legal precedent that would be set wouldn't be applicable to where things are headed. They're looking for public appeal.