3 ms·

>I have been urging colleagues to respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the

by ikeboy 11y ago

>I have been urging colleagues to respond any time anybody asks about FBI and San Bernardino to say: the real conversation is about China wanting to unlock the phone of a US Embassy employee who they suspect is a CIA agent and don’t we want Apple to be able to say they can’t do that. Wanting Apple not to be able to comply doesn't mean they shouldn't comply when they can. They should comply, and make sure they can't comply on newer models (i.e. make secure enclave nonupdatable without wiping keys or unlocking first).

studentrob 11y ago
If they comply here that's a step towards the DOJ being able to ask them to always be able to comply in the future. It's a slippery slope Plus, compliance now may reveal some of their trade secrets which may hurt other elements of their future products' security. I trust Cook on this
- ikeboy 11y ago
  "Obeying the law when you agree with it is a slippery slope to obeying it when you disagree!" Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? No.. > And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed. Serving DOJ requests within Apple's facility does not mean the newly created software will not get out into the wild. We know the DOJ wants to unlock hundreds or thousands of phones. Apple will need to hire more staff to handle such requests, come up with a procedure for doing it securely, etc. None of this is without risk, and it is much more risky than not doing it at all. There are bad actors, foreign entities, who would love a copy of the software that the DOJ is asking Apple to produce. They will try their hardest to get their hands on it. Furthermore, if the US successfully forces Apple to unlock iPhones, China will ask for the unlock feature as well. We do not want this tool in the hands of oppressive regimes. We do not want to internationally set a precedent that it is okay to install backdoors on phones or computers.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Apple will need to hire more staff to handle such requests, come up with a procedure for doing it securely, etc. None of this is without risk, and it is much more risky than not doing it at all. This still seems like a general argument for never complying with warrants. After all, then the government will get more warrants, we'll need to hire people to comply with the warrants, and that's a security risk! Every large company has people employed solely to respond to requests from law enforcement. >We do not want to internationally set a precedent that it is okay to install backdoors on phones or computers. Then pass a law that bans backdoors like the one Apple has on all its devices, if you think backdoors are not ok. As is, Apple has a backdoor, and the FBI is effectively asking for the key. >There are bad actors, foreign entities, who would love a copy of the software that the DOJ is asking Apple to produce. They will try their hardest to get their hands on it. Remember, the only piece that's difficult to get is Apple's key. Once you have that, the software is easy to create. That's something that already exists, and making the software doesn't make it any easier for someone to steal the key.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        > Then pass a law that bans backdoors like the one Apple has on all its devices, if you think backdoors are not ok That's not even on the table. Congress passes laws and this case is in court. I support Apple in standing up to the DOJ. They should not be forced to write software that weakens their device's security. The semantics of whether we say a backdoor already exists or not do not matter. The fact is Apple will have to create something that does not yet exist in order to fulfill this request, and there is a risk that that can get out into the wild. Nobody understands the risk of that possibility better than Apple. I stand by them because I feel the time to support them is now. There may not be a later. You're free to disagree.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        >That's not even on the table. Congress passes laws and this case is in court. That's exactly my point. If you don't want companies to have the ability to put in backdoors, that's something you need to get Congress to pass. Not wanting backdoors is not relevant to the legal question here. >The fact is Apple will have to create something that does not yet exist in order to fulfill this request, and there is a risk that that can get out into the wild. As I and others have said, the risk is not increased by the software being created. That's not too hard to do. The only thing that can't be done is sign the update to install it on the device. There's no risk being added by that signing, because Apple anyway signs every new iOS release. If Apple doesn't want to create new software, I'm sure the FBI will be happy for them to hand over the key, and the FBI can create the software themself.

by ikeboy 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago

If they comply here that's a step towards the DOJ being able to ask them to always be able to comply in the future. It's a slippery slope Plus, compliance now may reveal some of their trade secrets which may hurt other elements of their future products' security. I trust Cook on this

ikeboy 11y ago
"Obeying the law when you agree with it is a slippery slope to obeying it when you disagree!" Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > Doesn't your argument imply nobody should ever obey the law? No.. > And Apple has the option to do everything on their own facilities, so no trade secrets need to be revealed. Serving DOJ requests within Apple's facility does not mean the newly created software will not get out into the wild. We know the DOJ wants to unlock hundreds or thousands of phones. Apple will need to hire more staff to handle such requests, come up with a procedure for doing it securely, etc. None of this is without risk, and it is much more risky than not doing it at all. There are bad actors, foreign entities, who would love a copy of the software that the DOJ is asking Apple to produce. They will try their hardest to get their hands on it. Furthermore, if the US successfully forces Apple to unlock iPhones, China will ask for the unlock feature as well. We do not want this tool in the hands of oppressive regimes. We do not want to internationally set a precedent that it is okay to install backdoors on phones or computers.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >Apple will need to hire more staff to handle such requests, come up with a procedure for doing it securely, etc. None of this is without risk, and it is much more risky than not doing it at all. This still seems like a general argument for never complying with warrants. After all, then the government will get more warrants, we'll need to hire people to comply with the warrants, and that's a security risk! Every large company has people employed solely to respond to requests from law enforcement. >We do not want to internationally set a precedent that it is okay to install backdoors on phones or computers. Then pass a law that bans backdoors like the one Apple has on all its devices, if you think backdoors are not ok. As is, Apple has a backdoor, and the FBI is effectively asking for the key. >There are bad actors, foreign entities, who would love a copy of the software that the DOJ is asking Apple to produce. They will try their hardest to get their hands on it. Remember, the only piece that's difficult to get is Apple's key. Once you have that, the software is easy to create. That's something that already exists, and making the software doesn't make it any easier for someone to steal the key.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > Then pass a law that bans backdoors like the one Apple has on all its devices, if you think backdoors are not ok That's not even on the table. Congress passes laws and this case is in court. I support Apple in standing up to the DOJ. They should not be forced to write software that weakens their device's security. The semantics of whether we say a backdoor already exists or not do not matter. The fact is Apple will have to create something that does not yet exist in order to fulfill this request, and there is a risk that that can get out into the wild. Nobody understands the risk of that possibility better than Apple. I stand by them because I feel the time to support them is now. There may not be a later. You're free to disagree.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >That's not even on the table. Congress passes laws and this case is in court. That's exactly my point. If you don't want companies to have the ability to put in backdoors, that's something you need to get Congress to pass. Not wanting backdoors is not relevant to the legal question here. >The fact is Apple will have to create something that does not yet exist in order to fulfill this request, and there is a risk that that can get out into the wild. As I and others have said, the risk is not increased by the software being created. That's not too hard to do. The only thing that can't be done is sign the update to install it on the device. There's no risk being added by that signing, because Apple anyway signs every new iOS release. If Apple doesn't want to create new software, I'm sure the FBI will be happy for them to hand over the key, and the FBI can create the software themself.