5 ms·

> 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 pass

> 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.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > If you don't want companies to have the ability to put in backdoors, that's something you need to get Congress to pass (1) I don't want that and (2) it wouldn't be constitutional. Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. Code has been ruled free speech. > the risk is not increased by the software being created That's fine if you don't believe what Tim Cook says about his product. I do. Regardless, whether or not the DOJ can compel a company to weaken its product is the question being asked. Handing over software or a signing key are both trade secrets Apple has a right to protect. Handing over the signing key certainly increases risk.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I know enough about the system to know that every installation requires a signature by Apple. There's no "belief" required here. Note that the creator of cydia, the software that pretty much every jailbroken iPhone runs to install packages, has said that Cook is lying in the letter. He's also said that many people, including him, could create the software in less than a week, and all they need is the signing key. You can trust Cook, but perhaps educate yourself to the point you don't need to trust anyone. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHSH_blob https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHSH_blob and https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/SHSH https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/SHSH, and you'll see how there's no additional risk by creating the software, as long as the key is not released.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      The cydia creator, while accomplished, is not right to call Cook a liar. Cook says the OS does not exist and that only Apple could make it work on the iPhone. What's untrue about that? The DOJ did not ask for a signing key. They asked for special software. Regardless of the semantics, the question is should Apple be forced to weaken the security of its product which is used globally. It doesn't matter if you think Apple only needs to hand over a signing key. The result is the same. Anyway, neither the DOJ nor Apple are saying what you or the cydia creator are saying.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >"The problem I have is with stuff like their answer to the question "Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?", which essentially is outright lying: the "master key" in question is their signing key, not some piece of trivial software they develop (and then sign) in order to automate this process for the FBI. Apple already has the only master key of relevance: that key already exists; the idea that the master key is something that they need to "build" and then would have to "protect" is them trying to divert attention from what is actually important." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158036 Yes, the OS does not exist. But to claim that creating the software means it can somehow get "out there" and be used without Apple's control is false.

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.

studentrob 11y ago
> If you don't want companies to have the ability to put in backdoors, that's something you need to get Congress to pass (1) I don't want that and (2) it wouldn't be constitutional. Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. Code has been ruled free speech. > the risk is not increased by the software being created That's fine if you don't believe what Tim Cook says about his product. I do. Regardless, whether or not the DOJ can compel a company to weaken its product is the question being asked. Handing over software or a signing key are both trade secrets Apple has a right to protect. Handing over the signing key certainly increases risk.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I know enough about the system to know that every installation requires a signature by Apple. There's no "belief" required here. Note that the creator of cydia, the software that pretty much every jailbroken iPhone runs to install packages, has said that Cook is lying in the letter. He's also said that many people, including him, could create the software in less than a week, and all they need is the signing key. You can trust Cook, but perhaps educate yourself to the point you don't need to trust anyone. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHSH_blob https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHSH_blob and https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/SHSH https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/SHSH, and you'll see how there's no additional risk by creating the software, as long as the key is not released.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    The cydia creator, while accomplished, is not right to call Cook a liar. Cook says the OS does not exist and that only Apple could make it work on the iPhone. What's untrue about that? The DOJ did not ask for a signing key. They asked for special software. Regardless of the semantics, the question is should Apple be forced to weaken the security of its product which is used globally. It doesn't matter if you think Apple only needs to hand over a signing key. The result is the same. Anyway, neither the DOJ nor Apple are saying what you or the cydia creator are saying.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >"The problem I have is with stuff like their answer to the question "Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?", which essentially is outright lying: the "master key" in question is their signing key, not some piece of trivial software they develop (and then sign) in order to automate this process for the FBI. Apple already has the only master key of relevance: that key already exists; the idea that the master key is something that they need to "build" and then would have to "protect" is them trying to divert attention from what is actually important." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158036 Yes, the OS does not exist. But to claim that creating the software means it can somehow get "out there" and be used without Apple's control is false.