5 ms·

> 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 would

> 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.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Again, both the DOJ and Apple are talking about creating a custom OS. Nobody is saying it's just a signing key except the Cydia guy, who by the way has been at odds with Apple for years. He's not exactly unbiased, and he is not more knowledgeable about Apple software than Apple, as much as he loves to claim to be. It sounds like you believe that Apple can service these requests from the DOJ without any increased risk of either a "signing key" or the OS being released into the wild. I disagree and that's okay
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        We're not saying it's just the signing key. We're saying it's trivial to make those changes. For the record, I made this claim before I saw anything from saurik. The changes are very minor, just disable erasure and the delay, plus something to allow remote password attempts. Re "OS being released" that's not something that matters, because the OS is useless without the key. The only risk is compromise of the signing key, and that's the same as any iOS update. Do you have any other justification for your belief other than trusting Tim Cook? I'm not claiming he's more knowledgeable, but that Cook lied. This may just be poor phrasing or dumbing down on Cook's part, but the implication is wrong.

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.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Again, both the DOJ and Apple are talking about creating a custom OS. Nobody is saying it's just a signing key except the Cydia guy, who by the way has been at odds with Apple for years. He's not exactly unbiased, and he is not more knowledgeable about Apple software than Apple, as much as he loves to claim to be. It sounds like you believe that Apple can service these requests from the DOJ without any increased risk of either a "signing key" or the OS being released into the wild. I disagree and that's okay
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      We're not saying it's just the signing key. We're saying it's trivial to make those changes. For the record, I made this claim before I saw anything from saurik. The changes are very minor, just disable erasure and the delay, plus something to allow remote password attempts. Re "OS being released" that's not something that matters, because the OS is useless without the key. The only risk is compromise of the signing key, and that's the same as any iOS update. Do you have any other justification for your belief other than trusting Tim Cook? I'm not claiming he's more knowledgeable, but that Cook lied. This may just be poor phrasing or dumbing down on Cook's part, but the implication is wrong.