3 ms·

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

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.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > The only risk is compromise of the signing key, and that's the same as any iOS update. I disagree. If the DOJ gets a signed copy of the software, that's a very different level of risk. There are all kinds of issues with software development we often underestimate. The issues aren't always technical matters. Sometimes they are human. This court case isn't just about software development. It's also about what the DOJ can demand, and how that impacts software development. The DOJ could very well demand that Apple hand over a signed version of the customized OS. After that, how can Apple be expected to secure their product? They can't. The last relevant case using AWA was USA vs. New York Telephone. Have you read OK's review of that case as it pertains to a potential USA vs. Apple? [1] This is from the judges' concluding remarks, which help define the AWA as it will be used today and in the future: "We agree that the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed" "The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." n.b. compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company Consider the burden Tim Cook and Apply will bear when he compels his software engineers to remove password-entry safeguards and release the signing key that they have guarded so carefully. Employee morale will tank. > Do you have any other justification for your belief other than trusting Tim Cook? I trust Tim and stand behind him when he says it's time to stand up to the DOJ. These cases have been heard behind closed doors for years, decades, have hurt business such as Yahoo, Skype etc. and have never been shown the spotlight that this case has. Everyone knows what an iPhone is, from the US to Cambodia, and they will all be following this case closely. It's time to share what we know as techies about the inner workings of the devices in people's pockets and the unchecked surveillance systems of our government. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

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.

studentrob 11y ago
> The only risk is compromise of the signing key, and that's the same as any iOS update. I disagree. If the DOJ gets a signed copy of the software, that's a very different level of risk. There are all kinds of issues with software development we often underestimate. The issues aren't always technical matters. Sometimes they are human. This court case isn't just about software development. It's also about what the DOJ can demand, and how that impacts software development. The DOJ could very well demand that Apple hand over a signed version of the customized OS. After that, how can Apple be expected to secure their product? They can't. The last relevant case using AWA was USA vs. New York Telephone. Have you read OK's review of that case as it pertains to a potential USA vs. Apple? [1] This is from the judges' concluding remarks, which help define the AWA as it will be used today and in the future: "We agree that the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed" "The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." n.b. compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company Consider the burden Tim Cook and Apply will bear when he compels his software engineers to remove password-entry safeguards and release the signing key that they have guarded so carefully. Employee morale will tank. > Do you have any other justification for your belief other than trusting Tim Cook? I trust Tim and stand behind him when he says it's time to stand up to the DOJ. These cases have been heard behind closed doors for years, decades, have hurt business such as Yahoo, Skype etc. and have never been shown the spotlight that this case has. Everyone knows what an iPhone is, from the US to Cambodia, and they will all be following this case closely. It's time to share what we know as techies about the inner workings of the devices in people's pockets and the unchecked surveillance systems of our government. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...