3 ms·

I feel like all of this talking about a "hard drive" that transports the tool around is a little specious—aren't Apples firmware updates signed? And the update

I feel like all of this talking about a "hard drive" that transports the tool around is a little specious—aren't Apples firmware updates signed? And the update itself would be IMEI locked? The issue here isn't the reusability of the technology—the issue is the reusability of the legal precedent. And this is certainly a very scary precedent to set!

X-Istence 11y ago
Apples updates are signed, but they are not locked to a particular IMEI.
- nightpool 11y ago
  Right, but the FBI has indicated that they would like this particular one to be, to add some amount of code that would render it non-functional when put on another device. (and certainly from a security perspective that would be the correct choice to make)
  - acqq 11y ago
    "Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a final court ruling forcing Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to give the FBI data from an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters would be “potentially precedential” in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-congress-idUSKCN0W33G7 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-congress-... "Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified in support of the FBI on Tuesday, arguing that default device encryption "severely harms" criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones."
    - nightpool 11y ago
      Exactly—this completely agrees with my top level comment. Its not the technology we should be worrying about (although of course apple should be closing the vulnerability that allows the FBI to compel them to help decrypt this phone) but the more important—and scary—thing we should be worrying about here is the legal precedent that this case sets.
jonlucc 11y ago
I think it's sort of about the reusability of the technology, because that's where the major barrier is. Forcing Apple to create that technology which undermines their own systems' security is at the center. If that technology already existed, the debate would only be about if the government should be allowed to use it, not whether it should exist.

X-Istence 11y ago

Apples updates are signed, but they are not locked to a particular IMEI.

nightpool 11y ago
Right, but the FBI has indicated that they would like this particular one to be, to add some amount of code that would render it non-functional when put on another device. (and certainly from a security perspective that would be the correct choice to make)
- acqq 11y ago
  "Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a final court ruling forcing Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to give the FBI data from an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters would be “potentially precedential” in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-congress-idUSKCN0W33G7 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-congress-... "Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified in support of the FBI on Tuesday, arguing that default device encryption "severely harms" criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones."
  - nightpool 11y ago
    Exactly—this completely agrees with my top level comment. Its not the technology we should be worrying about (although of course apple should be closing the vulnerability that allows the FBI to compel them to help decrypt this phone) but the more important—and scary—thing we should be worrying about here is the legal precedent that this case sets.

jonlucc 11y ago

I think it's sort of about the reusability of the technology, because that's where the major barrier is. Forcing Apple to create that technology which undermines their own systems' security is at the center. If that technology already existed, the debate would only be about if the government should be allowed to use it, not whether it should exist.