3 ms·
Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems lik
by zekevermillion 11y ago
Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems like a dangerous plan). Also, the gov't could then simply outlaw the outsourcing of security functions for device manufacturers.
- nathancahill 11y ago> the gov't could then simply outlaw.. If this was about the gov't simply making new laws we wouldn't be having this discussion right? Fortunately we live in a country where the gov't can't simply outlaw things.
- zekevermillion 11y agoActually they can. I see nothing unconstitutional about restricting companies from circumventing a court ruling on existing law. Even if unconstitutional (which it's not) that does not necessarily prevent a bill from becoming a law.
- ascagnel_ 11y agoThe entire discussion here is not about Apple circumventing a court ruling. They are appealing the ruling, and until the appeal is complete they don't have to perform any action. Right now, it would be very unconstitutional (a denial of due process) to prevent Apple from appealing the ruling.
- rhizome 11y agoIt has been said that Congress, who can legislate all kinds of stuff, is the DOJ's end-game here. So, stay tuned.
- alextgordon 11y agoThey could use multiple signing keys. One in America, one in Hong Kong, one in Germany, etc. If a firmware update is not signed in all (or N of M) jurisdictions, the secure enclave simply rejects it.
- tlrobinson 11y agoThis is an excellent solution. A bit like Ripple's concept of trusting a set of validators are unlikely to collude against you, without having to trust any single one of them: https://wiki.ripple.com/Consensus#Not_colluding https://wiki.ripple.com/Consensus#Not_colluding Of course it doesn't stop any particular government from making it illegal to sell unbackdoorable phones in their country.
- zik 11y agoOr even better a single signing key for each phone so they don't get carte blanche access from a single request.
- zekevermillion 11y agoHere's another possibility. Let's say DOJ wins, or a new law is passed requiring Apple to sign malware version of iOS. Apple risks losing huge market share overseas, where people will stop buying iPhones. Apple spins off affiliate companies in these other countries, distributing controlling share of the affiliate stock to current Apple shareholders. Then apple just licenses its tech to the spin-off affiliates. No control over their ops. (Obviously would be more convoluted, much more -- but that's the basic idea.)
- btbuilder 11y agoThis sounds like a good case for a threshold signature scheme[1] where no one member has all of a complete key and can partially sign without revealing their piece of the key to anyone. [1] http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070209-new.pdf http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070209-new....