5 ms·

I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here. There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be executed, an

I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here. There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be executed, and the request is restricted. They do not, for example ask for the private signing keys for iOS. That would be less work for Apple, and actually well within the rights of the govt. An unpopular argument I realize, particularly in the post-Snowden era, but I would be curious to hear some considered reflections on how the govt should go about this differently. Assume for example that this is not Apple, but instead Enron protecting the laptop of their CTO

bfaviero 11y ago
Enron can hand over the laptop. This would be like asking Enron to break into their CEO's house.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  The phone was owned by the state.
  - smileysteve 11y ago
    And if the state (or any employer) were appropriately managing their devices they'd have access to the data, known which apps were on it, and have remote wiped it.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Not really. If Enron put encryption with their master keys on the data, how is this different? Seems very similar to me?
studentrob 11y ago
If Loretta Lynch were informed about how encryption works, she would not be pursuing this case. As it is, she does not understand that she is wasting the time of American government and people. She does not understand that even if the FBI can get into every Apple phone, criminals can simply choose another form of encryption software to accomplish means of hiding their communications. Assuming the FBI can force Apple to install a key logger to grant them access into encrypted apps, will the FBI then go after Samsung and HTC which are made outside the US? The whole thing is absurd and a waste of our time. The way in which the FBI is going about this is not going to get them what they want. I don't know how to get them what they want. That's their job to figure it out. But they should know better about encryption technology. Or someone should tell them. This has gone on too long.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Assume she is informed. Assume she doesn't really care about the outcome of this case, but is after a particular precedent. At this point her actions become a lot easier to understand.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  I do not think you have actually read enough about this specific case. For example: the govt is not asking for "the FBI to get into every Apple phone". If you disagree with this assertion, please provide a link where govt is asking for that.
  - Johnny555 11y ago
    Maybe not "every" phone, but "a lot" of phones: On Tuesday, Comey said the FBI is asking for access to that specific phone but understood the decision would set a precedent for similar cases. Asked how many iPhones the FBI would like Apple to unlock, Comey said he could not name a number but that there were "a lot" of phones that hold information needed for law enforcement investigations. http://www.reuters.com/article/apple-encryption-congress-comey-idUSL2N1691JX http://www.reuters.com/article/apple-encryption-congress-com...
    - einarvollset 11y ago
      Again, I don't think you've really read what the govt is asking: yes this would set the precedent for them to request via a valid search warrant and on a case by case basis to open maybe even "a lot" of phones. My point is - grabbing the master keys would give them access to all.
      - Johnny555 11y ago
        Once they set precedent to get Apple to provide them with the software they need, why do you think they won't later compel Apple to provide them with the keys to let them unlock any phone? Surely it's going to become a burden if the government has to go through Apple for every single unlock request - there may be thousands of them, so for convenience, why wouldn't they demand the software to do it themselves? It seems like gaining access to this dead guy's phone is not really what the FBI is after - they can already get his call records and SMS's from the carriers, there's not likely to be any actionable information left on the phone.
Alex3917 11y ago
IIRC Enron was being investigated under the RICO act. In this case no one is even being investigated for committing a crime, let alone charged with one.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Hmmm.. Unlike Enron before an investigation was started or a conviction was made, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that several crimes were in fact committed by the users of these phones.
codehusker 11y ago
The CTO would likely be compelled by the courts to reveal their password.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  What if the CFO (sorry, typo in post) was dead or realized that revealing that would land him in hotter waters than providing them?
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  And if they didn't they would be charged with obstruction and that's where it would end. They would not go to Dell and force them to write software that allows a secret FBI password to get into every laptop.
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    The Enron case was a bad analogy because only billions of dollars were at stake: assume there were details on a Dell computer that would save a dozen or so lives. Do you think Dell wouldn't help? Do you think they shouldn't?
    - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
      The case at hand is a discarded work phone -- of which call and text records are readily available to investigators. It does not represent a "clear and present danger". Even if it did I would still fight it in the courts: Warrantless wiretapping, secret Fisa courts. Guantanamo bay prison. Lawyers and congressional leaders being electronically spied on... I do not think its safe for our democracy to continue giving the government tools to spy on citizens.
      - einarvollset 11y ago
        Your comment perfectly illustrates what's wrong with your side of the argument (but don't worry, you are on the side of most of HN): Isn't the current case in fact exactly what you would hope to see from a government changing in response to gitmo and warrant less wiretapping? If not - what would you expect to see assuming the govt was changing? Honestly curious here, as you seem to want to fight the govt even in the face of "clear and present danger" and even if they had reformed.
voxic11 11y ago
Enron doesn't make encryption software/hardware I don't see how that is a comparable situation? Obviously there are limits to what courts can order in the pursuit of law enforcement goals, and this should be one of them.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Neither does Apple. afaik they use open source and vetted software for all their encryption need. As they should.
maratd 11y ago
> there's a clear reason for this order to be executed No. They are abusing a law written two centuries ago to compel a private corporation to perform work on their behalf when they have the resources and know-how to do it themselves in this specific case. They are doing it purely to establish precedent so that they can then proceed to do the same, again and again, on an absolutely massive scale. A scale which wouldn't be possible with their resources. This is shameful and shouldn't be permitted. > I would be curious to hear some considered reflections on how the govt should go about this differently It's very simple. Stop trying to compel private corporations to do their job for them.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  See part re: master keys of iOS. Would not require any work on part of Apple.
  - maratd 11y ago
    Would you like to explain how you'll guarantee that those keys won't end up in the wrong hands? I trust those keys with Apple far more than the FBI.
    - einarvollset 11y ago
      By definition having them be in more places makes them less secure, so clearly I cannot. That's my point though. The FBI is not currently asking for this. But they could.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
tlrobinson 11y ago
> and actually well within the rights of the govt [citation needed] It's also entirely possible Apple can't easily give them the key, since from what I've heard the key only exists in HSMs. Presumably they have more than one HSM, but I imagine the fact that they'd need to physically give the FBI hardware that's normally used in the course of their business would complicate matters.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Agreed. Though does not negate my point that the govt has not actually asked for this.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Regarding [citation needed] specifically related to how the govt has a right to seize the keys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
jMyles 11y ago
> There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be executed, and the request is restricted. All three of these are in dispute. 1. I do not think that this is a valid court order, as I do not think it comports with the text or spirit of the All Writs act. Apple is not specifically inhibiting execution of the court order; the act in question that ostensibly inhibits government action (manufacturing a device with a particular configuration) occurred long before the acts against which the warrant was issued (the act of criminal violence). If this is within the purview of the government on this basis, then it leaves little imaginable human activity that isn't subject to the government's whim via the All Writs Act. 2. There is no clear reason for this order to be executed because the crime has already been occurred and the subject of the warrant is deceased. Like so many search warrants, the government's request in this case does not name specifically the "things to be seized;" instead, the government wants to seize each and every thing on this phone. Presumably the government wants to seek evidence about accomplices and circumstances surrounding the crime so that it can prevent similar actions in the future. However, in order for this to pass constitutional muster landing anywhere near the text or spirit of the document, they need publicly explain precisely what they are looking for. 3. The request is not particularly restricted; it literally asks Apple to write new software to exacting government specifications. So, > I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here. I think that the government is better suited to educate people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security, and completely abandon the idea that software must ever work in a way that the government dictates. Much to the contrary, we'll be a freer and more prosperous country when software specifically inhibits the government's capacity to overreach and when it is made so that it is impossible to change by an actor under pressure from the government.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  Re: 1 This is the core of my point though: by fighting this on the all writs act, you leave the govt no option but to request something that does not compel Apple to do anything: give up the master keys. If that's what you want, fine. Re: 2 well, a democratically elected judge did. There is literally no other democratic way to figure out if a search warrant should be granted or not. I grant you that if this was your main point (which it clearly isn't) then you might have a case, as I've not looked into that part at all. Re: 3 Either you did not read my comment carefully, or you misunderstand fundamentally what I mean by restricted: I mean restricted in terms of how much power Apple would grant to the govt. Clearly giving the master keys would be much less restricted in terms of how much power this gives the FBI than what they are currently asking. Let's be honest, this is not about comping a half dozen engineers time for a week or two. Re: what you think the govt should do: Honestly your argument here is weaker than anything else in your comment. So you honestly think that the way in which the government should perform their duties in terms of law enforcement is to "educate people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security"? Really? Okay, let's play this out: I am a terrorist, and am apprehended at JFK with my iPhone. On my iPhone, there is the contact details of my co-conspirators, already in the US and already with AK-47s ready to shoot up a primary school. Tell me exactly how "educating people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security" would be helpful in this case?

bfaviero 11y ago

Enron can hand over the laptop. This would be like asking Enron to break into their CEO's house.

tosseraccount 11y ago
The phone was owned by the state.
- smileysteve 11y ago
  And if the state (or any employer) were appropriately managing their devices they'd have access to the data, known which apps were on it, and have remote wiped it.
einarvollset 11y ago
Not really. If Enron put encryption with their master keys on the data, how is this different? Seems very similar to me?

studentrob 11y ago

If Loretta Lynch were informed about how encryption works, she would not be pursuing this case. As it is, she does not understand that she is wasting the time of American government and people. She does not understand that even if the FBI can get into every Apple phone, criminals can simply choose another form of encryption software to accomplish means of hiding their communications. Assuming the FBI can force Apple to install a key logger to grant them access into encrypted apps, will the FBI then go after Samsung and HTC which are made outside the US? The whole thing is absurd and a waste of our time. The way in which the FBI is going about this is not going to get them what they want. I don't know how to get them what they want. That's their job to figure it out. But they should know better about encryption technology. Or someone should tell them. This has gone on too long.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Assume she is informed. Assume she doesn't really care about the outcome of this case, but is after a particular precedent. At this point her actions become a lot easier to understand.
einarvollset 11y ago
I do not think you have actually read enough about this specific case. For example: the govt is not asking for "the FBI to get into every Apple phone". If you disagree with this assertion, please provide a link where govt is asking for that.
- Johnny555 11y ago
  Maybe not "every" phone, but "a lot" of phones: On Tuesday, Comey said the FBI is asking for access to that specific phone but understood the decision would set a precedent for similar cases. Asked how many iPhones the FBI would like Apple to unlock, Comey said he could not name a number but that there were "a lot" of phones that hold information needed for law enforcement investigations. http://www.reuters.com/article/apple-encryption-congress-comey-idUSL2N1691JX http://www.reuters.com/article/apple-encryption-congress-com...
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    Again, I don't think you've really read what the govt is asking: yes this would set the precedent for them to request via a valid search warrant and on a case by case basis to open maybe even "a lot" of phones. My point is - grabbing the master keys would give them access to all.
    - Johnny555 11y ago
      Once they set precedent to get Apple to provide them with the software they need, why do you think they won't later compel Apple to provide them with the keys to let them unlock any phone? Surely it's going to become a burden if the government has to go through Apple for every single unlock request - there may be thousands of them, so for convenience, why wouldn't they demand the software to do it themselves? It seems like gaining access to this dead guy's phone is not really what the FBI is after - they can already get his call records and SMS's from the carriers, there's not likely to be any actionable information left on the phone.

Alex3917 11y ago

IIRC Enron was being investigated under the RICO act. In this case no one is even being investigated for committing a crime, let alone charged with one.

einarvollset 11y ago
Hmmm.. Unlike Enron before an investigation was started or a conviction was made, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that several crimes were in fact committed by the users of these phones.

codehusker 11y ago

The CTO would likely be compelled by the courts to reveal their password.

einarvollset 11y ago
What if the CFO (sorry, typo in post) was dead or realized that revealing that would land him in hotter waters than providing them?
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
And if they didn't they would be charged with obstruction and that's where it would end. They would not go to Dell and force them to write software that allows a secret FBI password to get into every laptop.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  The Enron case was a bad analogy because only billions of dollars were at stake: assume there were details on a Dell computer that would save a dozen or so lives. Do you think Dell wouldn't help? Do you think they shouldn't?
  - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
    The case at hand is a discarded work phone -- of which call and text records are readily available to investigators. It does not represent a "clear and present danger". Even if it did I would still fight it in the courts: Warrantless wiretapping, secret Fisa courts. Guantanamo bay prison. Lawyers and congressional leaders being electronically spied on... I do not think its safe for our democracy to continue giving the government tools to spy on citizens.
    - einarvollset 11y ago
      Your comment perfectly illustrates what's wrong with your side of the argument (but don't worry, you are on the side of most of HN): Isn't the current case in fact exactly what you would hope to see from a government changing in response to gitmo and warrant less wiretapping? If not - what would you expect to see assuming the govt was changing? Honestly curious here, as you seem to want to fight the govt even in the face of "clear and present danger" and even if they had reformed.

voxic11 11y ago

Enron doesn't make encryption software/hardware I don't see how that is a comparable situation? Obviously there are limits to what courts can order in the pursuit of law enforcement goals, and this should be one of them.

einarvollset 11y ago
Neither does Apple. afaik they use open source and vetted software for all their encryption need. As they should.

maratd 11y ago

> there's a clear reason for this order to be executed No. They are abusing a law written two centuries ago to compel a private corporation to perform work on their behalf when they have the resources and know-how to do it themselves in this specific case. They are doing it purely to establish precedent so that they can then proceed to do the same, again and again, on an absolutely massive scale. A scale which wouldn't be possible with their resources. This is shameful and shouldn't be permitted. > I would be curious to hear some considered reflections on how the govt should go about this differently It's very simple. Stop trying to compel private corporations to do their job for them.

einarvollset 11y ago
See part re: master keys of iOS. Would not require any work on part of Apple.
- maratd 11y ago
  Would you like to explain how you'll guarantee that those keys won't end up in the wrong hands? I trust those keys with Apple far more than the FBI.
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    By definition having them be in more places makes them less secure, so clearly I cannot. That's my point though. The FBI is not currently asking for this. But they could.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

tlrobinson 11y ago

> and actually well within the rights of the govt [citation needed] It's also entirely possible Apple can't easily give them the key, since from what I've heard the key only exists in HSMs. Presumably they have more than one HSM, but I imagine the fact that they'd need to physically give the FBI hardware that's normally used in the course of their business would complicate matters.

einarvollset 11y ago
Agreed. Though does not negate my point that the govt has not actually asked for this.
einarvollset 11y ago
Regarding [citation needed] specifically related to how the govt has a right to seize the keys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

jMyles 11y ago

> There's a valid court order, there's a clear reason for this order to be executed, and the request is restricted. All three of these are in dispute. 1. I do not think that this is a valid court order, as I do not think it comports with the text or spirit of the All Writs act. Apple is not specifically inhibiting execution of the court order; the act in question that ostensibly inhibits government action (manufacturing a device with a particular configuration) occurred long before the acts against which the warrant was issued (the act of criminal violence). If this is within the purview of the government on this basis, then it leaves little imaginable human activity that isn't subject to the government's whim via the All Writs Act. 2. There is no clear reason for this order to be executed because the crime has already been occurred and the subject of the warrant is deceased. Like so many search warrants, the government's request in this case does not name specifically the "things to be seized;" instead, the government wants to seize each and every thing on this phone. Presumably the government wants to seek evidence about accomplices and circumstances surrounding the crime so that it can prevent similar actions in the future. However, in order for this to pass constitutional muster landing anywhere near the text or spirit of the document, they need publicly explain precisely what they are looking for. 3. The request is not particularly restricted; it literally asks Apple to write new software to exacting government specifications. So, > I'm curious what you guys think the government should do differently here. I think that the government is better suited to educate people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security, and completely abandon the idea that software must ever work in a way that the government dictates. Much to the contrary, we'll be a freer and more prosperous country when software specifically inhibits the government's capacity to overreach and when it is made so that it is impossible to change by an actor under pressure from the government.

einarvollset 11y ago
Re: 1 This is the core of my point though: by fighting this on the all writs act, you leave the govt no option but to request something that does not compel Apple to do anything: give up the master keys. If that's what you want, fine. Re: 2 well, a democratically elected judge did. There is literally no other democratic way to figure out if a search warrant should be granted or not. I grant you that if this was your main point (which it clearly isn't) then you might have a case, as I've not looked into that part at all. Re: 3 Either you did not read my comment carefully, or you misunderstand fundamentally what I mean by restricted: I mean restricted in terms of how much power Apple would grant to the govt. Clearly giving the master keys would be much less restricted in terms of how much power this gives the FBI than what they are currently asking. Let's be honest, this is not about comping a half dozen engineers time for a week or two. Re: what you think the govt should do: Honestly your argument here is weaker than anything else in your comment. So you honestly think that the way in which the government should perform their duties in terms of law enforcement is to "educate people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security"? Really? Okay, let's play this out: I am a terrorist, and am apprehended at JFK with my iPhone. On my iPhone, there is the contact details of my co-conspirators, already in the US and already with AK-47s ready to shoot up a primary school. Tell me exactly how "educating people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security" would be helpful in this case?