10 ms·

The Law is Clear: The FBI Cannot Make Apple Rewrite its OS

266 points by Osiris30 11y ago

mozumder 11y ago
If software is considered speech then we can get rid of software patents.
- harryh 11y ago
  No. Books are definitely speech and we have copyright laws.
  - rail2rail 11y ago
    copyrights != patents
    - TillE 11y ago
      It's not difficult to see how software can be simultaneously a patentable process and free expression. Videogames are the most obvious example.
      - Gorbzel 11y ago
        And most purely-software developments in video gaming shouldn't be patentable.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        An important distinction between patents and copyright is that independent invention is not a defense to patent infringement and the patent covers the concept rather than the specific implementation. Which means that unlike copyright, software patents create concepts that you aren't allowed to express, even if they're your own ideas.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- studentrob 11y ago
  Ug this is off topic
- jessegreathouse 11y ago
  Software doesn't get patented. Patents apply to "ways of doing things". Incidentally software is used to describe a "way of doing things" but it's the concept that gets patented, not the software. Also, your assertion that the software is the free speech is a false-presupposition. The private key is data, and data is speech. It's no different than a book or a newspaper, except it's written in a way that only 1 person (device) can understand it.
chatmasta 11y ago
What interests me about this piece is Ms. Crawford's willingness to interpret President Obama's body language and to draw conclusions from it that support her argument. As a former adviser to Obama, she has the credibility that allows her to make inferences like that. I wonder how many of Obama's aides depend on that body language for interpreting his intent and preferences. When Obama is in a meeting with dozens of people, only a few of his most senior advisers will actually get to speak directly to him and engage with him in substantive discussion. His more junior aides likely need to rely on non-verbal cues like body language in order to determine what he really means. (Also interesting to me is the white-labeled medium site... I was not aware that was an option.)
- vertex-four 11y ago
  It appears that Backchannel is an official Medium thing with a different focus - https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-in-house-publications-matter-and-backchannel-27cb772e6705 https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-i...
studentrob 11y ago
Haha this article is fantastic and I'm only a few paragraphs in, > The FBI has been terrific at reading statutes — including CALEA — in ways that require the rest of us to do headstands to understand what the agency is up to I really want to hear from Obama's current tech advisors, such as Megan Smith, the current CTO of the US, or Obama himself about the discussions he had after his remarks at the keynote. I bet he had some tough conversations. Unfortunately nobody in the press has asked this question in the White House Press Briefings which occur every day and whose transcripts [1] and videos [2] are posted online [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos EDIT: Wow, Susan Crawford even discusses the lack of press in the state house [3] [3] https://backchannel.com/what-if-we-built-a-c-span-on-steroids-4b014dd39f21#.ynhuajc5u https://backchannel.com/what-if-we-built-a-c-span-on-steroid...
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  I'd honestly say it is more important than Susan Crawford is not only a technological adviser but a professor of law. Megan Smith is an engineer and lacks the standing [in the eyes of some people who value qualifications from an accredited University] to really argue with the president about the legality of an action like Susan can. So, I'd say this message works better with Susan as the spokesperson regardless. But yes, honestly, its quite embarrassing how far out on a limb both Obama and the FBI have gone to insist on this path. It is just a question of whether public opinion supports that limb at this point, honestly.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Yes I agree Crawford's JD, professorship, and experience as an internet activist lend a lot of credence to her stance. Generally I like to think if you understand encryption and where it is used in technology, then you should be able to understand why back doors are bad for public safety and the economy. But there is still 42% of the population who thinks the DOJ is in the right. That's too many. The facts need to be brought to the attention of the public so they can make up their own minds. And it is happening. Several public figures have already changed their positions to support Apple after learning more about the issue. Lindsey Graham and Sam Harris are two examples. Crawford's post is one more voice of reason in this debate. About Megan Smith, I assume if the President did not feel she was qualified to advise him, then he would not have named her. We can only guess as to the conversations that are happening. We haven't had much transparency with the CTO on this issue.
adamc 11y ago
The idea that he is "way on the civil liberties side" is a joke, given his track record.
- hinkley 11y ago
  Unfortunately the Democratic party has been running afoul of civil liberties for decades. Especially those in or vying for the Oval Office. Have we all forgotten Clinton and Gore and all that bullshit with the Clipper Chip? Export strength encryption? I think that's probably a big part of why the Libertarian Party has any legs at all. Large number of people feeling disenfranchised by both major parties, especially around privacy and "things that don't hurt anybody".
  - elevenfist 11y ago
    Careful there, the libertarian party's primary source of financial support is David Koch.
    - elevenfist 11y ago
      Surprised about the down vote, Koch brothers fund voter suppression of minorities and democratic voters, could've sworn we've had articles about this on hn.
mkoryak 11y ago
why do people like to call him "POTUS" is President of the united states really that hard to write out once in a while?
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  5 vs almost 30 characters. Known by those who talk federal politics. It is that hard to type out repeatedly.
  - elsurudo 11y ago
    Why not just "President"?
    - unethical_ban 11y ago
      Because those non-US residents who are abnormally uptight would remind the thread that there are multiple presidents, and that as a world-wide board we should make sure to be specific. Or, once again, it's just the vernacular for journalists covering world politics.
    - twohlix_ 11y ago
      Here in DC, TLAs and the like (in this case a FLA/5LA) are the preferred method of communication.
- drcube 11y ago
  Is "Federal Bureau of Investigation" really that hard to write out once in awhile? We know what POTUS and FBI mean. Google the acronyms, if you don't.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
I feel like we've hit, or are near, maximum saturation regarding Obama's comments at SxSW. We've had so many threads about this and most, I think, were merged into one[1]. Hell, even I wrote something about this and now that every single person in technology has written about it I almost feel embarrassed writing about it on my blog. Other than Obama's mannerisms that were pointed out I think we can probably stop this feedback loop we're in. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529
- studentrob 11y ago
  This article is pretty substantive. I understand if people feel the topic of DOJ vs. Apple is saturated. But this is Obama's former tech advisor, who also happens to have a JD from Yale, saying Obama is in the wrong to pursue anti-encryption policy. She's credentialed and worthy of HN readers seeing her article. Nobody's forcing you to read the comments..
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    > But this is Obama's former tech advisor, who also happens to have a JD from Yale, saying Obama is in the wrong to pursue anti-encryption policy. She's credentialed and worthy of HN readers seeing her article. I get that and it's fine it's just other than some minor mannerisms that were pointed out it's essentially the same substance of everything else posted to HN about the SxSW topic. The problem with echo chambers is the same thing tends to increase in volume; if the general public and politicians have a view that we're all being absolutists then echo chambers only end up polarizing and increasing the volume further. It's a hard topic I'm just concerned about the echo chamber and it ultimately hurting our position due to perceptions is all.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Mmm. I hear you. I leap at these articles because it's one more voice to share the facts of the situation. As for polarizing the public, well. I think we need not beat the public over the head with a stick and tell them what to think. We lay out the facts in a manner that is understandable by non-techies, and let them decide for themselves. This is coming to pass through credible voices, such as Ms. Crawford's, sharing their unique perspectives.
jessriedel 11y ago
> The FBI has been terrific at reading statutes — including CALEA — in ways that require the rest of us to do headstands to understand what the agency is up to. Their claim about CALEA in their latest brief in the Apple case is a shining example of just this kind of breathless, vertiginous, Alice-in-Wonderland assertion: CALEA, they say, limited only law enforcement’s authority to directly require companies to redesign devices and software. But once law enforcement is authorized by a court to do a search — given a search warrant, in other words — then (under the AWA) an FBI official can ask the court to do what law enforcement is prohibited from doing directly under section 1002 of CALEA. I don't get it. Law enforcement is explicitly prohibited from doing all sorts of things without a warrant that can then later be compelled by a court order. If the police don't have a warrant, they can't search your house. But if they do, they can, and if you have a locked safe, they can get a court order that compels you to open it. I think what the FBI is asking for here from Apple is almost certainly a bad thing, but the above argument doesn't go through. > Got it? Right, I don’t either. As the well-respected lawyer Albert Gidari carefully explains in a recent blog post, this is a weirdly circular argument that ignores the specific limitation Congress enacted to remove the government from the business of dictating the design of phones or software. No gaps; no interpretive sunlight: CALEA stops the government from doing what it wants to do to Apple. Look, I think it's useful to discuss the overall impact of "the government" or "the state" as much as the next pseudo-libertarian. But here I think the author is trying to interpret a restriction on law enforcement as obviously intended to restrict the government as a whole, but that's not obvious at all. Distinguishing between law enforcement and the government as a whole isn't complicated, headstand-inducing legal gymnastics, it's well-established legal reasoning.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  Are you interpreting the statute via the author's explanation in order to shoot down the explanation, or are you interpreting the statute differently than the author and disagreeing?
- studentrob 11y ago
  Her argument made sense to me. Further, I'd point out the author studied law and has a JD from Yale. And she was Obama's tech advisor. And she was/is an internet activist. She knows what she's talking about. She is probably among those who understand this case the best.
ChrisBland 11y ago
What if a "terrorist" wrote some "bad words" down on a piece of paper and shredded it before/during a raid? Can the FBI require that paper shredders come with an auto re-assemble feature? What if a drug dealer keeps a coded ledger, can they go to crypto experts and compel them to work on solving it? The government has in its possession the data, the data is just not in a format the government wants so they are trying to bend the rules for themselves.
- Osiris30 11y ago
  I think the slightly better analogy would be a manufacturer that creates an unbreakable safe. A box for which they can't make an individual key, only a master-key (at great cost of man-hours).
  - zingermc 11y ago
    Honestly, it wouldn't take very much work for Apple to circumvent the lockout mechanism. It might even be possible just by commenting out a couple lines of code. The thing the FBI needs from Apple is the use of their private key.
    - jonlucc 11y ago
      If I'm not mistaken, the FBI wants a version of the OS that circumvents those limits and runs in RAM. Apple said it will take their team something like 2 weeks to build.
      - ChrisBland 11y ago
        What they have to build and how long it will take them are moot points and detract from the overall argument which is can the gvt use the AWA to compel a 3rd party to create something that didn't exist before.
    - mirekrusin 11y ago
      Not with the new iOS, right? There's no Apple's private key. There's only your own private key. If you loose it - you're loosing your data and nothing can help you. I think you have a choice of backing up your keychain in iCloud. If you haven't backed it up there's nothing that Apple can do to access data - except by changing security design. If you backed it up on iCloud then I don't know - maybe the whole keychain is just protected by password, in which case they could try to brute force it or something. Not feasible if your password is too long.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 11y ago
Not going to comment on the law. But "rewrite its OS" seems exaggerated. Without the source, we don't know how extensive the change might be. This might just be a matter of changing a constant and recompiling. If Apple can't make small changes easily, they won't be able to respond to security vulnerabilities either. This is, after all, what security updates are all about.
- Coincoin 11y ago
  The problem have never been the difficulty of patching the software. The problem is they are forcing Apple to sign a software against their will.
  - skybrian 11y ago
    Well yes, coercion is what the police do when they have a search warrant.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Search warrants do not give the government the power to force you to write software, or an equivalent economic activity, against your will. There is no precedent for that in all of US history.
      - skybrian 11y ago
        Well, that's partially because software is new. Again, I'm not going to claim it's legal now. But "equivalent economic activity" seems a bit weak. A butler or security guard can be paid to open the door to visitors. So that's "economic activity", right? It doesn't mean they're not required to respond to a search warrant. And legal discovery can be very expensive. Writing a simple software patch and recompiling doesn't seem all that hard. Rewriting the entire OS is a major undertaking. It may require passing new laws, but it seems unlikely that we'll end up with a bright-line rule where touching any line of code is forbidden. More likely it'll be a gray area where the line is drawn somewhere in the middle.
mirekrusin 11y ago
Apple could also say: "Ok, no problem, you'll provide hardware, right? It will take around 9 * 10 ^ 50 years (for AES-256 as an example). Our universe exists for around 1.4 * 10 ^ 10 years so please be patient. Of course FBI can provide/pay for better hardware if they want it broken faster." ps. source https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time_and_energy_required_to_bruteforce_a_aes256/ https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time...
- NegativeK 11y ago
  And then the judge would start holding people from Apple in contempt.
gist 11y ago
The law is never clear. If the law was clear cases wouldn't end up at the Supreme Court (decided by narrow margins in some cases). The law is open to interpretation and even when opposing parties have differing interests there is almost always a basis for why they decide to sue and/or appeal a court case. [1] [1] In other words there could be other motives for bringing a lawsuit other than thinking you might win the case.
kolbe 11y ago
The law is never clear. Just look at how unclear our legal system makes a very straightforward statement like "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Think of all the exceptions it has made to a very clear decree[1]. And think of the ways that this statement has been hijacked for use in topics like corporate personhood. No, the law is not clear. Not on this issue. Not on any issue, really. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- chatmasta 11y ago
  What is unclear about this law? (CALEA, 1994) "A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication." That seems extremely straight forward and explicitly applicable to this case.
  - siilats 11y ago
    Exactly, i read through the same sentence. I mean i understand the ideology here, but the article is a clear lie. CALEA clearly states Apple needs to decrypt in this case, there is no two ways about it. The software section is there so that government cannot tell apple to install a backdoor API of governments choosing on the iphone. Government just says decrypt and apple complies, government cannot tell apple how exactly to comply. But if apple says not possible, well government goes and says it is possible, for example like this, and apple looses. I am surprised nobody linked to CALEA before.

266 points by Osiris30 11y ago

mozumder 11y ago

If software is considered speech then we can get rid of software patents.

harryh 11y ago
No. Books are definitely speech and we have copyright laws.
- rail2rail 11y ago
  copyrights != patents
  - TillE 11y ago
    It's not difficult to see how software can be simultaneously a patentable process and free expression. Videogames are the most obvious example.
    - Gorbzel 11y ago
      And most purely-software developments in video gaming shouldn't be patentable.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      An important distinction between patents and copyright is that independent invention is not a defense to patent infringement and the patent covers the concept rather than the specific implementation. Which means that unlike copyright, software patents create concepts that you aren't allowed to express, even if they're your own ideas.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
studentrob 11y ago
Ug this is off topic
jessegreathouse 11y ago
Software doesn't get patented. Patents apply to "ways of doing things". Incidentally software is used to describe a "way of doing things" but it's the concept that gets patented, not the software. Also, your assertion that the software is the free speech is a false-presupposition. The private key is data, and data is speech. It's no different than a book or a newspaper, except it's written in a way that only 1 person (device) can understand it.

chatmasta 11y ago

What interests me about this piece is Ms. Crawford's willingness to interpret President Obama's body language and to draw conclusions from it that support her argument. As a former adviser to Obama, she has the credibility that allows her to make inferences like that. I wonder how many of Obama's aides depend on that body language for interpreting his intent and preferences. When Obama is in a meeting with dozens of people, only a few of his most senior advisers will actually get to speak directly to him and engage with him in substantive discussion. His more junior aides likely need to rely on non-verbal cues like body language in order to determine what he really means. (Also interesting to me is the white-labeled medium site... I was not aware that was an option.)

vertex-four 11y ago
It appears that Backchannel is an official Medium thing with a different focus - https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-in-house-publications-matter-and-backchannel-27cb772e6705 https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-i...

studentrob 11y ago

Haha this article is fantastic and I'm only a few paragraphs in, > The FBI has been terrific at reading statutes — including CALEA — in ways that require the rest of us to do headstands to understand what the agency is up to I really want to hear from Obama's current tech advisors, such as Megan Smith, the current CTO of the US, or Obama himself about the discussions he had after his remarks at the keynote. I bet he had some tough conversations. Unfortunately nobody in the press has asked this question in the White House Press Briefings which occur every day and whose transcripts [1] and videos [2] are posted online [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos EDIT: Wow, Susan Crawford even discusses the lack of press in the state house [3] [3] https://backchannel.com/what-if-we-built-a-c-span-on-steroids-4b014dd39f21#.ynhuajc5u https://backchannel.com/what-if-we-built-a-c-span-on-steroid...

fweespee_ch 11y ago
I'd honestly say it is more important than Susan Crawford is not only a technological adviser but a professor of law. Megan Smith is an engineer and lacks the standing [in the eyes of some people who value qualifications from an accredited University] to really argue with the president about the legality of an action like Susan can. So, I'd say this message works better with Susan as the spokesperson regardless. But yes, honestly, its quite embarrassing how far out on a limb both Obama and the FBI have gone to insist on this path. It is just a question of whether public opinion supports that limb at this point, honestly.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Yes I agree Crawford's JD, professorship, and experience as an internet activist lend a lot of credence to her stance. Generally I like to think if you understand encryption and where it is used in technology, then you should be able to understand why back doors are bad for public safety and the economy. But there is still 42% of the population who thinks the DOJ is in the right. That's too many. The facts need to be brought to the attention of the public so they can make up their own minds. And it is happening. Several public figures have already changed their positions to support Apple after learning more about the issue. Lindsey Graham and Sam Harris are two examples. Crawford's post is one more voice of reason in this debate. About Megan Smith, I assume if the President did not feel she was qualified to advise him, then he would not have named her. We can only guess as to the conversations that are happening. We haven't had much transparency with the CTO on this issue.

adamc 11y ago

The idea that he is "way on the civil liberties side" is a joke, given his track record.

hinkley 11y ago
Unfortunately the Democratic party has been running afoul of civil liberties for decades. Especially those in or vying for the Oval Office. Have we all forgotten Clinton and Gore and all that bullshit with the Clipper Chip? Export strength encryption? I think that's probably a big part of why the Libertarian Party has any legs at all. Large number of people feeling disenfranchised by both major parties, especially around privacy and "things that don't hurt anybody".
- elevenfist 11y ago
  Careful there, the libertarian party's primary source of financial support is David Koch.
  - elevenfist 11y ago
    Surprised about the down vote, Koch brothers fund voter suppression of minorities and democratic voters, could've sworn we've had articles about this on hn.

mkoryak 11y ago

why do people like to call him "POTUS" is President of the united states really that hard to write out once in a while?

unethical_ban 11y ago
5 vs almost 30 characters. Known by those who talk federal politics. It is that hard to type out repeatedly.
- elsurudo 11y ago
  Why not just "President"?
  - unethical_ban 11y ago
    Because those non-US residents who are abnormally uptight would remind the thread that there are multiple presidents, and that as a world-wide board we should make sure to be specific. Or, once again, it's just the vernacular for journalists covering world politics.
  - twohlix_ 11y ago
    Here in DC, TLAs and the like (in this case a FLA/5LA) are the preferred method of communication.
drcube 11y ago
Is "Federal Bureau of Investigation" really that hard to write out once in awhile? We know what POTUS and FBI mean. Google the acronyms, if you don't.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

I feel like we've hit, or are near, maximum saturation regarding Obama's comments at SxSW. We've had so many threads about this and most, I think, were merged into one[1]. Hell, even I wrote something about this and now that every single person in technology has written about it I almost feel embarrassed writing about it on my blog. Other than Obama's mannerisms that were pointed out I think we can probably stop this feedback loop we're in. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529

studentrob 11y ago
This article is pretty substantive. I understand if people feel the topic of DOJ vs. Apple is saturated. But this is Obama's former tech advisor, who also happens to have a JD from Yale, saying Obama is in the wrong to pursue anti-encryption policy. She's credentialed and worthy of HN readers seeing her article. Nobody's forcing you to read the comments..
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > But this is Obama's former tech advisor, who also happens to have a JD from Yale, saying Obama is in the wrong to pursue anti-encryption policy. She's credentialed and worthy of HN readers seeing her article. I get that and it's fine it's just other than some minor mannerisms that were pointed out it's essentially the same substance of everything else posted to HN about the SxSW topic. The problem with echo chambers is the same thing tends to increase in volume; if the general public and politicians have a view that we're all being absolutists then echo chambers only end up polarizing and increasing the volume further. It's a hard topic I'm just concerned about the echo chamber and it ultimately hurting our position due to perceptions is all.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Mmm. I hear you. I leap at these articles because it's one more voice to share the facts of the situation. As for polarizing the public, well. I think we need not beat the public over the head with a stick and tell them what to think. We lay out the facts in a manner that is understandable by non-techies, and let them decide for themselves. This is coming to pass through credible voices, such as Ms. Crawford's, sharing their unique perspectives.

jessriedel 11y ago

> The FBI has been terrific at reading statutes — including CALEA — in ways that require the rest of us to do headstands to understand what the agency is up to. Their claim about CALEA in their latest brief in the Apple case is a shining example of just this kind of breathless, vertiginous, Alice-in-Wonderland assertion: CALEA, they say, limited only law enforcement’s authority to directly require companies to redesign devices and software. But once law enforcement is authorized by a court to do a search — given a search warrant, in other words — then (under the AWA) an FBI official can ask the court to do what law enforcement is prohibited from doing directly under section 1002 of CALEA. I don't get it. Law enforcement is explicitly prohibited from doing all sorts of things without a warrant that can then later be compelled by a court order. If the police don't have a warrant, they can't search your house. But if they do, they can, and if you have a locked safe, they can get a court order that compels you to open it. I think what the FBI is asking for here from Apple is almost certainly a bad thing, but the above argument doesn't go through. > Got it? Right, I don’t either. As the well-respected lawyer Albert Gidari carefully explains in a recent blog post, this is a weirdly circular argument that ignores the specific limitation Congress enacted to remove the government from the business of dictating the design of phones or software. No gaps; no interpretive sunlight: CALEA stops the government from doing what it wants to do to Apple. Look, I think it's useful to discuss the overall impact of "the government" or "the state" as much as the next pseudo-libertarian. But here I think the author is trying to interpret a restriction on law enforcement as obviously intended to restrict the government as a whole, but that's not obvious at all. Distinguishing between law enforcement and the government as a whole isn't complicated, headstand-inducing legal gymnastics, it's well-established legal reasoning.

oldmanjay 11y ago
Are you interpreting the statute via the author's explanation in order to shoot down the explanation, or are you interpreting the statute differently than the author and disagreeing?
studentrob 11y ago
Her argument made sense to me. Further, I'd point out the author studied law and has a JD from Yale. And she was Obama's tech advisor. And she was/is an internet activist. She knows what she's talking about. She is probably among those who understand this case the best.

ChrisBland 11y ago

What if a "terrorist" wrote some "bad words" down on a piece of paper and shredded it before/during a raid? Can the FBI require that paper shredders come with an auto re-assemble feature? What if a drug dealer keeps a coded ledger, can they go to crypto experts and compel them to work on solving it? The government has in its possession the data, the data is just not in a format the government wants so they are trying to bend the rules for themselves.

Osiris30 11y ago
I think the slightly better analogy would be a manufacturer that creates an unbreakable safe. A box for which they can't make an individual key, only a master-key (at great cost of man-hours).
- zingermc 11y ago
  Honestly, it wouldn't take very much work for Apple to circumvent the lockout mechanism. It might even be possible just by commenting out a couple lines of code. The thing the FBI needs from Apple is the use of their private key.
  - jonlucc 11y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, the FBI wants a version of the OS that circumvents those limits and runs in RAM. Apple said it will take their team something like 2 weeks to build.
    - ChrisBland 11y ago
      What they have to build and how long it will take them are moot points and detract from the overall argument which is can the gvt use the AWA to compel a 3rd party to create something that didn't exist before.
  - mirekrusin 11y ago
    Not with the new iOS, right? There's no Apple's private key. There's only your own private key. If you loose it - you're loosing your data and nothing can help you. I think you have a choice of backing up your keychain in iCloud. If you haven't backed it up there's nothing that Apple can do to access data - except by changing security design. If you backed it up on iCloud then I don't know - maybe the whole keychain is just protected by password, in which case they could try to brute force it or something. Not feasible if your password is too long.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 11y ago

Not going to comment on the law. But "rewrite its OS" seems exaggerated. Without the source, we don't know how extensive the change might be. This might just be a matter of changing a constant and recompiling. If Apple can't make small changes easily, they won't be able to respond to security vulnerabilities either. This is, after all, what security updates are all about.

Coincoin 11y ago
The problem have never been the difficulty of patching the software. The problem is they are forcing Apple to sign a software against their will.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Well yes, coercion is what the police do when they have a search warrant.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Search warrants do not give the government the power to force you to write software, or an equivalent economic activity, against your will. There is no precedent for that in all of US history.
    - skybrian 11y ago
      Well, that's partially because software is new. Again, I'm not going to claim it's legal now. But "equivalent economic activity" seems a bit weak. A butler or security guard can be paid to open the door to visitors. So that's "economic activity", right? It doesn't mean they're not required to respond to a search warrant. And legal discovery can be very expensive. Writing a simple software patch and recompiling doesn't seem all that hard. Rewriting the entire OS is a major undertaking. It may require passing new laws, but it seems unlikely that we'll end up with a bright-line rule where touching any line of code is forbidden. More likely it'll be a gray area where the line is drawn somewhere in the middle.

mirekrusin 11y ago

Apple could also say: "Ok, no problem, you'll provide hardware, right? It will take around 9 * 10 ^ 50 years (for AES-256 as an example). Our universe exists for around 1.4 * 10 ^ 10 years so please be patient. Of course FBI can provide/pay for better hardware if they want it broken faster." ps. source https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time_and_energy_required_to_bruteforce_a_aes256/ https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time...

NegativeK 11y ago
And then the judge would start holding people from Apple in contempt.

gist 11y ago

The law is never clear. If the law was clear cases wouldn't end up at the Supreme Court (decided by narrow margins in some cases). The law is open to interpretation and even when opposing parties have differing interests there is almost always a basis for why they decide to sue and/or appeal a court case. [1] [1] In other words there could be other motives for bringing a lawsuit other than thinking you might win the case.

kolbe 11y ago

The law is never clear. Just look at how unclear our legal system makes a very straightforward statement like "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Think of all the exceptions it has made to a very clear decree[1]. And think of the ways that this statement has been hijacked for use in topics like corporate personhood. No, the law is not clear. Not on this issue. Not on any issue, really. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

chatmasta 11y ago
What is unclear about this law? (CALEA, 1994) "A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication." That seems extremely straight forward and explicitly applicable to this case.
- siilats 11y ago
  Exactly, i read through the same sentence. I mean i understand the ideology here, but the article is a clear lie. CALEA clearly states Apple needs to decrypt in this case, there is no two ways about it. The software section is there so that government cannot tell apple to install a backdoor API of governments choosing on the iphone. Government just says decrypt and apple complies, government cannot tell apple how exactly to comply. But if apple says not possible, well government goes and says it is possible, for example like this, and apple looses. I am surprised nobody linked to CALEA before.