4 ms·

Apple to Start Putting Sensitive Encryption Keys in China

9 points by tonyztan 9y ago

chapill 9y ago
Not surprised by this. Apple is part of the PRISM program after all. I'm reminded of when the FBI demanded to crack the iPhone [1] Apple publicly refused, then released an update to the secure element/fingerprint reader [2] bricking phones, followed by a 'fix' [3] and then wow, FBI can crack the shooters iPhone [4]. Gotta hand it to them. They put on a great show. Fools most of the people all of the time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple... [3] https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updates-ios-to-restore-iphones-disabled-by-error-53/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updat... [4] http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iphone-case-cracked/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iph...
- eridius 9y ago
  I hate to burst your bubble, but the phone the FBI was trying to break into didn't have a secure element. And the approach they used to finally break in was supplied by Cellebrite, not Apple, and only worked because it didn't have a secure element. Also, this has nothing to do with PRISM, it's just a consequence of a recent Chinese law. Apple has two options. The first is to hand control of the data over to a Chinese company (which is what they're doing). The second is to pull out of China entirely (or at least, completely disable iCloud in China), which would suck for Chinese iPhone users and wouldn't make them any more secure.
  - chapill 9y ago
    >the phone the FBI was trying to break into didn't have a secure element That's unimportant. The important aspect is the update timing as well as the changes obviously happening in the security architecture of iOS. That they tangentially bricked phones with 3rd party repairs is just an indicator of spaghetti code.
na85 9y ago
Can we finally dispense with the "Apple is the defender of user privacy" propaganda now? As has always been the case, Apple positions themselves as defenders of privacy only when they don't have to stick their necks out too far, and when it's convenient.
- natch 9y ago
  You may have a valid concern (I say "may," because we still don't know all the details of this arrangement in China). But there is still a sharp contrast to be made between Apple and companies for whom collecting as much private and personal data as reasonably possible is fundamental to the business model. Companies for whom you are the product.
  - izacus 9y ago
    Those companies rather skipped billions of dollars in profit than to help Chinese regime. Apple decided to use their lockdown to assist in clamping down on VPNs and other freedom of speech to make money. Putting these two on equal footing is evil.
    - natch 9y ago
      You give Google too much credit. They were never going to make those billions in profit in China; that game was over before it started, and they knew it. They saw that the government would ensure that the local service companies would get the vast majority of the pie. So, Google and Apple aren't really on equal footing.

9 points by tonyztan 9y ago

Not surprised by this. Apple is part of the PRISM program after all. I'm reminded of when the FBI demanded to crack the iPhone [1] Apple publicly refused, then released an update to the secure element/fingerprint reader [2] bricking phones, followed by a 'fix' [3] and then wow, FBI can crack the shooters iPhone [4]. Gotta hand it to them. They put on a great show. Fools most of the people all of the time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple-iphone-software-update-handset-worthless-third-party-repair https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/05/error-53-apple... [3] https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updates-ios-to-restore-iphones-disabled-by-error-53/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/apple-apologizes-and-updat... [4] http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iphone-case-cracked/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iph...

eridius 9y ago
I hate to burst your bubble, but the phone the FBI was trying to break into didn't have a secure element. And the approach they used to finally break in was supplied by Cellebrite, not Apple, and only worked because it didn't have a secure element. Also, this has nothing to do with PRISM, it's just a consequence of a recent Chinese law. Apple has two options. The first is to hand control of the data over to a Chinese company (which is what they're doing). The second is to pull out of China entirely (or at least, completely disable iCloud in China), which would suck for Chinese iPhone users and wouldn't make them any more secure.
- chapill 9y ago
  >the phone the FBI was trying to break into didn't have a secure element That's unimportant. The important aspect is the update timing as well as the changes obviously happening in the security architecture of iOS. That they tangentially bricked phones with 3rd party repairs is just an indicator of spaghetti code.

na85 9y ago

Can we finally dispense with the "Apple is the defender of user privacy" propaganda now? As has always been the case, Apple positions themselves as defenders of privacy only when they don't have to stick their necks out too far, and when it's convenient.

natch 9y ago
You may have a valid concern (I say "may," because we still don't know all the details of this arrangement in China). But there is still a sharp contrast to be made between Apple and companies for whom collecting as much private and personal data as reasonably possible is fundamental to the business model. Companies for whom you are the product.
- izacus 9y ago
  Those companies rather skipped billions of dollars in profit than to help Chinese regime. Apple decided to use their lockdown to assist in clamping down on VPNs and other freedom of speech to make money. Putting these two on equal footing is evil.
  - natch 9y ago
    You give Google too much credit. They were never going to make those billions in profit in China; that game was over before it started, and they knew it. They saw that the government would ensure that the local service companies would get the vast majority of the pie. So, Google and Apple aren't really on equal footing.