4 ms·

> The writ “was not a simple request for assistance in a criminal case,” explained Sewell. “It was a forty-two-page pleading by the government that started out

> The writ “was not a simple request for assistance in a criminal case,” explained Sewell. “It was a forty-two-page pleading by the government that started out with this litany of the horrible things that had been done in San Bernardino. And then this... somewhat biased litany of all the times that Apple had said no to what were portrayed as very reasonable requests. So this was what, in the law, we call a speaking complaint. It was meant to from day one tell a story... that would get the public against Apple.” > The team came to the conclusion that the judge’s order was a PR move—a very public arm twisting to pressure Apple into complying with the FBI’s demands—and that it could be serious trouble for the company. Apple “is a famous, incredibly powerful consumer brand and we are going to be standing up against the FBI and saying in effect, ‘No, we’re not going to give you the thing that you’re looking for to try to deal with this terrorist threat,’” said Sewell.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
On the contrary, Apple's refusal was a PR move, and this whole article is a submarine. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicat... has a better explanation. What really happened is that Apple loudly proclaimed that they had made it impossible to comply with government data requests and even had a marketing page masquerading as a privacy page explaining that. The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time. This showed that Apple's claim was false in practice. Apple quickly removed that marketing page in the wake of the news.
- lucasmullens 8y ago
  How does the FBI asking Apple something make Apple's claim false?
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    Because Apple said to customers that it would be impossible for Apple to get data off the phone. The simple technique in the FBI's request showed that to be a lie. See the "not technically feasible" marketing claim quoted on https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to-police-if-your-1636197341 https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to... that has magically disappeared from the linked "privacy" page.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      ... it would be impossible (without creating a back door that would potentially weaken the entire line). Though it's undisclosed what the consultancy had done.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        Nonsense. Apple already has a backdoor. It has the signing key that would allow it to create the build the FBI specified if Apple wanted to access the data on the phone. (The only problem for the FBI was that Apple didn't want to access the data because Apple claimed it was technically infeasible in a lie to its customers.) Securing the key and securing the build are essentially the same thing. Keep both on premises, and that is exactly what the FBI specified.
- urda 8y ago
  > The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time. It doesn't matter how well it might be locked down or secured. If the government coerced them into building it, it wouldn't be difficult to go one more step and require apple to hand over the modified OS. This [1] does a great job of explaining why building a master key is just a bad idea. This is a pandora's box we do not need to open. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    The master key already exists. It is the key used to sign builds. Edit: downvotes of easily verifiable facts are causing hn to block me from responding. At the time Apple made the false marketing claims, no passcode was required to install a signed build. Hence, the FBI's request. The FBI was asking for no more than what Apple could already do, and it was letting Apple control the whole process. The problem was that what Apple could already do disagreed with what Apple told its customers that it could do.
    - Lownin 8y ago
      Except in the case that the device will not accept the build without the user's passcode, right?
      - zaroth 8y ago
        Correct. This may not have been perfectly locked down before the secure element, but Apple’s design goal has always been that the device hardware prevents even Apple itself from retrieving encrypted data without the passcode, and that passcode should have a strictly limited number of attempts to guess. Bugs will always be found and it’s a mistake to think even the latest iPhone is immune to attack. In particular, the baseband continues to be a large attack surface, and IMO is the vector most likely used by the Saudis to remotely access iPhones on their cellular network. I’d feel safer if a powered off iPhone did not connect to any network (WiFi, Cell, or USB) after booting until the passcode is entered.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

On the contrary, Apple's refusal was a PR move, and this whole article is a submarine. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicat... has a better explanation. What really happened is that Apple loudly proclaimed that they had made it impossible to comply with government data requests and even had a marketing page masquerading as a privacy page explaining that. The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time. This showed that Apple's claim was false in practice. Apple quickly removed that marketing page in the wake of the news.

lucasmullens 8y ago
How does the FBI asking Apple something make Apple's claim false?
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  Because Apple said to customers that it would be impossible for Apple to get data off the phone. The simple technique in the FBI's request showed that to be a lie. See the "not technically feasible" marketing claim quoted on https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to-police-if-your-1636197341 https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to... that has magically disappeared from the linked "privacy" page.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    ... it would be impossible (without creating a back door that would potentially weaken the entire line). Though it's undisclosed what the consultancy had done.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      Nonsense. Apple already has a backdoor. It has the signing key that would allow it to create the build the FBI specified if Apple wanted to access the data on the phone. (The only problem for the FBI was that Apple didn't want to access the data because Apple claimed it was technically infeasible in a lie to its customers.) Securing the key and securing the build are essentially the same thing. Keep both on premises, and that is exactly what the FBI specified.
urda 8y ago
> The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time. It doesn't matter how well it might be locked down or secured. If the government coerced them into building it, it wouldn't be difficult to go one more step and require apple to hand over the modified OS. This [1] does a great job of explaining why building a master key is just a bad idea. This is a pandora's box we do not need to open. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  The master key already exists. It is the key used to sign builds. Edit: downvotes of easily verifiable facts are causing hn to block me from responding. At the time Apple made the false marketing claims, no passcode was required to install a signed build. Hence, the FBI's request. The FBI was asking for no more than what Apple could already do, and it was letting Apple control the whole process. The problem was that what Apple could already do disagreed with what Apple told its customers that it could do.
  - Lownin 8y ago
    Except in the case that the device will not accept the build without the user's passcode, right?
    - zaroth 8y ago
      Correct. This may not have been perfectly locked down before the secure element, but Apple’s design goal has always been that the device hardware prevents even Apple itself from retrieving encrypted data without the passcode, and that passcode should have a strictly limited number of attempts to guess. Bugs will always be found and it’s a mistake to think even the latest iPhone is immune to attack. In particular, the baseband continues to be a large attack surface, and IMO is the vector most likely used by the Saudis to remotely access iPhones on their cellular network. I’d feel safer if a powered off iPhone did not connect to any network (WiFi, Cell, or USB) after booting until the passcode is entered.