Apple is shite

[kurogane]

What exactly is it about tech and tech companies that makes it and them above and beyond the law when it suits?

Was that rhetorical?


Nicely put, btw, Legion, too. The rest of you, this isn't a corporate funded civics class

[Coligny]

Apple can comply with the FBI court order

Holy shit Mike...

I believe it is technically feasible for Apple to comply with all of the FBI’s requests in this case

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

[Coligny]

What exactly is it about tech and tech companies that makes it and them above and beyond the law when it suits?

Stuff like "too big to fail" and "lobbying monies"

[Coligny]

Nicely put, btw, Legion, too. The rest of you, this isn't a corporate funded civics class

If you can't keep up, we can make you a new little black Sambo thread somewhere...

[Samurai_Jerk]

Fuck you and that emotional illogical woman legion (Won't somebody think of the children!!!). The government is essentially trying to conscript Apple to do its bidding. Like Coligny said if Apple is lying, they're fucked. And they should be. However, if they really don't have a way to unlock the phone, they shouldn't be forced to try to come up with new technology to do so.

Again, this isn't about the right to privacy of this criminal. If that were so, Apple would have an easy out in this case. I'm pretty sure the county who owns the phone would have no problem with Apple unlocking it. This is about the government's dislike of encryption technology that they don't control.

I thought a macho man like you would admire the government for its manly stance on this.

Read back what you wrote there, are you using the term "illogical woman" as some kind of abuse? Lie back on the couch a little and I will help you with your anger issues.

You are alone, and lonely, you feel the world is against you, the feds are spying on you, the walls are closing in ........... you wish you were on a nature reserve with a large semi naked man with a big gun and an even bigger moustache.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sq-g-UXuMk

Thanks for proving me right, honey.

Let's summarize your argument. Encryption that was created without violating any laws and works like it's supposed to is stupid. The government should be able to force someone to create technology that doesn't exist that once created will almost certainly have disastrous consequences. Because Apple has engaged in other activities you find questionable which have absolutely nothing to do with this case and since you have a personal beef with them, you wan't to see them get fucked regardless of the larger implications. Amnesty international, Edward Snowden, the ACLU, and anyone else who is suspicious of the motives of a government that has been looking for an excuse to put an end to encryption technology they can't control, has been caught red-handed spying on everyone's communications including its own citizens without warrants in violation of its own laws, and has consistently used security as an excuse to chip away at civil liberties since September 11, 2001 is a paranoid kook and tacit supporter of kid fuckers, drug kingpins, and terrorists. I guess the only thing left for you to add is we must have something to hide.

[GargoyleTS]

If Apple refuses to obey a court order, then the CEO needs to be brought to court and charged with contempt.

The nudity thing was the end of silliness. It is exactly silly. This though, this is wrong. Apple has a certain amount of time to file a motion explaining why it would be an undue burden to make them come up with such software.

That's what Apple will be doing. The DOJ currently is jumping the gun and filing a motion to compel based on Apple CEO's twitter statements... before the due date of Apple's motion. Which is hilarious really as it'd be more to their favor to let Apple refuse and NOT file and then be in contempt of court.

As for actually doing this, it is incredibly burdensome the way the FBI has asked for this to be done. Read http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 to see what complying with this order will entail on Apple's side as a forensic tool manufacturer... that's what the court is asking for by the way, as any evidence from this will lead to a giant mess of crap in courts later and dissemination of any tool developed.

I am not arguing for Apple, i am arguing against the FBI and this order as written as its not about what the FBI may find, its about backdooring all iPhones forevermore. Read that link I posted to see what I mean.

Oh and all of this is due to someone at the San Bernardino Health Department trying to hack the phone by changing the Apple ID password in the first damned place. Apple actually COULD have (and likely would have) simply forced the device to begin a backup to iCloud of its current data and then handed that over to the FBI if that had not been done.

[Wage Slave]

Yes, OK.

If Apple refuses to obey a court order after due process, then the CEO needs to be brought to court and charged with contempt.

As for the rest - We are where we are. It's quite possible that mistakes were made in the handling of the phone but that doesn't remove the FBI's legitimate need to see what is on that particular phone.

This is not some street corner drug dealer's phone. It belonged to a mass murderer who is suspected of sympathising with a murderous and extreme organisation that means to cause as much harm as possible to as many people as possible. There is overriding justification for forcing Apple to reveal its contents. They've even been told how it can be done. If it costs Apple money to do it then tough. They manufactured it, so they have to clear up the mess it has caused. Apple need to design and build their phones to take this and future cases like it into account.

Overview and supervision of the FBI is a separate and very important matter. It's not helpful to conflate it with this case.

[Coligny]

This is not some street corner drug dealer's phone. It belonged to a mass murderer who is suspected of sympathising with a murderous and extreme organisation that means to cause as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.

The CIA...

you mean the guy was a CIA operative... ?

Because look back and smell the shit... With the bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf yacht club incident, mujahideen support in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and countless more... Law and due process are like "land of the free and home of the brave" nothing more than faded bumper stickers...

This case feels like the FBI wants to show off to the DHS... but they didn't plan well enough and are a bit starting to panic...

[GargoyleTS]

Why is the street corner drug dealer different from the mass murderer though? Or a rapist? Or an arsonist? Or an embezzler? Or a prostitute?

Or you or me?

I have the right to make up my own language and write my thoughts and feelings in it without the government being able to compel me to translate it into English. I can make it as complex or simple as I wish and the government cannot make me decipher it and testify against myself. but if they can figure it out and read it, they can use it against me if i've done something wrong.

Making my own language is not wrong in and of itself.

Encrypting my communications and storage is not wrong either. It is not a crime. Making it a crime is ridiculous. No heads rolled in Nuremberg for creating or using Enigma machines, and that was a genuine declared war. In this day and age it is protection from those who want to do harm to you. That bad people can use it to hide the bad things they do is a minuscule use of this technology. Bad guys can also take all your data if you don't use it and ruin your credit, or even commit crimes in your name such as credit card fraud, bank fraud, creating businesses in your name and then committing investor fraud, and plenty more. Encryption is defense for us in the digital age. And like all defense, there are those heinous actors who will choose to use it to protect their own horrible deeds. Don't punish everyone for the actions of a few.

[Wage Slave]

This has strayed way off the issue. The issue is not should encryption be made illegal - clearly it shouldn't. The issue is, should a technology company be forced to decrypt information belonging to wrongdoers when there is a legitimate and overriding need for lawful authority to do so.

[Wage Slave]

This is not some street corner drug dealer's phone. It belonged to a mass murderer who is suspected of sympathising with a murderous and extreme organisation that means to cause as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.

The CIA...

you mean the guy was a CIA operative... ?

Because look back and smell the shit... With the bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf yacht club incident, mujahideen support in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and countless more... Law and due process are like "land of the free and home of the brave" nothing more than faded bumper stickers...

This case feels like the FBI wants to show off to the DHS... but they didn't plan well enough and are a bit starting to panic...

A fair point but the answer is not to cripple the powers of lawful authority - we need it - and we really do need it. The answer lies in better safeguarding and policing of those authorities. Giving a tech company the right to refuse to decrypt information doesn't really help anyone.

[Coligny]

Maybe... but government are like bratty kids. if apple comply once... you will hear "mee toooo" from all over the planet including shitholes where making a joke aboot the local semi god king is punished by death.
Apple have the signing keys for making installable OS updates which I'm not even really sure is enough for accessing encrypted data through DFU update... If they destroy these keys... It's game over for everyone...
what we might now lose is the DFU mode...

[Samurai_Jerk]

Maybe... but government are like bratty kids. if apple comply once... you will hear "mee toooo" from all over the planet including shitholes where making a joke aboot the local semi god king is punished by death.

Which is why Amnesty international is on Apple's side.

[wagyl]

when there is a legitimate and overriding need for lawful authority to do so.

Has that been established in this case?

belonging to wrongdoers.

Or even this? (Yeah, I know, I am on shaky ground with that one. Right on the San Bernardino Fault.)

Do we as a society spend $500,000 going after information worth 50c? Or even better, can the courts force a private enterprise business to spend $500,000 of their own funds to go after information that is worth 50c to society?

The US authorities have had a hard-on about encryption for a while. They don't want this for the information on that phone. They want this for the key to all the backdoors.

[Wage Slave]

when there is a legitimate and overriding need for lawful authority to do so.

Has that been established in this case?

belonging to wrongdoers.

Or even this? (Yeah, I know, I am on shaky ground with that one. Right on the San Bernardino Fault.)

Impossible to say without investigation. But surely that's why there is an overriding need for the investigation.

Do we as a society spend $500,000 going after information worth 50c? Or even better, can the courts force a private enterprise business to spend $500,000 of their own funds to go after information that is worth 50c to society?

We won't know how much it's worth until it is investigated. In the meantime a sort of polluter pays principle should operate.

The US authorities have had a hard-on about encryption for a while. They don't want this for the information on that phone. They want this for the key to all the backdoors.

That may be true but nothing in that court order gives them that. Again, it's a separate issue. The need to decrypt and scan truly private information needs to be judged on a case by case basis. And that's the real issue - how will that decision be made, by who and how will it be regulated.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Apple's got another ally.

EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle

We learned on Tuesday evening that a U.S. federal magistrate judge ordered Apple to backdoor an iPhone that was used by one of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shootings in December. Apple is fighting the order which would compromise the security of all its users around the world.

We are supporting Apple here because the government is doing more than simply asking for Apple’s assistance. For the first time, the government is requesting Apple write brand new code that eliminates key features of iPhone security—security features that protect us all. Essentially, the government is asking Apple to create a master key so that it can open a single phone. And once that master key is created, we're certain that our government will ask for it again and again, for other phones, and turn this power against any software or device that has the audacity to offer strong security.

The U.S. government wants us to trust that it won't misuse this power. But we can all imagine the myriad ways this new authority could be abused. Even if you trust the U.S. government, once this master key is created, governments around the world will surely demand that Apple undermine the security of their citizens as well.

EFF applauds Apple for standing up for real security and the rights of its customers. We have been fighting to protect encryption, and stop backdoors, for over 20 years. That's why EFF plans to file an amicus brief in support of Apple's position.

[Wage Slave]

Maybe... but government are like bratty kids. if apple comply once... you will hear "mee toooo" from all over the planet including shitholes where making a joke aboot the local semi god king is punished by death.

In that sort of place they will just torture you for the key won't they? No need to bother Apple or anyone else at all. And anyway, if Apple doesn't play nicely they won't be able to do business in said country. Apple, like any other business, will, ahem, adapt to local conditions rather than forgo the business.

[legion]

I think I have worked out where Tim Cook's enthusiasm for encryption which even the maker can't unlock comes from.

If Apple were to offer a service to unlock phones accidentally locked by fat fingered and forgetful legitimate users it would be a pain in the ass to administer and cost a significant sum to run. The way the Apple Store is run is primarily orientated towards reducing user facing staff numbers, with the popularity of the iPhone the economies of scale may threaten to go into reverse if the company was obliged to provide additional after sales service.

Much easier to say "we can't do it, sorry, because your privacy is paramount"

He's not worried about the chilling Feds, he's worried about thousands of Apple users visiting the stores everyday, taking staff time and not spending money.

[legion]

What would Newton think?

According to the New York Times, Apple – which has assisted federal investigations in the past – asked the FBI to file the aforementioned order under seal.

so if it was all hush hush, no problem

However, when the agency submitted its demands in a public court citing the powerful All Writs Act, Apple CEO Tim Cook hit the roof:

but the Fed poked Cook's ego and he threw a wobbler

DoJ prosecutors say

"The order does not, as Apple's public statement alleges, require Apple to create or provide a 'back door' to every iPhone; it does not require Apple to 'hack [its] own users' or to 'decrypt' its phone; it does not give the government 'to reach into anyone else's device' without a warrant or court authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal information.

"Apple's current refusal to comply with the court's order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/19/us_doj_apple/

[Coligny]

Maybe we could split the "Apple against the feds" thread from the "[edit*]Dimwit Legion need councelling thread"


F'cking ADD...

[legion]

Maybe we could split the "Apple against the feds" thread from the "Dimwit need councelling thread"

Maybe you could attempt intelligent discussion, but I fear that is beyond you.

The person that needs counselling is yourself, seriously. Find a purpose in your life, you'll be much happier.

[wagyl]

they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.

please

that is really weak

I still fail to see where the problem is with this.

A new technology -- the sharp straight edge -- was developed, and proved to be of great assistance and usefulness to the general population. However, some bad people use that technology to cut people and make them bleed to death.

A new technology -- obscuring information so that it remains hidden unless certain strict conditions are met -- was developed, and proved to be of great assistance and usefulness to the general population. However, some bad people use that technology to, well, not even cut people or make them bleed to death. Just to keep information hidden. Which is apparently a bad thing™.

Where is the fallacy in this analogy?

Maybe it would have made you happier if I had said that they hadn't banned guns yet. Why do they need guns in America anyway? The FBI are pretty good and prosecuting fraudsters, so I hear....

[legion]

Where is the fallacy in this analogy?

Maybe it would have made you happier if I had said that they hadn't banned guns yet. Why do they need guns in America anyway? The FBI are pretty good and prosecuting fraudsters, so I hear....

I'm not a fan of argument by analogy, analogy can illustrate an argument, but not prove or disprove it.

I think Wage Slave has summed up the core issue, it is not about banning encryption, it is whether or not Apple is obliged to cooperate in accessing data which may be of use.

How Apple do this is their problem. They tied the Gordian Knot, they need to cut it.

They came up with a one size fits all model, and say that if they crack it for one they crack it for all. To me this shows a lack of foresight on their part. Like the aftermath of the Lehman shock I think the learning here is we have to take responsibility for ourselves, you can't trust a mutual fund with your money, you can't trust the government or a corporation with your privacy. Governments are motivated by control, corporations by profit. Believing Cook is taking an ethical stand is as naive as being surprised that the NSA was monitoring the internet.

Meanwhile Trump has tweeted "Boycott Apple" from his iPhone, so I guess Tim Cook is going to smell of roses for quite some time yet.

[Mike Oxlong]

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ingle.html

[wagyl]

Where is the fallacy in this analogy?

Maybe it would have made you happier if I had said that they hadn't banned guns yet. Why do they need guns in America anyway? The FBI are pretty good and prosecuting fraudsters, so I hear....

I'm not a fan of argument by analogy, analogy can illustrate an argument, but not prove or disprove it.

I think Wage Slave has summed up the core issue, it is not about banning encryption, it is whether or not Apple is obliged to cooperate in accessing data which may be of use.

How Apple do this is their problem. They tied the Gordian Knot, they need to cut it.

They came up with a one size fits all model, and say that if they crack it for one they crack it for all. To me this shows a lack of foresight on their part. Like the aftermath of the Lehman shock I think the learning here is we have to take responsibility for ourselves, you can't trust a mutual fund with your money, you can't trust the government or a corporation with your privacy. Governments are motivated by control, corporations by profit. Believing Cook is taking an ethical stand is as naive as being surprised that the NSA was monitoring the internet.

Meanwhile Trump has tweeted "Boycott Apple" from his iPhone, so I guess Tim Cook is going to smell of roses for quite some time yet.

Maybe it would have been better to say that, than to say "that is pretty weak," because you don't seem to be able to point out any weakness.

For the record, I don't think this is an ethics issue. I think this is a "do the courts have the power to make this kind of order, since it is of a kind that has never been made before" issue. And from a wider perspective, it is a "is this the job of the judiciary, or is this the job of the legislature" issue.

By the way, about the way that the US has become fraud free thank to the work of the FBI, who we can rely on to solve all our other bogeymen issues.

[matsuki]

So now it's not a backdoor issue but just this one phone? Maybe I have my Hollywood goggles on but isn't the FBI supposed to have people that can perform this one time hack? They're the ones making the claim it is "technical feasible?" Compelling Apple to aid them is understandable...but demanding the aid, without compensation or to build in a back door for future issues, isn't reasonable.

[Mike Oxlong]

It's a right clusterfuck. First the Feds claim some city IT drone reset the iCloud password on their own looking for info, it now comes out the Feds oversaw that, and precluded any chance of a later iCloud backup when the phone connected to a recognized wifi network. After shooting themselves in the foot, they went after Apple...

[Coligny]

Did a police dog take a leak on the phone too ?
Because at this point that's what the Wyans brother would film...

[Samurai_Jerk]

It's a right clusterfuck. First the Feds claim some city IT drone reset the iCloud password on their own looking for info, it now comes out the Feds oversaw that, and precluded any chance of a later iCloud backup when the phone connected to a recognized wifi network. After shooting themselves in the foot, they went after Apple...

When I first heard the county employee had fucked up I was wondering what kind of dummy would try to access the phone without talking to authorities and thinking that if they wanted to, they could probably charge the person with evidence tampering. Now it turns out the FBI was on board.

[Mike Oxlong]

And yet another "oops"...The gubbermint and the poleece sure is on the ball in this very important investigation.

Basic software that held key to shooter’s iPhone went unused

The county government that owned the iPhone in a high-profile legal battle between Apple Inc. and the Justice Department paid for but never installed a feature that would have allowed the FBI to easily and immediately unlock the phone as part of the terrorism investigation into the shootings that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

If the technology, known as mobile device management, had been installed, San Bernardino officials would have been able to remotely unlock the iPhone for the FBI without the theatrics of a court battle that is now pitting digital privacy rights against national security concerns.

The service costs $4 per month per phone...

The software would help the FBI hack into the phone by bypassing a security time delay and feature that erases all data after 10 consecutive, unsuccessful attempts to guess the unlocking passcode. This would allow the FBI to use technology to rapidly and repeatedly test numbers in what’s known as a brute force attack.

The FBI said it wants to determine whether Farook had used his phone to communicate with others about the attack.

FBI Director James Comey said the agency owes it to the victims of the San Bernardino terror attacks to try to gain access to a cellphone used by one of the gunmen. In a message posted Sunday night on the Lawfare blog, Comey said the FBI “can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead.”

Apple has said it will protest the ruling and has until Friday to intervene in court.

San Bernardino had an existing contract with a technology provider, MobileIron Inc., but did not install it on any inspectors’ iPhones, county spokesman David Wert said. There is no countywide policy on the matter and departments make their own decisions, he said.

MobileIron has confirmed that if the software were installed on the iPhone, it would unlock it.

Wert disputed the value of the remote management technology because he said Farook — or any other county employee — could have removed it manually. That would have alerted county technology employees and led them to intervene.

In many offices and classrooms, officially issued smartphones include the installed management software. It can unlock the phone, delete all information in case of loss or theft, track the device’s physical location, determine which apps are installed, check battery life and push software updates. The technology is intended to make such products more suitable in corporate environments, where tighter controls are important to protect company secrets.

“This is the business case” for mobile device management, said John Dickson, a principal at Denim Group Ltd., a security consultancy. “The organization simply has no control or influence or anything over the device unless they have some MDM authority. The ability to do remote air updates, the ability to do remote wipe, the ability to control certain settings. Those are the standard kinds of things you do in mobile device management.”

Dickson said “the big question now going forward, it builds the case for, is why this guy would have an essentially uncontrolled device.”

This is the first time since the county issued its first Blackberry device in 2003 that law enforcement has needed access to a locked county-owned phone, Wert said. Prosecutors said in court filings that the county gave its consent to search the device. County policy said digital devices can be searched at any time and Farook signed such an agreement.

Apple executives said Friday that the company had worked hard to help federal investigators get information off the locked iPhone, suggesting they use an iCloud workaround while the phone was connected to a familiar wireless network so that it would begin automatically backing up and provide access to data. The executives spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing legal process.

The executives said Apple sent engineers to work with the FBI on the workaround but the effort ultimately failed. The FBI said it worked with the county to reset the iCloud password a few days after the attack to try to get immediate access to the data. That effort eliminated the possibility of the Apple suggested workaround actually succeeding.

But if the county had installed the management device it had bought onto Farook’s phone, none of these efforts would have been necessary...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html