Legal experts say the battle between the federal government and Apple Inc. over unlocking the contents of an iPhone is about more than simply helping investigate the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
"The FBI's request ... represents the next step in the journey to find the Holy Grail of backdoor unencryption, and the next salvo in the ever-escalating battle between law enforcement and tech companies," said Robert Cattanach, a cybersecurity attorney and former Department of Justice special counsel.
The dispute between Silicon Valley and the federal government has been brewing for some time, but this is expected to become the defining case.
Chenxi Wang, chief strategy officer at the network security firm Twistlock, said the court battle would be a seminal moment in balancing "privacy and civil liberty against government data access."
"If Apple succeeds in fighting the court order, it will set up a high barrier for the FBI and the other government groups to access citizen data from now on," Wang said. "This will absolutely have a ripple effect. Apple is now viewed as the flag bearer for protecting citizen data, and if they succeed, there will be a flood of other companies following suit."
Link to full article (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/la-me-ln-apple-vs-fbi-is-epic-fight-over-privacy-national-security-20160218-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1li3)
I would suggest you read the remainder of that article for details about what the FBI has requested of Apple as well as Apple's position on the case.
Apple's position can be found on this open letter to its customers:
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Thoughts? ;D
I don't understand why the government thinks there is an urgent need to learn more about the shooters; they're dead.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 18, 2016, 02:24:40 PM
I don't understand why the government thinks there is an urgent need to learn more about the shooters; they're dead.
Those are my thoughts almost exactly.
Were they part of a larger cell? In cahoots with someone?
The phone may could tell them that, but what about the Padora's Box that may be opened if Apple caves to the Feds?
Quote from: Locutus on February 18, 2016, 03:25:03 PM
The phone may could tell them that, but what about the Padora's Box that may be opened if Apple caves to the Feds?
No doubt, it's a tough situation and yours is a valid question. This is an issue which will not go away and will indeed get worse.
I agree it's a tough situation but could it be considered treason? I know Apple thinks if they do this to one that they have to do it for all but I can understand the Feds wanting to know if there were others involved.
"Give them an inch, they'll take a mile". It has been proven countless times since 1776. . .
:yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2016, 07:06:11 PM
:yes:
Didn't most of this recent overreach start with the Patriot Act, which if I recall correctly, you supported?
Even though I fully "get" both sides of this argument...keeping America safe is first and foremost with me...and Apple is making a pissload of money from Americans so it seems like Apple would want to cooperate
Just sayin
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2016, 08:31:48 PM
Even though I fully "get" both sides of this argument...keeping America safe is first and foremost with me...and Apple is making a pissload of money from Americans so it seems like Apple would want to cooperate
Just sayin
So you are perfectly okay to cede Liberty for perceived safety?
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to go that far. Where is the line drawn between government surveillance, which the FBI's request might enable (and the Patriot Act already did), and your Liberty?
We're not that far from surveillance that is similar to which the KGB employed on Russian citizens. Are we not?
BTW, the "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about" defense doesn't hold water with anyone who truly thinks about it.
Just in case you want to trot that out. :wink:
All I can say is if another attack would happen and it could have been prevented by the FBI, I would be very very pissed off.
It is sad we live in a world where we must push the envelope of our freedoms because of a lack of trust of our government.
And btw I am not perfectly okay with compromising our liberty but I am in to keeping my family safe despite anything.
Quote from: Locutus on February 18, 2016, 08:47:53 PM
BTW, the "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about" defense doesn't hold water with anyone who truly thinks about it.
Just in case you want to trot that out. :wink:
Nice preemptive strike! :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2016, 09:07:58 PM
All I can say is if another attack would happen...I am in to keeping my family safe despite anything.
Another attack will happen but your family is safe...I doubt Markleville will be a target. LOL!
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 08:42:17 AM
Nice preemptive strike! :biggrin:
Well that's the typical response of some who aren't worried about government overreach. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 12:02:21 PM
Well that's the typical response of some who aren't worried about government overreach. ;D
Just to be clear, I never ONCE said I wasn't worried about government overreach.... ;D That is what you just assume.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2016, 12:11:44 PM
Just to be clear, I never ONCE said I wasn't worried about government overreach.... ;D That is what you just assume.
Well that's good. That makes you better than a lot of people. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 08:43:52 AM
Another attack will happen but your family is safe...I doubt Markleville will be a target. LOL!
and i'm sure zionsville is safe too...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2016, 12:31:44 PM
and i'm sure zionsville is safe too...
Which is precisely why I am not willing to trade my liberty for the illusion of security.
The problem with this whole situation is that the average non-tech Joe doesn't have a clue how dangerous a ruling in favor of the FBI would be.
Reference the "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about" that I mentioned above. That thinking is quite prevalent.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 01:29:28 PM
The problem with this whole situation is that the average non-tech Joe doesn't have a clue how dangerous a ruling in favor of the FBI would be.
Reference the "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about" that I mentioned above. That thinking is quite prevalent.
I 1000% get it. My take is more of, that is really sucks that we cannot trust our government to merely keep everyone safe. The problem is, they keep wanting more and more. They would not be satisfied with that one cell phone, they want access to as much as possible.
Until that day comes, and it will, when 1000's are killed once again........could we have stopped it? Did we do everything possible to prevent it?
Sure, living in Markleville or Zionsville are pretty sure bets we will be safe.......but, what about those in area's that are huge targets?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2016, 01:44:20 PM
Until that day comes, and it will, when 1000's are killed once again........could we have stopped it? Did we do everything possible to prevent it?
Had the government been able to continue collecting call metadata, they would need only the phone number from their phones to be able to identify everyone with whom the shooters had been in contact.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 19, 2016, 02:06:33 PM
Had the government been able to continue collecting call metadata, they would need only the phone number from their phones to be able to identify everyone with whom the shooters had been in contact.
Unless, of course, they were using some sort of text messaging app that employs end to end encryption. Metadata wouldn't have helped in that situation.
From what I've read, ISIS and its associates are employing this particular app to communicate amongst themselves.
https://telegram.org/
Telegram is a cloud-based instant messaging service. Telegram clients exist for both mobile (Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Ubuntu Touch) and desktop systems (Windows, OS X, Linux).[10][12] Users can send messages and exchange photos, videos, stickers and files of any type up to 1.5 GB in size. Telegram also provides optional end-to-end encrypted messaging with self-destruct timers.
Telegram is supported by the Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov,[13] who is now living in exile.[14] Its client-side code is open-source software, whereas its server-side code is closed-sourced and proprietary. The service also provides APIs to independent developers.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 19, 2016, 01:44:20 PM
I 1000% get it. My take is more of, that is really sucks that we cannot trust our government to merely keep everyone safe. The problem is, they keep wanting more and more. They would not be satisfied with that one cell phone, they want access to as much as possible.
Bingo! :yes:
First point I'd like to make is that Apple, Google, etc. don't have a leg to stand on to whine about privacy and the collection of data etc. as they're only being hypocritical since they collect your personal data/info out the wazoo - in most situations without your knowledge or your informed consent.
I'd love to see just how fast they'd back down and shut up should .gov say "okay, you don't want the government to collect data, so if government can't, you can't collect any data either."
IMHO, if any entity has a preeminent interest in certain data collection, it's certainly our government and NOT corporations.
Second point is that the long standing legal principle of 'Obstruction of Justice' comes into play here. Obstruction may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime. One cannot hinder the administration of justice by their actions or inactions.
Apple has a duty to aid, and not to hinder law enforcement.
Apple seems to be simply trying to play on peoples emotions and argue this case in the media for public support in the courts.
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 04:19:51 PM
Second point is that the long standing legal principle of 'Obstruction of Justice' comes into play here. Obstruction may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime. One cannot hinder the administration of justice by their actions or inactions.
Apple has a duty to aid, and not to hinder law enforcement.
Apple simply trying to play on peoples emotions and argue this case in the media for public support in the courts.
:yes:
Thirdly, from what I've read about encryption, it appears to me one can't encrypt without using an encryption algorithm. Apple would have the algorithm and therefore would have the ability to decrypt anything encrypted using their encryption software.
It appears to me that Apple is playing on the public's ignorance - and emotions - and trying their best to not admit to the world they can decrypt your data on you Apple devices.
Of course, there's always the chance that this is all for show.
According to an article I read about the NSA and encryption, they can decrypt most, if not all, encryption schemes.
Therefore, this is grand theater to save Apple's image.
OH!
Another article I just came across points out that this is all a publicity stunt since Apple has unlocked phones for law enforcement on dozens of occasions.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/it-all-just-publicity-stunt-apple-unlocked-iphones-feds-70-times
Is It All Just A Publicity Stunt: Apple Unlocked iPhones For The Feds 70 Times Before
According to the The Daily Beast's Shane Harris, in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. But the real shocker is that according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn't dispute this figure.)
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 04:33:01 PM
Thirdly, from what I've read about encryption, it appears to me one can't encrypt without using an encryption algorithm. Apple would have the algorithm and therefore would have the ability to decrypt anything encrypted using their encryption software.
It appears to me that Apple is playing on the public's ignorance - and emotions - and trying their best to not admit to the world they can decrypt your data on you Apple devices.
That's not 100% true. In order to decrypt messages (such as iMessages in Apple's case), it's a key that is used to decrypt the messages. Apple doesn't possess the keys. Those keys reside on the end user devices.
Here's a question? Why can't Apple just take the information off the phone and give it to the Feds? Just wondering why and then they wouldn't be considered hindering.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 05:06:23 PM
That's not 100% true. In order to decrypt messages (such as iMessages in Apple's case), it's a key that is used to decrypt the messages. Apple doesn't possess the keys. Those keys reside on the end user devices.
I understand about the keys. Apple possesses the algorithm which created both the keys and the data encryption. I doubt they're without the ability to unlock the device, and as a matter of fact, they've done it before.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on February 19, 2016, 05:28:29 PM
Here's a question? Why can't Apple just take the information off the phone and give it to the Feds? Just wondering why and then they wouldn't be considered hindering.
They gave them the information from the phone that was backed up to iCloud. However, he had turned off the automatic iCloud backup in the days leading to the attack. They're interested in what was on the phone during that missing time period. They could also tell, from the contents of the iCloud backup, that he had also enabled an automatic wipe of his phone upon 10 incorrect pass code entries.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 06:28:32 PM
They gave them the information from the phone that was backed up to iCloud. However, he had turned off the automatic iCloud backup in the days leading to the attack. They're interested in what was on the phone during that missing time period. They could also tell, from the contents of the iCloud backup, that he had also enabled an automatic wipe of his phone upon 10 incorrect pass code entries.
Okay, didn't know.
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 06:26:13 PM
I understand about the keys. Apple possesses the algorithm which created both the keys and the data encryption. I doubt they're without the ability to unlock the device, and as a matter of fact, they've done it before.
The algorithm is useless without the keys. That's the whole point of public key cryptography. ;D
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on February 19, 2016, 05:28:29 PM
Here's a question? Why can't Apple just take the information off the phone and give it to the Feds? Just wondering why and then they wouldn't be considered hindering.
IINM, it would involve chain of custody of evidence when it came to prosecution.
Apple is either going to have to give the FBI the way to unlock the phone or Apple is going to have to unlock the phone in the presence of the FBI.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 06:29:24 PM
The algorithm is useless without the keys. That's the whole point of public key cryptography. ;D
Not in this instance, as Apple has already shown it can unlock their devices.
Quote from: Y on February 19, 2016, 06:36:41 PM
Not in this instance, as Apple has already shown it can unlock their devices.
I'm not 100% sure as to the accuracy of the statement I'm about to make, but that may have been true on previous versions of iOS, and not the most current iOS9. Apple has beefed up security and encryption with each new release of iOS.
Also, from what I've read, the FBI isn't asking Apple to unlock (decrypt) the device. They're asking for a special software bundle that would boot the iPhone into a mode that would disable the auto-erase feature I mentioned previously. That, in turn, would allow the FBI to enter as many possible combinations as it wanted to (in other words brute force attack the device) without fear of the device self-destructing after 10 attempts. How easy it would be to crack his pass code would be determined by the complexity of the pass code obviously.
I guess we will see what happens as Apple was given a court order today and have one week to comply or be held in contempt.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on February 19, 2016, 06:49:45 PM
I guess we will see what happens as Apple was given a court order today and have one week to comply or be held in contempt.
That's not true.
They have until next Friday to respond to the judge's order as to why they shouldn't comply. They can claim it's overly burdensome, or that it would hurt their bottom line profitability, etc. A contempt of court won't be issued unless Apple fails to respond to the court order. That response doesn't necessarily mean that they have to unlock the phone by next Friday.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 06:56:57 PM
That's not true.
They have until next Friday to respond to the judge's order as to why they shouldn't comply. They can claim it's overly burdensome, or that it would hurt their bottom line profitability, etc. A contempt of court won't be issued unless Apple fails to respond to the court order. That response doesn't necessarily mean that they have to unlock the phone by next Friday.
I know they don't have to unlock the phone by next Friday but they have a week to respond to why they won't comply. I know it is not as simple as Poof, a court order and it should be done. It doesn't work that way.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on February 19, 2016, 07:04:21 PM
I know they don't have to unlock the phone by next Friday but they have a week to respond to why they won't comply. I know it is not as simple as Poof, a court order and it should be done. It doesn't work that way.
This case could very well end up before the SCOTUS.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 06:43:35 PM
I'm not 100% sure as to the accuracy of the statement I'm about to make, but that may have been true on previous versions of iOS, and not the most current iOS9. Apple has beefed up security and encryption with each new release of iOS.
Also, from what I've read, the FBI isn't asking Apple to unlock (decrypt) the device. They're asking for a special software bundle that would boot the iPhone into a mode that would disable the auto-erase feature I mentioned previously. That, in turn, would allow the FBI to enter as many possible combinations as it wanted to (in other words brute force attack the device) without fear of the device self-destructing after 10 attempts. How easy it would be to crack his pass code would be determined by the complexity of the pass code obviously.
Apparently the OS doesn't matter:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html?via=desktop&source=twitter
But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government. And, two technical experts told The Daily Beast, the company could do so with the phone used by deceased San Bernardino shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, a model 5C. It was running version 9 of the operating system.Asking Apple to boot the phone like that is even less of a viable stand for Apple.
Don't know how credible this is and I am checking the source but supposedly John McAfee, developer of anti-virus software has offered to unlock the phone. This was told in a piece of Business Insider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act
On February 16, 2016, the Act was invoked again in an order that Apple Inc. create a special version of its iOS operating system, with certain security features removed, for Federal law enforcement officers to use as part of an investigation into the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack.[7] The head of the FBI stated that what was requested was that a feature be disabled, viz. that Apple disable the iPhone's feature to erase encrypted data on the device after 10 incorrect password attempts. Apple claimed that, were they to comply with this demand for automated password entry with no consequence for failed attempts, simple brute force password attacks would then be trivially easy for anyone with access to a phone using this software.[8]
Okay, in reading that, what the FBI is asking for would not endanger the general public's privacy nor create any of the other wild-eyed scenarios being pushed in the media.
Does anyone actually think either Apple or the FBI is going to pass that software around to the public? I don't think so.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on February 19, 2016, 07:31:29 PM
Don't know how credible this is and I am checking the source but supposedly John McAfee, developer of anti-virus software has offered to unlock the phone. This was told in a piece of Business Insider.
I read something to that effect yesterday.
Quote from: Locutus on February 19, 2016, 07:58:00 PM
I read something to that effect yesterday.
It would be interesting to see if he does it. He claims he would do it free of charge and to keep peace with Apple
I think this is one we can't let the FBI win completely. They have to much power now. Especially when they can put you in prison for lying to them. :rant:
"For those who believe in all of those elaborate conspiracy theories, reflect on the fact that the government can't unlock a goddamn iPhone." :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 24, 2016, 10:35:34 AM
"For those who believe in all of those elaborate conspiracy theories, reflect on the fact that the government can't unlock a goddamn iPhone." :biggrin:
Exactly. Not even using an Enigma machine! :biggrin:
Looks like the FBI didn't need Apple after all.
FBI cracks iPhone of San Bernardino shooter (http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iphone-case-cracked/index.html)
I am curious - and I'm sure Apple is too - as to how they were able to do it with the assistance of the third party that offered them the solution.
Quote from: Locutus on March 29, 2016, 01:34:07 PM
Looks like the FBI didn't need Apple after all.
Or did they? I generally believe half of what I see and none of what I hear. :wink:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2016, 10:52:30 AM
Or did they? I generally believe half of what I see and none of what I hear. :wink:
Anything's possible, obviously, when these sorts of things crop up, but most of the articles I read say an Israeli phone forensics company helped them crack it. Also, the BBC reported that the FBI is going to classify how they did it. I'd say that's probably because they think they can use it again.