Posted on 02/22/2016 10:07:49 AM PST by hasb3an
After spending the last few days soaking up as much as possible on the Apple-FBI San Bernardino iPhone spat, the evidence -- in my eyes -- has become crystal clear. Apple's planted itself on the wrong side of history here for numerous reasons, and is using nothing less than a finely scripted legalese tango in defending its ulterior motives.
As a part time, somewhat auxiliary member of the tech media at large, I'm a bit embarrassed at how poorly this story has been covered by my very own colleagues. Many of those who should undeniably have a more nuanced, intricate understanding of the technical tenets being argued here have spent the last week pollinating the internet with talking point, knee-jerk reaction.
(Excerpt) Read more at betanews.com ...
They aren't asking for that... they just want in to this particular phone. In fact, wouldn't someone have to unlock this phone BEFORE being able to do an IOS update to install some back-door software?
When you jail break a phone you already know the PIN you set (if you have set one). The FBI doesn’t know the PIN thats the whole problem.
No. The one and only reason Apple can even attempt what the FBI is asking them is because you *can* load a new version of the firmware without a PIN when the phone is in DFU mode. Its a last ditch effort to rescue a bricked phone. If that didn’t exist they would have told the judge ‘sorry...cant help you’.
Again, what the FBI needs from Apple is a *valid* signed version of the firmware that they cannot replicate and, again, once they have that there is no more trusted encryption. To address the “but its only for this particular device” argument, it wouldnt be. After this new branched version of iOS is created it would be trivial for someone (ie - FBI, bad guys, good guys, gov’s) to apply this to any iPhone they wanted.
Apple was in the process of getting the data for the govt when it was discovered that the govt tampered with the evidence i.e. the phone. Apple was going to copy the phone data to the Cloud where it is far easier to get at. By tampering the govt changed the phones state to one where it could no longer be copied to the Cloud. Simple incompetence or did they like this case for its PR aspects?
Without the tampering, there would not be a very emotional case to tie to since they would have been able to more easily attack the encryption on the Cloud.
“This is to establish a precedence. Apple should hold out until a warrant is handed to them.”
That is exactly what this is about. I would be willing to bet there is very little info on that phone they don’t already have or are aware of. They can get call records and location records, etc from plenty other sources and Im sure they already had it long ago. They likely even had the phones iCloud backups from weeks ago from Apple (which they can and do provide when requested/ordered). Up until recently that is until (as admitted today) they royally screwed up did an iCloud password reset.
This is about the FBI wanting to make Apple (and anyone else with encryption they can’t break) their bitch.
The biggest problem here is the incompetence of the Dept of Health that was handing out iPhones to employees with clearly NO security policy in place at all. “Oh hey welcome to your new job! Here is your iPhone, feel free to set your password to anything you want so we can never access your data ever...its cool we trust you!”. Someone at that place needs to be fired...
"Apple receives so many police demands to decrypt seized iPhones that it has created a "waiting list" to handle the deluge of requests, CNET has learned."
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-deluged-by-police-demands-to-decrypt-iphones/
BetaNews? Yeah, it’s “beta” news, all right — “beta” as in “crude jury-rigged not-ready-for-prime-time junk that needs a lot of bugs fixed” version.
Almost certainly not. There were early reports that the terrorists had destroyed their phones -- the obvious conclusion is if they talked to any other terrorists (which isn't all that likely; they simply wouldn't have needed anybody else to help with a "barge in and shoot up the place" attack), they did it on their own personal phones, not their government-issued work phones. They're evil, not stupid.
It is impossible to load iOS onto an iPhone unless it has a valid signature. Ergo, they most certainly have been asked to write a signed backdoored version of iOS (which could then be used on other iPhones, the government's double-pinky-swear promise to use it only for this one case notwithstanding).
Apple has widely advertised this version of iOS as being so secure, even they can’t crack their own encryption. If Apple demonstrates the ability to crack even ONE iPhone, they open themselves up to a class-action lawsuit from EVERY iPhone owner.
If you have ten locks that use a common key, then making one key opens all ten doors. The signed software circumventing the security protocols would not be limited to this one phone.
Sounds like the gun control issue and coverage as well.
“IMHo, it’s all smoke and mirrors. The Feds have either already cracked the phone themselves or Apple has already cracked it for them. This is all to just make sure the same thing doesn’t happen with the iPhone that happened when the NYT spilled the beans about our listening in on equipment Bin Laden used.”
That was my prediction. There is no way the feds would take no for an answer. This is all CYA.
FWIW, here’s one of the best tech articles I’ve seen about this. Detail description about encryption, signing, and the difference between different version of Apple phones and OS’s.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical-perspective-apple-iphone-case
One, it’s you phone. Two, you know the passcode. Three, once you jailbreak your phone, it becomes susceptible to intrusion via a number of vectors because you removed the security.
It wasn’t the NYTs, but they’d be happy to repeat it.
Limbaugh’s point is that the county should have read the manual, so that access would be simple. Sadly we are likely to have the same scenario again and again. :(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.