Apple Refusing Court Order to Unlock Killer's iPhone

StewartR said:
I wonder why they all stood by silently when Apple unlocked those 70 phones from previous cases?
Click to expand...
Having read your posts I'm not sure you do fully understand the problem. Apple are happy to help with access to the phone, as shown in previous cases, what there not happy to do is create a possible security flaw by introducing a back door which may very well make every iPhone vulnerable. Apple prides itself on its closed system, its heavily controlled environment which keeps its users safe. Its what separates them from the other systems such as android and windows. Its a big selling point for them and I think they will fight this to the very end.
 
StewartR said:
I wonder why they all stood by silently when Apple unlocked those 70 phones from previous cases?
Click to expand...
Apple were privately assisting FBI with this phone, as they have with others, until FBI, without telling Apple, went public with a court order. Seems like opportunistic behaviour by FBI.
 
jakeblu said:
Having read your posts I'm not sure you do fully understand the problem. Apple are happy to help with access to the phone, as shown in previous cases, what there not happy to do is create a possible security flaw by introducing a back door which may very well make every iPhone vulnerable. Apple prides itself on its closed system, its heavily controlled environment which keeps its users safe. Its what separates them from the other systems such as android and windows. Its a big selling point for them and I think they will fight this to the very end.
Click to expand...
I think I do understand it, but of course I may be deluded!

I think the difference in our opinions hinges on how we define a "back door". The usual context, I would suggest, implies the ability to extract data or conduct surveillance without permission and without leaving any traces. Using this standard definition, I would argue that what Apple are being asked to create does not constitute a "back door" because the techniques used to access the phone would only be usable with Apple's assistance, and after following due legal process.

However it seems to me that Apple are trying to widen the definition of "back door" to include any kind of access by law enforcement personnel, even on a case by case basis following due legal process. That's part of the tactic I mentioned earlier, when I said that their defence was an artful mix of facts and opinions. Changing the definitions of words as you use them, without mentioning the fact that you're doing it, is part of that art.

The thing is, the "possible security flaw" already exists. It is possible to update the operating system even though the phone is locked. (I'm not sure whether it was widely accepted a month ago that this was possible, but it's certainly known now.) If Apple make a custom version of iOS in order to access the San Bernadino phone, and then destroy the software after use, then surely that leaves every other iPhone just as secure / insecure as it is now: with a theoretical vulnerability which can only be exploited by Apple.
 
Like I said earlier, the knowledge of a weakness is like a red rag to a bull to malware writers. The knowledge on how to write something to exploit the weakness would be pretty easy to obtain with the right persuasion (see page 13 of the vacation document for how many people and documentation would be in the loop and 24-26 on the risks).

The jailbreak guy claimed it shouldn't be hard, let's face it if it was easy the FBI have a huge amount of technical resource..

This is slightly amusing however:

"Unfortunately, the FBI, without consulting Apple or reviewing its publicguidance regarding iOS, changed the iCloud password associated with one of theattacker’s accounts, foreclosing the possibility of the phone initiating an automaticiCloud back-up of its data to a known Wi-Fi network,
see
Hanna Decl. Ex. X [AppleInc.,
iCloud: Back up your iOS device to iCloud
], which could have obviated the needto unlock the phone and thus for the extraordinary order the government now seeks.
21
Had the FBI consulted Apple first, this litigation may not have been necessary"
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
Like I said earlier, the knowledge of a weakness is like a red rag to a bull to malware writers.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But the fact that the weakness exists is known, regardless of what Apple do or don't do now.
neil_g said:
The knowledge on how to write something to exploit the weakness would be pretty easy to obtain with the right persuasion (see page 13 of the vacation document for how many people and documentation would be in the loop and 24-26 on the risks).
Click to expand...
Well, that's hardly an unbiased document. So let's try to think about it objectively.

What would the bad guys need in order to exploit this weakness? I'd say probably:
(1) knowledge that the weakness exists;
(2) access to the iOS source code;
(3) access to Apple's cryptographic certificates to sign the revised software.
But the one thing they *don't* need is people with the experience of having done this, because not even Apple has that.

Now (1) exists already. Apple would have you believe that complying with the FBI request would make (2) and (3) more vulnerable, but I don't buy it.

The vacation document says that the iOS modification would need a team of about 6-10 people working on it. But Apple has about 15-20,000 software developers in total. I don't know how many of them work on iOS, and I don't know how many of them are disaffected or vulnerable to "persuasion", but I bet it's way more than 6-10. Plus if Apple do end up doing this work, you can be sure they would assign some of their most committed, stable, trustworthy employees to do it. So what is the risk of one of those 6-10 handpicked engineers giving key information to the bad guys, compared to the risk of one of the thousands of others doing it? It honestly doesn't sound to me like the doomsday scenario Apple are describing.
 
sphexx said:
Forcing people to do work, as in the Apple case, is regarded by many on US sites as being slavery, hence my reference. I don't think it is terribly helpful in this argument, particularly since in UK no-one is taught the history of slavery except in a very narrow way.
Click to expand...
It's not terribly helpful because it's so incredibly wrong.

Companies are not people. The most egregious form of slavery, and the one which was predominant in the USA, is "chattel slavery" whereby people can be bought and sold. Obviously all decent countries banned that long ago. But companies *can* be bought and sold.

Compelling Apple to comply with the FBI request is very straightforward and totally legal. Anyone could do it, in principle:
1. Buy the company.
2. Sack the chief executive.
3. Install a new chief executive who will do what you want.

OK, I'm not quite sure where I would get the $541,000,000,000 which I would need to carry out step 1, but I'm sure you'll agree that's just a practical detail. It doesn't affect the principle.

Any questions? Still think it's slavery, and if do why?

PS Those white lines you see in the sky near airports are regarded on many US sites as chemtrails, noxious mind-control substances pumped into the atmosphere by the government for the purpose of controlling the people. That doesn't mean it makes any sense. I'd hang around this side of the pond a bit more if I were you.
 
StewartR said:
It's not terribly helpful because it's so incredibly wrong.

Companies are not people. The most egregious form of slavery, and the one which was predominant in the USA, is "chattel slavery" whereby people can be bought and sold. Obviously all decent countries banned that long ago. But companies *can* be bought and sold.

Compelling Apple to comply with the FBI request is very straightforward and totally legal. Anyone could do it, in principle:
1. Buy the company.
2. Sack the chief executive.
3. Install a new chief executive who will do what you want.

OK, I'm not quite sure where I would get the $541,000,000,000 which I would need to carry out step 1, but I'm sure you'll agree that's just a practical detail. It doesn't affect the principle.

Any questions? Still think it's slavery, and if do why?

PS Those white lines you see in the sky near airports are regarded on many US sites as chemtrails, noxious mind-control substances pumped into the atmosphere by the government for the purpose of controlling the people. That doesn't mean it makes any sense. I'd hang around this side of the pond a bit more if I were you.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree that slavery is at best a tenuous link, you can't just do as you please as the chief executive, and you can't just make the staff of the company do whatever you want, you also can't just sack them for not doing what you want...Well whenever I say can't, that is obviously to mean 'unless you are willing to take the consequences'.
 
dejongj said:
Whilst I agree that slavery is at best a tenuous link, you can't just do as you please as the chief executive, and you can't just make the staff of the company do whatever you want, you also can't just sack them for not doing what you want...Well whenever I say can't, that is obviously to mean 'unless you are willing to take the consequences'.
Click to expand...
A chief executive with the full backing of the board and the owners can do pretty much anything he/she likes, so long as he/she retains the full backing of the board and the owners.
 
StewartR said:
A chief executive with the full backing of the board and the owners can do pretty much anything he/she likes, so long as he/she retains the full backing of the board and the owners.
Click to expand...
So we agree then :God:
 
StewartR said:
PS Those white lines you see in the sky near airports are regarded on many US sites as chemtrails, noxious mind-control substances pumped into the atmosphere by the government for the purpose of controlling the people.
Click to expand...
The mind control effects are a problem but I avoid them by putting several layers of tin foil under my cap.
That doesn't mean it makes any sense. I'd hang around this side of the pond a bit more if I were you.
Click to expand...
I guess it has escaped your notice that this action is taking place in the USA.
IANAL but I always understood that a company is a person for legal purposes.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
No binding legal precedent set !
Click to expand...
maybe, but its an interesting decision by a judge who says the all writs act is not relevant in this case.

going back to the apple vacation document its worth noting that specific laws allowing this hack would have been passed in the act that failed to pass congress. i still believe that they're clutching at straws trying to use this "catch all" writs act.
 
Well well. According to the BBC News, today's scheduled hearing on the case has been cancelled because the FBI say they think they have found a way to access the phone.
 
StewartR said:
Well well. According to the BBC News, today's scheduled hearing on the case has been cancelled because the FBI say they think they have found a way to access the phone.
Click to expand...

I bet they haven't. I wonder if TTITP could allow apple to sue the FBI for de-valuing Apple share prices if they do manage to hack the phone?
 
srichards said:
I bet they haven't. I wonder if TTITP could allow apple to sue the FBI for de-valuing Apple share prices if they do manage to hack the phone?
Click to expand...

It was reported a few days ago that's someone's come forward to assist the FBI and has bypassed the security. Hence putting this on hold.
 
Given physical possession of the phone there have several accounts of plausible ways of accessing the data (if any) on the phone. They are non trivial and involve dissecting the phone. All that assumes than data on the phone has not been further encrypted by the user.
 
sphexx said:
Yes, I got that wrong. But they seem so sure that it is a 4 figure password that I assumed that was the reason they knew. On reflection perhaps it shows what has been claimed all along that this is a put up job and they know the password already!
Click to expand...
What's the betting it was his PIN code and his bank rolled over months ago?
 
sphexx said:
Maybe, maybe not. Do you believe all the public statements of security agencies?
Click to expand...
That's a really nice logical fallacy you've given us there. Where is it written that one must believe either everything or nothing?
 
sphexx said:
Maybe, maybe not. Do you believe all the public statements of security agencies?
Click to expand...

I see no reason not to believe this particular item.
Are you privy to special inside information?

Whether I believe 'all the public statements of security agencies' is of no concern in this thread.
Are you trying to infer something by saying this?
 
Just to clarify, I do believe that FBI have had the iPhone "cracked" since the consensus of those in the field was that it was entirely possible. However I do think the FBI would say they have solved the problem regardless of whether they have or not. The published facts tend to indicate there was no valuable info on the phone.
On the general point I would say one can never believe anything put out by intelligence agencies for what I think are obvious reasons.
 
They cracked the phone then promptly threw a glass of water on it rendering the phone useless and removing any way of finding out whether they did or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top