Apple's refusal to allow backdoor access to its iPhones

http://www.zdnet.com/article/fbi-apple-encryption-testify-ju...

The claimed argument is for one phone, but other officials let the cat out of the bag that there are 175 phones in NY crime lab, phones in California, and probably everywhere else, waiting to be decrypted. Just like the drug case phone that a judge ruled in favor of Apple. Currently there are about a dozen court orders for other phones. Government wants backdoor.

Yes, Gov agencies want a backdoor. This comes down to a modern era McCarthyism.

There's more to this than terrorism, you can bet. Don't like current policies, or politicians? They'll know.

People are wise not to trust those in power. It always gets abused.

Let's see, you gen "n" tries to guess the access code.. On the n+1 attempt, the phone turns into a brick...

The advantage is the key the user enters to decrypt the phone is never sent out over the network..

Wasn't here a story about a ... O nevermind

If Apple give up we lose.

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -Abraham Lincoln

Think about it... power only exists when it is being abused.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/apple-and-fb... -- the FBI locked the phone... smh...

But wait, it gets better...

The subject iPhone was owned by the municipality, and they usually add software to the phone so it can be remotely managed, meaning some IT guy runs the management software and can get into the phone at will, but the municipality never installed the software on the iPhone.

And we are supposed to let these people have access to our digital domains?

[quote=dieselAnd we are supposed to let these people have access to our digital domains?

You are assuming I stated the data has been retrieved by a government agency but it isn't being shared. I stated no such thing. I only stated federal agencies do not share information which has been shown in public hearings in Congress many times.

Here's what BOXCAR said:

Talk about potentially opening the flood gates.

I hold the view that "in the end, our privacy will be made even WEAKER."

Apple will soon be brought into compliance just as other companies have. The battle cry is "it's in the name of national security". But at this late date after 9/11 government agencies still do NOT share information. And it seems NSA is the worst of all. Gotta wonder where all the "good" data is stored and for how long.

Why do we have several organizations that do basically the same thing???

National "SECURITY" Agency (NSA)
Department of Homeland "SECURITY" (DHS)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Since all of these organizations basically do the same thing (protect national security), then it would make sense to make them all part of one organization to do it all. This would prevent the problem with sharing information across organizations since they are all one organization. Plus it would help to reduce government and provide one law enforcement organization, instead of several.

Our personal liberties are slowly being taken away, and eventually we will be just like the book "Fahrenheit 451" where government sees everything we do, even in our homes. The IRS was the beginning of the end of the Fourth Amendment that requires all persons to give up their personal information so the government knows how much we make, and so they can take what they want (notice I didn't say need).

How about all these new home security enhancements where cameras and other items are being introduced into our very homes. How long before the FBI or other agencies say they need a backdoor into these systems so they can see what people are doing?

The point is this, if we were able to go back over 200 years ago and our forefathers were drafting the constitution, would they look at all the liberties we have given up and shake their heads, or say this is normal government?

One other thing that I remember being told on a movie (and I forgot what it was) but if you put a frog in boiling water, it would jump right out since it was too hot, but if you put the frog into a pot of cold water and turned on the burner, it would eventually boil itself since it didn't notice the change in time.

I think this is an important lesson since this is the same thing with our personal liberties, they take away one, and we say, ok, then they take a way another, and that is ok....jump ahead several decades and if this was back in the 1900's, would we be as freely giving away a giant leap of our personal liberties/freedoms as easily if we had not become as used to all this stuff going on.

Freedom is not about being free, it is about choice. It should be my choice to decide what information I divulge to others, and especially the government. It is my choice if I decide to carry a firearm, it is my choice to drink a beer and drive a car. As long as I have not violated anyone else's freedoms, property or harmed them in any way, then I should be free to do any of these. Instead, we lock people up for the "POSSIBILY" of them doing something that could be wrong to someone else, so in effect, we are violating the constitution that says we are innocent until proven guilty. Now you are guilty before you have done anything to anyone, except yourself. Choice is a freedom that has been lost for many decades, and will be continually taken away from us in the fear of terrorism and other safety reasons.

I know this will spark some good discussion, and that is what this is all about, but until we get back to people being held responsible for their own actions, and choices, then we will have a society that feels they know better than everyone else and will eventually rule our day to day and even hour by hour lives and we will be nothing but puppets to the government. I personally do not want to live in a society like this, and I hope I don't have to make those kinds of choices, but my children will have to and this is not about me, it is about the future of our country and the future of the future generations who will make up this country, and have to pay the price for our foolishness.

Have fun everyone and enjoy the open roads. I know this is way off topic, but so was the beginning of this topic that opened this can of worms...

Alan

The advent of technology such as computers, tablets, and smartphones that securely contain our personal information present an obstruction to authority. These devices can be encrypted, secured, etc. to make it impossible to retrieve the protected information. The ability to secure and protect one's information appears to exceed the ability of authority to get at that information. Like the example above with the frog and the cold and hot water, this is like back in the day when our personal data was kept on paper in manila folders and cardboard boxes that authority can get at if authorized by a warrant, unless it was destroyed or hidden to prevent authorities from finding it. But if that information is now contained on an encrypted digital device, the authorities may have that device in their possession, but cannot decrypt the contained information.

The ability to protect our privacy liberty exceeds the ability of authority to invade that privacy.

So what happens next?

Using the "sky is falling" approach doesn't work. The sky is still up there, never fell.

Any built-in access port (aka: backdoor) will be exploited. In this day and age, with hacking as it is, anything like a backdoor is not an option. Might as well be no digital security at all.

And that brings me to this point. Imagine a digital world with no digital security at all, where anyone can get into any other digital device: personal, corporate and government. That is clearly not an option.

If I am responsible for protecting my privacy, and that results in Big Brother not being able to get into my information, is that a problem?

Keep in mind that 9/11 happened. All the spying did not prevent 9/11. So I think there will be a decent portion of the population that does not believe the "battle cry" as you call it, of "in the name of national security".

I don't care if agencies share information amongst themselves or not. Only need one agency to know. This is not about agencies sharing info. 9/11 happened before secure smartphones. With all the spy agencies we have, how did 9/11 happen?

With all the spying we have, the San Bernardino shooting happened. Don't blame the phone or Apple.

For good reason, we do not get to see all the times a bad actor is intercepted. It shows the weaknesses in the security system.

So think about a digital world that is not designed to prevent at-will intrusions. There will be no way to keep unauthorized types out. Might as well have no digital security. We are now in an age where the utmost digital security is needed to exercise our liberty and right to privacy. A lack of security and compromise of our right to privacy will be far more devastating than a shooting like that in San Bernardino.

If digital security and personal privacy are weakened, then all users of smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktops, the internet, wireless communications, digital comms, etc. are victims waiting to be had. It will indeed be chaos. Even with the security in place today, there are many devastating breaches.

Nation building has been a disaster, being the world's police force has been a disaster, regime changer has been a disaster. Do we really want to compromise a liberty, the right to privacy?

Do you blame Oreos for being fat?

Do you blame the iron ore mine where the iron came from for the car accident?

Do you blame the miner that mined the coal that made the electricity that electrocuted your dog?

Keep in mind that 9/11 happened. All the spying did not prevent 9/11. So I think there will be a decent portion of the population that does not believe the "battle cry" as you call it, of "in the name of national security".

I don't care if agencies share information amongst themselves or not. Only need one agency to know. This is not about agencies sharing info. 9/11 happened before secure smartphones. With all the spy agencies we have, how did 9/11 happen?

With all the spying we have, the San Bernardino shooting happened. Don't blame the phone or Apple.

For good reason, we do not get to see all the times a bad actor is intercepted. It shows the weaknesses in the security system.

So think about a digital world that is not designed to prevent at-will intrusions. There will be no way to keep unauthorized types out. Might as well have no digital security. We are now in an age where the utmost digital security is needed to exercise our liberty and right to privacy. A lack of security and compromise of our right to privacy will be far more devastating than a shooting like that in San Bernardino.

If digital security and personal privacy are weakened, then all users of smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktops, the internet, wireless communications, digital comms, etc. are victims waiting to be had. It will indeed be chaos. Even with the security in place today, there are many devastating breaches.

Nation building has been a disaster, being the world's police force has been a disaster, regime changer has been a disaster. Do we really want to compromise a liberty, the right to privacy?

Do you blame Oreos for being fat?

Do you blame the iron ore mine where the iron came from for the car accident?

Do you blame the miner that mined the coal that made the electricity that electrocuted your dog?

LOL, Sorry, but your arguments are way out of context of the topic "security". Iron mines, Electrical, geez, way overboard.

But the "battle cry" is not issued by the citizens of this country but by those who issue the regulations all in the name of National Security.

Whenever I find someone invoking the spirit of our forefathers (often stated as Founding Fathers) to make some case that our current "government" is (whatever), I have to wonder why so many people invoke the "Constitution" without realizing how it has evolved.

Consider this: "Voting in the late 18th century was restricted to males and generally based on landownership, and did not extend to slaves who were a fifth of the population"(from a 2015 fact check by Politifact). Is that your concept of an ideal Constitution?

Let's agree that our concept of the Constitution must include the Amendments - putting the real date of our "Constitution" as May 7, 1992.

In my view, the Constitution has always been a "living" document, that evolved as society rethought what had been accepted practice.

Yes, the forefathers might very well be shaking their heads if they were presented with some interpretations of their document.

A side question might be just what liberties have been "given up".

jgermann, I couldn't disagree with you more. In fact, the Constitution (and its amendments) is not a "living" document; rather, it is a document that is cast in stone. It is to be taken literally, that is, as it is written. And if a judge takes his oath to uphold the constitution seriously, not only does he take the constitution literally, but he must also consider what the framers intended at the time they wrote it.
Judges who rule according to popular trends are called "Progressives," and in my humble opinion, are a big part of what's wrong with America today. And if, by the way, you don't like the way the Constitution is written, there's a constitutional way to change it: by amendment.

Phil

There is also a process to call for a constitutional convention of the states to modify the constitution - in fact, several state legislatures have approved resolutions calling for such a convention.

And when they who issue the regulations can't come up with a specific explanation that has legit substantiation, they use some weak, broad, far reaching, fear mongering, "reason" such as national security. And those same people that are declaring a national security substantiation are the same that will accuse others of being against them if they are not with them. So when "they" declare something is a national security issue, and if you do not go along, you are considered as part of the problem.

Apple is not the "problem" here, no more than the iron mines, miners, electricity, etc. in those other examples. And you need to pay attention to current events. There are efforts underway right now to hold manufacturers of guns liable for damages when those guns cause losses. There are actually laws specifically designed to grant immunity to gun manufacturers for that reason. So I speak from precedent, current events, and current laws, crazy as they may be.

Look for the real issue, problem, etc. Only then can you consider a cause and solution.

What is the real problem here? Do you consider the liberty (right to privacy) provided by the Constitution to be a problem?

Clearly, the forefathers could never have foreseen what we are living right now. Did they really need to?

There is no way the Constitution can explicitly delineate everything that can happen, and declare it as the Law Of The Land. There is clearly the intent of principles that are behind what was written back then, and in context of the times it was written. That is the job of the Supreme Court, to interpret each case and applicability, if at all, of those principles that should be timeless.

For example, although the Constitution was saying that all men were equal, slaves were only ⅗ of a white. Things were changed. What was a timeless principle? There was clearly a conflict in the early version of the Constitution, requiring equality while allowing slavery.

Here is a fascinating discussion on interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFea0o-jRik

Most of you will enjoy that discussion.

But look at the chaos in Congress now just trying to pass laws. It appears that the objective is to stop anything from getting done, make sure nobody has a chance of being perceived as successful. Agreeing on Constitutional changes will be impossible. There is contrarian behavior going on just to obstruct and deny.

Any constitutional convention will be fascinating, especially in context of what is going on now with all the religious freedom/liberty claims, LGBT equality, discrimination by religious conscientious objectors, states rights, supremacy clause, claims that the Bible takes precedence over the Constitution and Law Of The Land, relentless attacks on Roe vs. Wade, precedence, and let's not forget the election debacle.

Phil,
Your last sentence above says "And if, by the way, you don't like the way the Constitution is written, there's a constitutional way to change it: by amendment."

There are 27 amendments, so the original document has evolved.

John

It's still not a living document.

Well, what is your definition of a "living document"?

Yeah, John, but those 27 amendments represent the constitutional way to change the constitution. My problem is with progressive judges that change the laws because they have decided that since society is changing the laws must change along with it.

Phil

Living documents include time frames, i.e., in 12 months, this clause shall expire.

Living documents are dependent on language inclusive of future amendments.

The Constitution can be changed. It's not like it was carved in stone by some lighting strike on a mountain top. Or some sacred texts that were written a couple thousand years ago and are considered absolute and unchangeable, no matter how much murder, debauchery, misogyny, slavery, etc. is enabled in those texts. Questioning those sacred texts is considered to be heresy.

The sacred texts were written and compiled about 2,000 years ago and are perceived as absolute, unchallengeable and unchangeable. And that goes for all several hundred versions and interpretations. The Constitution is rather new, just over 200 years young, far more contemporary than those sacred texts, and has been updated.

holy books the constitution have all been interpreted by scholars or judges who have changed them according to their interpretation ! Christians have so many version's that's why they have all those different churches all due to different interpretations of the same bible ! people change laws in relation to the constitution because times have changed . when was the last time you stoned a person to death ,when was the last time you shot some one for stealing your cow . you have a right to bear arms where did it say if you shot some one or committed a crime you couldn't own one . every thing has been changed by interpretation slowly according to the president time ! remember there were no cars no nukes no machine guns no jet planes no electricity things change to accommodate the times

What's going on with this?

Nothing in the news lately, as if someone turned on the cloaking device.

If Apple housed the data, of course they should (and would) comply with a proper subpoena for that data. But that is not the case for the San Bernandino phone.

Instead, the gov't wants Apple to produce a new product that they have never produced.

Ironically if the County who actually owned the phone had not initiated a phone account reset after the shooting, the FBI could have just connected the phone to a network (e.g. a wifi access point at the shooter's home), allowed it to backup to Apple's servers, and then the data there. But the County says that FBI directed them to do the reset. So the only data in the iCloud account that the FBI does have access to is from many weeks before the shooting.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 22, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in Judge Pym's courtroom.

I read all 65 pages of Apple's response to Judge Pym's order and to my untrained eye, it appears that the government has absolutely no chance of prevailing.

During the original hearing, the government delivered their request for information ex parte, which means that the other party (Apple) was not even present at the hearing. Since Apple wasn't there, the judge was hearing only the government's side of the story.

Apple's 65-page response was spent explaining why the order is not only extremely onerous, but unconstitutional as well.

Anyway, stay tuned.

Phil

And here I thought that we were to believe the USA had an elite team that could do anything with any hardware devices?
Or, if the US didn't try to get it on record that Apple gave in to US, and the US cracked in and got the data anyway, then the cat be out of the bag? (about the Elite Team)

I could see that either of the two above could be correct, but then they wouldn't want that information out either....

So what the heck, what DO you believe?

Frankly, I'd prefer to believe that the US could crack into any device...

It's nothing more than a statement of the obvious.

Do you mind if I borrow, with appropriate credit, this

"The sacred texts were written and compiled about 2,000 years ago and are perceived as absolute, unchallengeable and unchangeable. And that goes for all several hundred versions and interpretations. The Constitution is rather new, just over 200 years young, far more contemporary than those sacred texts, and has been updated." from your post?

How many lives will be lost if Apple is not ordered to allow the authorities to access the phones data? My opinion is Apple's trying to keep the data private is a criminal act and they should be held liable for any lives lost if proven to be a result of their non action.
Privacy in this case can cost lives and if this country is going to survive then people need to think about what really is important.

Your opinion is noted, but it ignores the facts presented. The All Writs Act has four conditions upon its use. The one that the government is ignoring is that the court orders presented under auspices of the Act must be agreeable to the usage and principles of law. Apple contends that the court order violates 1st Amendment protections. Source code is speech in the eyes of the law, and forcing Apple to modify its source code against its will would violate the 1st Amendment. In addition, the requirement that Apple sign "GovOS" against its will also violates the 1st Amendment. Both actions amount to compelled speech, which the 1st Amendment protects against.

Sacrificing rights to the altar of security is not something we as a country should be practicing. If this country is going to survive, its people need to understand that the rights granted by the Constitution and its Amendments are sacrosanct, and not to be given away for the illusion of safety.

mmullins98, you should take the time to read all 65 pages of Apple's response to the FBI's filing to access the bad guy's phone. Apple's response can be found at:

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6106157/a...

If you read Apple's response with an open mind, I'd be curious to see if you change your mind. Also see my comments about five posts before this one.

Phil

Well, it will be very difficult, as in impossible, to link Apple to any lives lost because they did not access the data. So you have no argument. Still no reason to force Apple to access the data, if possible.

The NSA/FBI/CIA, et al. already should know texts, emails, and phone numbers of incoming and outgoing calls. If that did not alert them that the shooting was imminent, why continue to pursue this phone?

Imagine no security or privacy protection on all our smartphones, tablets, computers, internet, all banks, credit card companies, Wall Street, brokerages, etc. It will be pure chaos. Devastation. And as terrible as the shooting was, lack of security and privacy protection will be far, far, far worse.

Again, Apple is not denying "authorities to access the phones [sic] data". They are not "trying to keep the data private".

They are objecting to being forced to CREATE a means to bypass the encryption.

This case is not about "privacy". This case is not about Apple refusing to give the government something that Apple has access to. Apple does not have what the government is asking them for.

Telling Betty Crocker to separate the cake mix parts after the cake is baked.

I wonder how apple would go about putting code on a locked phone so the thone could be unlocked.

Good luck with that!

Apple has made it clear that if they can/do create such a software tool, "GovtOS", then it will wreak chaos on the privacy of all of us. The precedent alone is chilling. Presuming it is really a precedent.

And yes, it is still rather scary to think that authority can get a Court Order to command a private entity to become an unwilling participant in law enforcement.

RedRevrnd, what is your interest?

Any idea when those sacred texts are going to be revised?

Let's start with something that should be simple, and eliminate the misogyny.

Once that is cleared up, we can go after the slavery.

If all the things like slavery, misogyny, etc. are eliminated from the sacred texts, those big thick books could be reduced to something like a pamphlet. Save lots of trees, good for the environment.

That would be a huge improvement.

Recently, Jimmy Carter renounced his church because the church continues to refuse to allow women equal participation in the church. He felt he could no longer be involved in a religion that continues to discriminate against women. We can discuss racial discrimination all we want, but discrimination and oppression of women is a worldwide truth and reality, deeply rooted in religion and those sacred texts. There are international laws, and UN involvement, prohibiting the slavery and misogyny contained in sacred texts.

Thank you.

apple should look at the phone and tell the FBI or whoever what was on the phone ! but they should not release the process of how to or build a back door to make it easy for the FBI or whoever to browse your phone ! it's one thing to help solve a crime it's another to give them rights to raid your privacy !
the FBI and homeland have good people and bad people working for them and it seems privacy get's abused by the more ambitious agents and their directors !

The court order allowed Apple the "option" to create and store the modified firmware in Cupertino. In addition, the court order gave Apple the added "option" to install the modified firmware on the device in Cuptertino, rather than relying on the FBI. In both cases, Apple refused. Their refusal is understandable, as there is no alternative that makes this palatable. If "GovOS" is created, it will eventually be leaked. Either it will be leaked by someone at Apple, someone in the government, or someone in a totally different government like China. The only way to protect the privacy of the individuals using iOS is to not create the software in the first place.

It was not a personal phone, it was the county phone, the employer of the shooter. The county has given permission to look into the usage of the phone, as it has been reported. Those records should have already been handed over to the FBI, and would include texts, email, and the phone call (in and out) records.

The FBI demand in the Court Order is very specific. The demand is very specific as far as HOW Apple should go about getting the info off the phone, and what the deliverables are. Effectively telling Apple how to do their job. Requiring a signed software is scary, if not disturbing, and sets a precedent. Once a precedent, it can be used over and over for substantiation for further demands. This is how things get taken further and further. If the FBI Court Order demand was simply something like, "Help us get the information off the phone, you are the expert and use all legal and lawful means you have at your disposal. All means shall remain secret to Apple and undisclosed outside of Apple. Apple shall be the sole owner of and responsible for maintaining the security and protection of the capability to obtain the information on the phone."

What the FBI is demanding through the Court Order is a precedent setting raid that will affect the privacy of all of us. From recent reports, the Courts have been used little by little to go a little further each time. This Apple issue seems to be a little too far, or someone just decided enough is enough.

There is no way this can be kept to just this one phone. It is a capability, and once this capability exists, the flood gates will be open.

Apple will comply behind closed doors and we won't know about it for months or years. Regardless of your views on Snowden he opened the eyes of many just how intrusive the government is and in my opinion the government's appetite for information on all of us will only increase.

A Federal court judge in New York has denied a government request that Apple access data on a drug dealer's iPhone, specifically citing the All Writs Act in his decision. Clearly, the terrorism angle in the San Bernadino case is a convenient excuse by the government, and forcing Apple to comply with their request will lead to widespread use - and potential abuse.

Full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruli...