Apple vs the FBI

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

So what do you guys think of Apple's refusal to cooperate with the FBI?

Initially I was fairly strongly against what Apple was doing, largely because I didn't really understand what it was the FBI was asking for, then I read this: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/, and I've seen a few convincing arguments for why Apple is in the right. Which has made me far more sympathetic to Apple, though I'm still not entirely convinced that there isn't some middle ground that can't be found.

[Jon AS]

I find it hard to believe that, with all the US government's access to internet data and metadata, there's actually anything on that phone they don't already know. What they're trying to do is use this terrorist attack to get a universal tool to access any iPhone's encrypted data.

So good on Apple for not cooperating (yet...), even though obviously as a corporation they're mostly doing it to protect future profits.

[Gears of the Beast]

13 minutes ago, Jon AS said:

So good on Apple for not cooperating (yet...), even though obviously as a corporation they're mostly doing it to protect future profits.

Why's that obvious?

[baxus]

@Jon AS

If US government had tracked the phone in question BEFORE the attack, then they could have intercepted the data and have all they wanted. There is no way they can monitor all internet traffic.

They are going after Apple because it's easier to go after one company, even if it's as big as Apple, then it is to go after Viber, Whatsapp, Snapchat, Facebook and whatever else the terrorist may have used.

And I have no objections to Apple doing it to protect their profits. In this case at least, by protecting their profits they are protecting my interests as a user of their products.

[Jon AS]

35 minutes ago, baxus said:

If US government had tracked the phone in question BEFORE the attack, then they could have intercepted the data and have all they wanted. There is no way they can monitor all internet traffic.

They do have the capacity to store incredible amounts of data. Of course it's entirely possible that they can't find exactly what they need in this specific case there, but that just means they wasted billions of dollars on projects that violate people's privacy with no tangible benefit at all. I assume they're unlikely to cop to that.

38 minutes ago, baxus said:

And I have no objections to Apple doing it to protect their profits. In this case at least, by protecting their profits they are protecting my interests as a user of their products.

Indeed, it's definitely a case where what's good or the company is also good for the customer.

[baxus]

29 minutes ago, Jon AS said:

They do have the capacity to store incredible amounts of data. Of course it's entirely possible that they can't find exactly what they need in this specific case there, but that just means they wasted billions of dollars on projects that violate people's privacy with no tangible benefit at all. I assume they're unlikely to cop to that.

Storing incredible amounts of data is useless without the ability to analyze that data so I don't think there's a single government that's storing that much data.

[Jon AS]

26 minutes ago, baxus said:

Storing incredible amounts of data is useless without the ability to analyze that data so I don't think there's a single government that's storing that much data.

Yeah, but keep in mind that decisions at the top are made by politicians who may not have the firmest grasp on technical limitations, while simultaneously having a strong desire to be seen taking decicive actions.

The NSA's Utah data centre alone is supposed to have a storage capacity in the exabyte range.

[Spockydog]

22 minutes ago, Jon AS said:

Yeah, but keep in mind that decisions at the top are made by politicians who may not have the firmest grasp on technical limitations, while simultaneously having a strong desire to be seen taking decicive actions.

See Theresa May's Investigatory Powers Bill, aka The Snooper's Charter. 

If this bill is passed in its current form, it will basically force tech companies to comply with these backdoor requests.

[baxus]

58 minutes ago, Jon AS said:

Yeah, but keep in mind that decisions at the top are made by politicians who may not have the firmest grasp on technical limitations, while simultaneously having a strong desire to be seen taking decicive actions.

The NSA's Utah data centre alone is supposed to have a storage capacity in the exabyte range.

I'm not arguing about the technical knowledge of an average politician, but they must have some advisors that can tell them having exabyte range storage is useless unless you can actually draw some conclusions from all that data. Otherwise big storage will only make the necessary data harder to find.

[Jon AS]

1 minute ago, baxus said:

I'm not arguing about the technical knowledge of an average politician, but they must have some advisors that can tell them having exabyte range storage is useless unless you can actually draw some conclusions from all that data. Otherwise big storage will only make the necessary data harder to find.

I'm sure they have advisors who can tell them that. I'm equally sure that they have other advisors telling them "if you don't support project X, your opponent will paint you as soft on crime/terror".

[baxus]

Hell, if they have two advisors and one says that and the other says: "It will cost a shitton of money and it won't work" and they go with the first on, then I say have them spend money on stupid projects like that.

If that worked, they wouldn't be trying to force Apple' hand into making an iOS backdoor "just this once".

[Fez]

I don't think Apple has a leg to stand on. A warrant is a warrant, and if the FBI has a legitimately received one than they have the right to obtain the data on that phone. Apple created a system to prevent that from happening, and so a judge ordered them to disable the system on that phone. That should be the end of the story.

No different than if they had a warrant to search an apartment and the door was locked so they got the landlord to unlock the door. Except that in this analogy the door has explosives on it in case it is broken open instead of unlocked.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

If giving the FBI will allow the FBI to search other phones outside the scope of the warrant without warrants then Apple's objections may have some legs.  We will see.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't think Apple has a leg to stand on. A warrant is a warrant, and if the FBI has a legitimately received one than they have the right to obtain the data on that phone. Apple created a system to prevent that from happening, and so a judge ordered them to disable the system on that phone. That should be the end of the story.

No different than if they had a warrant to search an apartment and the door was locked so they got the landlord to unlock the door. Except that in this analogy the door has explosives on it in case it is broken open instead of unlocked.

It's not about "that phone."

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's not about "that phone."

 

 

OAR,

Given the broad scope of the order I think an interlocutory appeal would be proper if Apple loses at the District court level.

[baxus]

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't think Apple has a leg to stand on. A warrant is a warrant, and if the FBI has a legitimately received one than they have the right to obtain the data on that phone. Apple created a system to prevent that from happening, and so a judge ordered them to disable the system on that phone. That should be the end of the story.

No different than if they had a warrant to search an apartment and the door was locked so they got the landlord to unlock the door. Except that in this analogy the door has explosives on it in case it is broken open instead of unlocked.

Your apartment search analogy would be more appropriate if a search warrant for that particular apartment could be used to search any apartment in the world.

With this backdoor, US government could unlock any phone in the world and go through it even though it has no jurisdiction over nor any reason to suspect the phone user of any wrongdoing. I for one, think that it would be extremely naive to think that government agencies such as (but not limited to) NSA, CIA and FBI would really have to get a warrant every time they wanted to do a thing like that?

Would you be OK with government gaining access to all the stuff you have on your phone? I'm not talking anything illegal now, just your regular emails, texts, Viber/Whatsapp/Skype history, internet passwords, credit card details, mic and camera access etc. Would you feel comfortable knowing all that is just a few clicks away from their reach? I know I wouldn't.

[Fez]

Just now, baxus said:

Your apartment search analogy would be more appropriate if a search warrant for that particular apartment could be used to search any apartment in the world.

With this backdoor, US government could unlock any phone in the world and go through it even though it has no jurisdiction over nor any reason to suspect the phone user of any wrongdoing. I for one, think that it would be extremely naive to think that government agencies such as (but not limited to) NSA, CIA and FBI would really have to get a warrant every time they wanted to do a thing like that?

Would you be OK with government gaining access to all the stuff you have on your phone? I'm not talking anything illegal now, just your regular emails, texts, Viber/Whatsapp/Skype history, internet passwords, credit card details, mic and camera access etc. Would you feel comfortable knowing all that is just a few clicks away from their reach? I know I wouldn't.

First of all, it would illegal for the US to unlock any of those phones without a warrant for them as well. Also, its my understanding that what the FBI is asking for is something that needs to be installed on the phone for it to work. And even then, all it does is allow the FBI to brute force the password without the data automatically erasing itself. The estimate I saw was that to do that for a single phone takes about 11 days, so this isn't something that will ever be widespread; it just takes too long.

As to the broader question. I don't use my phone for any of that stuff, excepting the texting. Everything else I do on my computer, which I assume the government already has access to all of anyway if it wanted. Regardless of whether they actually do, I know that various corporations already have access to all of that stuff (or at least, whichever they are involved with); and I do trust the government more than corporations.

[Inigima]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

First of all, it would illegal for the US to unlock any of those phones without a warrant for them as well. 

Yeah. That'll stop 'em.

You cannot possibly be this naïve.

From a technical standpoint, Apple is 100% correct. This would be absolutely disastrous. I understand why the government is concerned about encryption, but they lack the basic competence to understand why this would be bad.

From a legal perspective, I don't know. This isn't just the government requesting information. It's the government demanding that the company's software engineers affirmatively design and create a piece of software. Can they actually do that? That would be horrifying.

[Spockydog]

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

First of all, it would illegal for the US to unlock any of those phones without a warrant for them as well. Also, its my understanding that what the FBI is asking for is something that needs to be installed on the phone for it to work. And even then, all it does is allow the FBI to brute force the password without the data automatically erasing itself. The estimate I saw was that to do that for a single phone takes about 11 days, so this isn't something that will ever be widespread; it just takes too long.

As to the broader question. I don't use my phone for any of that stuff, excepting the texting. Everything else I do on my computer, which I assume the government already has access to all of anyway if it wanted. Regardless of whether they actually do, I know that various corporations already have access to all of that stuff (or at least, whichever they are involved with); and I do trust the government more than corporations.

The software required does not yet exist. I'm gonna stick my neck out here and suggest that if they are forced to create it, it will only be a matter of time before it falls into the wrong hands.

And just because you don't store any precious / sensitive data on your phone, doesn't change the fact that millions of people around the world do.

 

[baxus]

23 minutes ago, Fez said:

First of all, it would illegal for the US to unlock any of those phones without a warrant for them as well. Also, its my understanding that what the FBI is asking for is something that needs to be installed on the phone for it to work. And even then, all it does is allow the FBI to brute force the password without the data automatically erasing itself. The estimate I saw was that to do that for a single phone takes about 11 days, so this isn't something that will ever be widespread; it just takes too long.

As to the broader question. I don't use my phone for any of that stuff, excepting the texting. Everything else I do on my computer, which I assume the government already has access to all of anyway if it wanted. Regardless of whether they actually do, I know that various corporations already have access to all of that stuff (or at least, whichever they are involved with); and I do trust the government more than corporations.

iPhone passcodes are made of 4 or 6 digits. You could enter all the combinations manually in 11 days.

Just to clarify, you assume government has access to all your sensitive data (whether it's on computer or phone is irrelevant) and you have no problem with it?