True that.
Am I just too conspiracy minded that I see a very public, and very orchestrated, declaration of customer support and encryption protection from a company (and now from other companies) that previously colluded with the security services in secret?
Wonât Apple srsly enjoy the PR benefits of being publicly ordered to break encryption for the benefit of the security services and be free from the silencing effects of a gag order so that it may stand proud and tall and mighty and in the spotlight and declare NO!! to the nasty, menacing and invasive security services. Those rotters.
#For I am a river to my people!
Â
Weâll do what you want, just let us publicly declare that we wonât.
1 Like
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, there are a lot that think that Apple may have made a misstep by using the term âbackdoorâ in their refusal. The FBI is asking for a custom firmware to unlock a phone, or at least allow them to brute force passwords without the fear of the device being erased. The worst case scenario would be for the FBI to win, and then the precedent be used further down the road as it being acceptable to backdoor crypto, which is not what this case is technically about.
You realize that it isnât a âthird partyâ if your own phone is decrypting your own data. This is the same principle, theyâre just finding ways to brute force pretending to be the phoneâs owner. All encryption has a key. Thatâs kind of the point.
Because it is encrypted?
Except security experts have already pointed out that we know they are the ones to use, for the most part, unless youâre an edge case.
I mean, wouldnât a large technology company that was already colluding with the security services want to predicate their collusion on a deal to simultaneously deny any collusion, with the help of said security services?
Unmetered collusion is obviously bad for business, and I appreciate that there will always be degrees of it necessary, but what with the now very public acknowledged overreach of those security services and their ability to force cooperation in secret using gag orders and other means of the state, wouldnât the public face of that collusion look something like what weâre seeing?
Iâm not suggesting the conspiracy is involved in producing a slippery slope or knocking over the first domino in a chain of consequences, rather that many tech companies have already bent over backwards and are currently belly up performing tricks for the spooks. All this contorted cooperation would surely buy them the privilege of at least obtaining the option to publicly declare their will not to acquiesce.
The worst case scenario is that the FBI or some other concatenation of agencies already has won and that this non-gagged order to cooperate is orchestrated to smooth things over with the customer.
Or
Like, I said. Conspiracy bruh.
HmmmâŚand you know this is Apple how?
My fillings accidentally tuned in to a secrit gubmint radio station?
2 Likes
Pre-coffee headline parsing reenactment:
- F-bios? Whatâs an f-bios? Maybe the post explains it.
- [Reads post] nope. Wtf? F-bios?
- Stare at headline, hey why isnât the âiâ capitalized?
- Ooooh, I get it, itâs âFBI-osââŚ
- [Makes coffee]
1 Like
My point is that an encrypted system should be designed to minimize attacks like that.
Apple (or anyone else) should not be able to change the OS or firmware while the phone is locked. Ideally the system wonât start without its key, and will fail in the event of tampering.
It sounds like the iPhone 5/5C are lacking in this respect
So youâve never used an iPhone? 
If you want a device that needs a passcode to decrypt and finish booting, I recommend cyanogenmod on a Nexus phone.
2 Likes
All Iâve ever seen is people congratulating for doing the right thing, even if they also amend âfor once.â
Iâm grateful they are, because Apple is one of the few entities that could fight a protracted legal battle without getting eaten alive.
1 Like
Never for long, no.
I just think that a locked device should be inviolable, not subject to updates without ownerâs consent.
1 Like
Iâve never had an iOS device install an OS update without asking. It prompts.
Update: This is apparently a feature of later iOS versions (which I run). From a WaPo article:
If people are pissed about this, then itâs their own damn fault for being as dumb as a box of rocks. Iâm as un-Apple as they get and I think this is the right thing to do for any company.
1 Like
I guess that mean you arenât Donald Trump, after all.
1 Like
I wouldnât say it comes down to people being dumb, as much as not really understanding the technologies or sociopolitical stakes.
One of the more vexing things is the FBI framing the argument as âprivacy vs securityâ. The media in turn runs with that quote, and then you get a whole lot of people coming to the conclusion that it is a simple trade-off and the people on both sides just need to âcompromiseâ.
1 Like
Yeah, dumb, thatâs what I said. If they donât want to bother sitting down to think about the stakes theyâre dumb as rocks. Iâm not even comfortable with private companies with all the data they have.
âI just thought of thatâ - Trump should finish every statement with that phrase.
4 Likes
I was making the argument that a lot of people donât have the information needed to make an informed decision, and instead are making comments that the experts on both sides need to hash it out. Maybe instead of just calling them dumb, try your hand at educating people if you know more on the topic than they do.
