FBI demands iPhone backdoor access; Tim Cook tells them to get lost

[enso]

@Gyrofrog

But this also suggests they didn’t just hand it over to the NSA (based on the assumption that they are not similarly afflicted).

No one suggested that they did for current versions of iOS.

[enso]

@jimp

One solution to this security problem is to overwhelm those who would read your private data: Load your phone with heavily encrypted files that contain nonsense.

Let them spend hours and days decrypting garbage. Much harder to know you’ve decrypted something when it still looks like encrypted data.

If they have your phone, you’ve already lost on multiple levels.

Better for them to never want it. If they get it, better for it to have nothing useful stored on it.

[enso]

@kupfernigk

I offer this modest little suggestion to the FBI and NSA to use, free of charge. All phones in the US must have baked in a code sequence which is sent out with every message, uniquely identifying the origin.After all it worked - it’s not as if the Soviet Union collapsed or anything.

They aren’t trying to figure out the contents of the messages sent. They’re clearly looking for particular data aggregated on the phone. They can also get all of the communicated telcom data, right? Go ask AT&T for it.

[anon68939300]

The US does the same thing with color laser printers.

[kupfernigk]

@Chesterfield

The US does the same thing with color laser printers.

The yellow dot pattern, yes, and other things we don’t know about. Not just the US either. The original idea, however, was to enable forgeries to be traced, not to identify who was typing samizdat on government equipment.

[kupfernigk]

@enso

They aren’t trying to figure out the contents of the messages sent. They’re clearly looking for particular data aggregated on the phone. They can also get all of the communicated telcom data, right? Go ask AT&T for it.

I cannot be bothered with the [irony] tag when I think it’s obvious.

[subextraordinaire]

Legally, they can’t. That would open a whole new can of worms.

[anon62122146]

@Chesterfield

An encryption backdoor would be a terrible thing, but being able to decrypt a phone that the police have physical possession of doesn’t seem that unreasonable. At least no less reasonable than the police being able to break into a safe in your home.

Nobody is stopping them from decrypting it. Making a company make it easier for them to decrypt it == a backdoor, so your two statements here are completely contradictory.

[newliminted]

@zikzak

But you don’t have to build your own phone security, there are peer-reviewed open source tools already ready to pick up and use.

But that is still trusting someone else for your security. The FBI could as easily insist that backdoors be installed in those products. What Apple makes is built-in, and easy for anyone to use. Kind of like locks on houses.

[newliminted]

This would be nice.

[anon34812172]

Correct. They don’t want the messages alone, which can be had from other sources. They want the contacts and browsing history and other juicy cached tidbits that are only going to be on that phone.

[Daemonworks]

Apple isn’t “deciding” it, the courts will.
If you don’t want Apple to have any say over the security of the data on your device, don’t put your data on an Apple device. If you don’t want google to have some say over your data, don’t give your data to google. Same for Microsoft, Ubuntu, etc. You’ll notice the problem if you continue this logic…

[anon68939300]

I totally understand those that take a hard, no compromises stance. But what’s a good plan B when legislation is written that effectively forces Apple to provide law enforcement access? You’re right that they probably won’t directly force Apple to weaken their phones - that would fail in court. What they will do is demand the wireless network operators allow only devices that provide some mechanism for access with a court order.

The telecom operators are already required to only use switches that have wiretap capability. The phone companies might put up some token fight, but they will fall in line quickly as they always do.

I applaud Apple for the stance they are taking, but when Sen. Cotton says “Apple chose to protect a dead ISIS terrorist’s privacy over the security of the American people” it’s a PR nightmare. The tech community and privacy advocates stand with Apple, but I really don’t think most of America does (at least in this situation).

A compromise that requires Apple to have physical possession of a device seems reasonable to me. It certainly is subject to less abuse than simply encrypting the master key with one provided by the FBI or NSA. I trust Apple more than the government (and yeah, I’m a bit of an Apple fan, so maybe I’m not totally objective here). I can’t think of any compromise that seems less terrible and unfortunately I’m pretty sure that one is going to be required.

[TobinL]

@Chesterfield

A compromise that requires Apple to have physical possession

Yeah as non fan boy I would actually be a more okay with a PUBLIC court order subpoena or whatever for Apple to directly crack the device than Apple giving any sort of keys over to the FBI.

[Gyrofrog]

Understood – hence my (possibly pleasant) surprise.

[AsteriskCGY]

I wonder if it’s totally possible for Apple to unlock it internally and just give it back to the FBI. Though I guess that falls under tampering with evidence.

[enso]

@Chesterfield

But what’s a good plan B when legislation is written that effectively forces Apple to provide law enforcement access?

I get my phone from a non-US maker, just like my phone before my current iPhone (one plus one) and then I put Cyanogenmod on it and give the government the finger, never buying a phone from a US company again.

[anon36081309]

@zikzak

I guess, but it’s troubling that the right to personal privacy gets decided by Apple in the first place.

Welcome to the police state. You have no rights. The best you can hope for is that someone else’s profit motive is helpful to you, but don’t count on it. The police think we are all criminals. Good luck. We never had this conversation.

[anon68939300]

I don’t think legislation will mandate what phone builders have to do, I think it will restrict network operators from activating phones that can not be decrypted in response to a court order. My guess is that before Verizon or AT&T can activate a phone, they are going to need guarantees from the handset maker that an unlock key is available.

But you are right - people that understand how everything works will always be able to utilize strong encryption in a secure way. The FBI knows this too - they don’t care that 1% of the people out there with a landline utilize scramblers to protect their conversations. They are happy that they can wiretap the other 99%. Likewise with mobile phones - being able to access most phones but not all, is good enough.

[pixleshifter]