Apple v FBI

[NW-Bound]

With that sort of backdoor stuff law, every resident of the US could be required to hand a key to their house or apartment to the local police. Heck how about a set of spare keys to your car while they are at it.

There's no need for spare keys. We have battering rams.

And it's against the law to booby trap your own home. You can maim firefighters or the police when they have legitimate reasons to enter.

That's right. But they have to actually pass a law.

That was what I meant, now and many posts ago. Congress needs to define laws allowing the use of "battering rams" on cell phones.

 

[stephenson]

Philliefan33 ,


Good follow-up, but again, the question is can the Federal government compel, via action related to a warrant, a company to do something to obtain information related to the heinous death of Americans - I think the answer must be yes, otherwise, private citizens, criminal private citizens, non-citizens, can simply tell the Federal government to GTH ...how does the IRS obtain information that someone has hidden ... or that millions of someones have hidden?


Goes to the falling apart of the structure ...can't be allowed.


Not a legal argument, just perhaps a reasonable one.

 

[Philliefan33]

Philliefan33 ,


Good follow-up, but again, the question is can the Federal government compel, via action related to a warrant, a company to do something to obtain information related to the heinous death of Americans - I think the answer must be yes, otherwise, private citizens, criminal private citizens, non-citizens, can simply tell the Federal government to GTH ...how does the IRS obtain information that someone has hidden ... or that millions of someones have hidden?


Goes to the falling apart of the structure ...can't be allowed.


Not a legal argument, just perhaps a reasonable one.

Maybe, but as my aunt told me long ago: "When you go to court you don't get justice. You get the law."

It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret current law in this case.

 

[Texas Proud]

They could also pass a law stating that all internet providers must maintain a copy of all your web browsing history in case the court wants it.

Do you think congress has the guts to do it? I don't.

Well, Google already does that, so there is no law needed...

 

[Texas Proud]

There's no need for spare keys. We have battering rams.

And it's against the law to booby trap your own home. You can maim firefighters or the police when they have legitimate reasons to enter.


That was what I meant, now and many posts ago. Congress needs to define laws allowing the use of "battering rams" on cell phones.

Yea, and that law will stop a terrorist who is willing to die for their cause...

 

[Alan]

They could also pass a law stating that all internet providers must maintain a copy of all your web browsing history in case the court wants it.

I think ISP's do have to keep a browsing record history for all their users in case the FBI suspect someone of child pornograhy. When I was working and reading trade magazines I recall reading an article about an IT manager in a chemical company who received a court order from the FBI to provide browsing history for a particular employee who was being investigated for child pornography. The article said that the order quoted an existing law that all companies that provided internet access should maintain a browsing log. The IT manager said that he was totally unprepared for such a targeted request and found it very awkward extracting the browsing history of just one person from the logs. (He did not want to hand over the entire set of logs to the FBI)

I just did a search on this and can only find an article on CNET that discusses this.

Police: Internet providers must keep user logs - CNET

A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."

 

[jim584672]

Why doesn't the FBI subpoena the source code and write the modified OS themselves or have the NSA do it?
It seems like a case of setting a legal example more than anything else.

Source code can be written so that it is uncrackable. And since it can be written anywhere in the world, the US would have no jurisdiction over it. So US users would be left with an insecure device. Worldwide competition will drive users away from US made devices due to insecurity.

Right now it is trivial to communicate with others with absolutely uncrackable security, if one desires it.

 

[devans0]

Let's jump to the next logical step. Assume that Apple is compelled to open this phone, and put in a backdoor in all devices.

Mr Terrorist decides to encrypt a message. Will it get hidden in a photo, then scrambled? In an audio file? Or maybe some out of print book has intervals counted between letters, and we transmit that one-time-pad. It's simple, could be easily done on a computer, and unless you get the exact book, and know the starting point and also the key, that encryption is unbreakeable.

What is gained by this whole constitutional encroaching exercise?

 

[ls99]

Steganograpy has been around a long time, and is used by many including unsavory characters for covert communications.

 

[NW-Bound]

Yea, and that law will stop a terrorist who is willing to die for their cause...

Very little will stop a terrorist from dying. What can be done is to reduce the number of innocents he takes with him.

When people object to the government doing anything, it's one of these arguments: 1) they will abuse it and encroach the privacy of the public, 2) the tool will leak into the hand of bad guys, and 3) it does not work because the bad guys will work around it.

The police has battering rams and weapons, but they do not abuse it as a daily occurrence to break down people's doors or hurt them. There's still due process in place, and it mostly works.

About leaking "stuff" into the hand of bad guys, secrets about ICBM launch control conceivably can get into bad hands. I am sure that's worth a lot of money to some bad guys, even countries. What has been done to keep these secrets safe all these years?

And about crime prevention, it is true that one can never prevent all crimes (that's why we still have crimes!). It does not mean that we give up. And often, examination of evidence after-the-fact or forensic investigation can give us clues to prevent new crimes, or pursue some leads.

 

[NW-Bound]

By the way, the bad guys are not always as smart as you think.

I served on the jury of a case, where a guy made a phone call from jail to order another guy to hurt a witness against him. I understand that before a call is made from jail, a message comes on to warn of the conversation being recorded. Still, he gave the order. Not too smart! And yes, that recording was among the evidence presented.

People say that a determined and smart terrorist can get around anything. That may be true, but phones are used everyday by crooks of all kinds, not all being that smart.

PS. The guy being tried was not illiterate, and in fact a healthcare worker. He slipped up.

 

[Texas Proud]

Very little will stop a terrorist from dying. What can be done is to reduce the number of innocents he takes with him.

When people object to the government doing anything, it's one of these arguments: 1) they will abuse it and encroach the privacy of the public, 2) the tool will leak into the hand of bad guys, and 3) it does not work because the bad guys will work around it.

The police has battering rams and weapons, but they do not abuse it as a daily occurrence to break down people's doors or hurt them. There's still due process in place, and it mostly works.

About leaking "stuff" into the hand of bad guys, secrets about ICBM launch control conceivably can get into bad hands. I am sure that's worth a lot of money to some bad guys, even countries. What has been done to keep these secrets safe all these years?

And about crime prevention, it is true that one can never prevent all crimes (that's why we still have crimes!). It does not mean that we give up. And often, examination of evidence after-the-fact or forensic investigation can give us clues to prevent new crimes, or pursue some leads.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.... you mentioned the law that said you could not put boobie traps in your house to protect first responders.... I just said that a terrorist would just ignore that law... some laws are there to prosecute people who want to live, and that is good.... but if you are going out in a blaze of glory there are no laws that make a difference....

 

[target2019]

Question is, when a terrorist act was committed, and possible evidence exists, do you want law enforcement to obtain that evidence? The answer is more about future terrorism acts, and what can be done to intercept the perpetrators.

 

[NW-Bound]

Sorry, I should have been clearer.... you mentioned the law that said you could not put boobie traps in your house to protect first responders.... I just said that a terrorist would just ignore that law... some laws are there to prosecute people who want to live, and that is good.... but if you are going out in a blaze of glory there are no laws that make a difference....

I am the one who should be clearer. One would not expect a criminal, let alone a terrorist, to obey any law. When I mentioned the anti-booby-trap law, it was an example showing that one cannot always do what one wants with his property.

 

[MichaelB]

The underlying assumption in this is that law enforcement or intelligence analysis is less effective because it does not have access to this encrypted electronic content, and access would improve mission effectiveness. This is unproven.

Here's an interview with Michael Hayden, former Director of the NSA, who sides with Apple on the idea of a back door mandate Michael Hayden: America Is Safer With End-To-End Encryption | On Point with Tom Ashbrook

 

[ERD50]

The underlying assumption in this is that law enforcement or intelligence analysis is less effective because it does not have access to these encrypted electronic content, and access would improve mission effectiveness. This is unproven.
...

Catch-22? It's encrypted, we can't un-encrypt it, so we can't prove that it would provide useful data, because we can't un-encrypt it.

Or is that a 'tautological' statement? Both? And/or personal bias showing?

-ERD50

 

[Jack_Pine]

"Hello, Apple. FBI here. Never mind..................."

Allegedly FBI is saying the may have a way to break the phone without help from Apple. Apple said that if true, it is hoping the FBI will share the methodology. Like that is going to happen.

 

[Senator]

"Hello, Apple. FBI here. Never mind..................."

Allegedly FBI is saying the may have a way to break the phone without help from Apple. Apple said that if true, it is hoping the FBI will share the methodology. Like that is going to happen.

They can buy it from the Chinese government, just like the FBI did.

 

[Jack_Pine]

Maybe, thought it might be that wacky John McAfee guy. He was on the tube talking about this a week ago or so.

 

[devans0]

Industry, press and public opinion is trending against the FBI. My guess is that those who decide in the FBI worry that a bad precedent would hamstring their future efforts. Cloning the phone and running through the stock setting of 10,000 possible numbers would have to be a lot cheaper to hack than a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[GrayHare]

Lillies may not toil and spin, but those NSA hard drives in Utah do for a reason.

 

[explanade]

Well if there's a big terrorist attack on US soil, it'll be hard for Apple to hold their position, even though the FBI can't prevent attacks by tapping into iPhones.

The Paris attacks were done by burner phones, using SMS that the authorities were able to read after the fact.

Even if all digital communications were in the clear, it would be even harder than picking a needle from a haystack. More like picking a needle from several thousand barns full of haystacks.

 

[samclem]

If this goes ahead it will be a marketing coup for Apple. "Well, as you may have heard, government authorities can now break into the locks on every phone we have previously sold. We've developed a new, better security system that is immune to this type of unlocking. The new Apple TDCiP* is what you'll want to buy now, on sale at an iStore near you. Get it before the black helicopters get you. Cash and Bitcoin accepted."

*Terrorist, Dissident, and Criminal iPhone

 

[jim584672]

Maybe, thought it might be that wacky John McAfee guy. He was on the tube talking about this a week ago or so.

Yep. He was saying they could dump the memory and brute force it.

 

[explanade]

Wow, it's a terrorist phone huh?