Th story behind Apple refusing to work with FBI

[Bitter Clinger]

My take is this: Apple can most likely create a tool to disable the protection against brute force attacks, which would allow the government to access the phone eventually. What the government wants is a tool to access the encryption on ANY iOS device and they are using this case to get a court order demanding it. I support getting access to the terrorists data, but I do not support allowing the government access to my information any time they wish to access it. I may be old fashioned but I kinda like that pesky fourth amendment.

This ^^

The analog to this is the atom bomb. Gov't asked scientists to developed it. They did. Gov't used it....just two times.... and then tried to protect it's secrets from hostile nations once the knowledge of its existence became public. Now, we can make very rational arguments for its necessity at the time Heck my own dad probably survived the war because those bombs were dropped, canceling Operation Downfall and the invasion of Japan for which he was training at the time. But within 4 years in 1949, the USSR detonated their first test bomb. The Brits had it by 1952. France had it by 1960; China in 1964; India by 1974. The genie was out of the bottle. At first, it was built and stockpiled by gov'ts which either could be trusted not to ever use it except in extremis, OR, as with the USSR, trusted to not use it because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. Today, the NORKS have the bomb. Pakistan has the bomb. Iran is building a bomb. Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to build a bomb. The genie is not only well and truly out of the bottle, but it has gotten too big to be put back in.

If Apple does this, the genie is out of the bottle. For good.....so that the FBI can build a more complete case against two dead terrorists, and MAYBE find some leads on others. I don't want my personal security permanently violated for that purpose.

TAM, once again extremely well written, appeals to base emotions and fear, but IMHO, lacks data or technical rationale. You simply cannot draw a curve from a single unverified data point.

Many countries have been working to develop a nuclear weapon, and it was only sheer determination and a little bit of luck that enabled us to get it right before Germany - let us not risk being luddites in this regard. OTOH, there are literally thousands of technologies that remain classified and secure, even after Hillary deliberately transfered SAP data from the class side to the open side. Smilarly, the Chinese guy that "lost" his CD behind the copy machine at Los Alamos has not done us irreparable harm.

However, I like the fact that your argument underscores the fundamental battle between light and dark, good and evil.

The government is NOT spying on innocent US citizens. Recently I had a woman in my HOA call me and demand that we stop AT&T from laying high speed fiber as she "knew" that they would use it to spy on her. Luckily, I was able to convince her that the heat reflective insulation in her attic provided her with suitable Faraday cage protection

[Abraham]

Here's an idea.

Put your I-pad, I-phone in your driveway.

Then, run over them with your vehicle of choice until they're broken into itty bitty pieces.

Sweep up the pieces.

Bring them to an electronic recycle center.

Problem solved!

Now, you can smell the flowers, feel the sun on your face, talk in person to your wife/husband/children/neighbors and finally quit obsessing over your darn I-this or I-that...

[android]

On appeal Apple will likely lose this case - but by that time whatever actionable information is on the phone will be so aged as to have zero value.

This case is NOT about getting information from THAT phone. That is a ruse.

It is about creating a permanent backdoor into everybody's phone.

On appeal Apple will likely lose this case - but by that time whatever actionable information is on the phone will be so aged as to have zero value.

What is interesting is in past, Cook has said "we cannot decrypt data", "there is no backdoor".

He is not denying they could make a special iOS and install it on any phone and bypass the wipe/delay features.

hmmmm

I believe they cannot decrypt it without the passcode. But the FBI wants to brute force it. That means trying every possible passcode until they find the one that works.

Normally, the data would be erased after 10 failed attempts. That is the part the FBI wants Apple to bypass.

[Bitter Clinger]

Here's an idea.

Put your I-pad, I-phone in your driveway.

Then, run over them with your vehicle of choice until they're broken into itty bitty pieces.

Sweep up the pieces.

Bring them to an electronic recycle center.

Problem solved!

Now, you can smell the flowers, feel the sun on your face, talk in person to your wife/husband/children/neighbors and finally quit obsessing over your darn I-this or I-that...

FINALLY, A SOLUTION!

[NotRPB]

If the order is issued under the All Writs Act
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... iPhone.pdf
(it says it is)
AND IF
the only time an All Writs Act applies is:
"The absence of alternative remedies — the All Writs Act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act

and IF a tool existed such as a request for production from a non-party (F.R.C.P Rule 34) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34

or IF

a Subpoena (F.R.C.P. Rule 45. Subpoena) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45
exist to request Apple to produce a thing...
then
isn't the All Writs Act the incorrect tool?

I believe in Texas, it used to be that such a request would probably be beyond the scope of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure/permissible discovery, as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the production of any document not currently in existence ... I could be wrong, have not looked into this much, so probably am wrong..I do recall that point being sustained in Federal Court also, but can't recall the caselaw, been way too many years ago for my memory.
IANAL

[WildBill]

If the order is issued under the All Writs Act
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... iPhone.pdf
(it says it is)
AND IF
the only time an All Writs Act applies is:
"The absence of alternative remedies — the All Writs Act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act

and a tool existed such as a request for production from a non-party (F.R.C.P Rule 34) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34

or

a Subpoena (F.R.C.P. Rule 45. Subpoena) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45
exist to request Apple to produce a thing...
then
isn't the All Writs Act the incorrect tool?

I believe in Texas, it used to be that such a request would probably be beyond the scope of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure/permissible discovery, as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the production of any document not currently in existence ... I could be wrong, have not looked into this much, so probably am wrong..I do recall that point being sustained in Federal Court also, but can't recall the caselaw, been way too many years ago for my memory.
IANAL

Thank you for the link to the document.
IANAL, but you can not subpoena a document file that doesn't exist.
Well I suppose you could, but Apple can't supply something that they don't have.
Since the phone is already in the hands of the FBI a suboena doesn't make sense.

The description in the Wiki reference is not correct. Maybe this is how some of the confusion started and continues.
The writ does not say

order that Apple Inc. create a special version of its iOS operating system, with certain security features removed

[The Annoyed Man]

My take is this: Apple can most likely create a tool to disable the protection against brute force attacks, which would allow the government to access the phone eventually. What the government wants is a tool to access the encryption on ANY iOS device and they are using this case to get a court order demanding it. I support getting access to the terrorists data, but I do not support allowing the government access to my information any time they wish to access it. I may be old fashioned but I kinda like that pesky fourth amendment.

This ^^

The analog to this is the atom bomb. Gov't asked scientists to developed it. They did. Gov't used it....just two times.... and then tried to protect it's secrets from hostile nations once the knowledge of its existence became public. Now, we can make very rational arguments for its necessity at the time Heck my own dad probably survived the war because those bombs were dropped, canceling Operation Downfall and the invasion of Japan for which he was training at the time. But within 4 years in 1949, the USSR detonated their first test bomb. The Brits had it by 1952. France had it by 1960; China in 1964; India by 1974. The genie was out of the bottle. At first, it was built and stockpiled by gov'ts which either could be trusted not to ever use it except in extremis, OR, as with the USSR, trusted to not use it because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. Today, the NORKS have the bomb. Pakistan has the bomb. Iran is building a bomb. Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to build a bomb. The genie is not only well and truly out of the bottle, but it has gotten too big to be put back in.

If Apple does this, the genie is out of the bottle. For good.....so that the FBI can build a more complete case against two dead terrorists, and MAYBE find some leads on others. I don't want my personal security permanently violated for that purpose.

TAM, once again extremely well written, appeals to base emotions and fear, but IMHO, lacks and data or technical rationale. You simply cannot draw a curve from a single unverified data point.

Many countries have been working to develop a nuclear weapon, and it was only shear determination, and a little bit of luck that enabled us to get it right before Germany - let us not risk being luddites in this regard. OTOH, there are literally thousands of technologies that remain classified and secure, even after Hillary deliberately transfered SAP data from the class side to the open side. Smilarly, the Chinese guy that "lost" his cd behind the copy machine at Los Alamos has not done us irreparable harm. [One word: "Rosenbergs"]

However, I like the fact that your argument underscores the fundamental battle between light and dark, good and evil.

The government is NOT spying on innocent US citizens. Recently I had a woman in my HOA call me and demand that we stop AT&T from laying high speed fiber as she "knew" that they would use it to spy on her. Luckily, I was able to convince her that the heat reflective insulation in her attic provided her with suitable Faraday cage protection

Thank you for complimenting my writing. Also, I really DO appreciate that we have been able to keep this discussion on a civil plane, despite the truth that the topic is capable of generating some passion. You're a good egg.

Bitter, I'm NOT trying to appeal to emotion, and I'm not even arguing against the development and use of nuclear weapons or other technologies. I would likely not be here today to type this response if my father's life had been spared by the use of nukes from having to land in the first assault waves on the Japanese homeland. But as I mentioned above in red, the Soviets would not have gotten there as quickly as they did without the Rosenbergs, and the KGB's own files revealed this to be true, and that is where I am going with this. Bad people may get the technology on their own, but when we however inadvertently assist them in getting there quickly, it serves nobody well, including the taxpayers who fund that technology development. I assume that the FBI would actually pay Apple for the work, instead of demanding it without just compensation. (If that were the case, then the FBI can go to hades in a handbasket.....nobody works for free, including the FBI.)

I am NOT a Luddite. I love technology, and believe strongly in its use for the betterment and enrichment of people's lives. It has benefitted ME in many ways. But, I have a profound and deep distrust of gov't, which gov't has richly earned. The facts are, according to the article which you posted:

1. Apple currently does not have the hacking tool available which the FBI wants.
2. Apple has deliberately avoided up to this point giving even themselves this ability, for reasons of protecting the data security of its users.
3. Apple is resisting pressure from the FBI to write such hack because it violates every principle of that data security.
4. The FBI wants Apple to rewrite their iOS to include such a hack.
5. The FBI wants Apple to GIVE them this hack, thereby compromising the privacy of all Apple users.
6. Once the FBI receives this hack, NO Apple user's security will be safe, NOT just from an FBI intrusion if, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, that user comes under FBI suspicion, but also from intrusion by bad people who steal the hack from the FBI.
7. There is only one SAFE way to write such a hack, and that is for the FBI to (of course, observing all the proper chain of custody standards) give the phone to Apple, have Apple write a ONE TIME USE hack, have Apple crack that ONE phone's security, and then when that ONE phone's data has been recovered, destroy the existing copy of the hack so that it cannot be used in the future. (* There is a problem with this which I will detail below.)
8. ANY deviation from the above process is to factually create a back door for the FBI to use against ANY Apple user.

* Item #7 assumes that Apple's systems are 100% secure from intrusion. Once word has gotten out that Apple were cooperating in the manner described in item 7, how long would it take before hackers worldwide overwhelmed Apple's digital infrastructure in attempts to access and steal the "tool"?

Now, Google has joined Apple in this defense of personal privacy, so it is no longer Apple which is at issue here, and you can bet that Google will find itself under similar pressure shortly as a result of defending Apple. You said yourself that you use a Blackberry.......well, the reason that Blackberries have been in such common use by gov't officials is that they were secure from being hacked into through back-door intrusions, and the Blackberry company made a BIG DEAL about the security of its users' data. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If gov't demands secure communications, then the people who PAY for those communications ought to have access to similar security themselves.

Now, I have nothing to hide. I haven't said anything in private that I haven't already said on these pages, on this forum, and on other public places like Facebook, etc. So even if the FBI or some other random alphabet agency started using such a hack to intrude into my personal data, they would find nothing that could be used against me, or against anybody with whom I associate — at least not under current law. I am not ashamed of my thoughts and I love my country. It's just the principle of the thing. Gov't exists to serve ME (and you), and not the other way around. There should always be a clear bright line which cannot be crossed under any circumstances without gov't giving a citizen proper notice and without both forcing gov't to follow due process, and giving that citizen equal access to that due process. Without that clear bright line, we become subjects instead of citizens. Just as the 1st and 2nd Amendments cover technologies which the Founders could not have conceived of (even though they were certainly bright enough men to understand them once they had been explained to them....if that were possible), so do the 4th and 5th Amendments cover technologies the Founders could not have conceived of. However, if that tool were to fall into the hands of the wrong people, then some of my financial information would be at risk, and I can't have that anymore than you can.

And, I am not a complete idiot when it comes to technology. I am not a security specialist, but I have written enough thousands of lines of PHP and MySQL in my lifetime to have at least a better than layman's understanding of the principles of security and encryption. I'm not a hacker, but I understand the basic concepts of how hacking works.

Now, ask yourself, how many times have the FBI's and other government servers been hacked into? It HAS happened. Do you SERIOUSLY think that, even if gov't made a good-faith effort to protect this proposed Apple back door hack from being scooped up by "black hat" hackers — just as gov't makes other "good-faith" efforts to protect other classified information (at least until Hillary gets her hands on it) — that black hatters would not fairly quickly get access to it? PARTICULARLY when Apple themselves has stated how dangerous this hack would be to the data security of millions upon millions of Apple users world-wide, and given how public this fracas is?

It becomes irrelevant to me whether or not this gov't IS spying on innocent American citizens.....I don't want to give it the future ability to do so, and I don't black hatters to ever gain access to it......which is PRECISELY Apple has never even trusted themselves with such a tool. There are plenty of other examples of gov't programs intended to "protect innocent citizens" from harm which have been used to instead forfeit the rights of innocent citizens - without those citizens having to find recourse to redress of those problems at enormous expense to themselves, and in many cases without their having ever been notified or provided with due process prior to the violations of their rights. Examples: unjustifiable Asset Forfeitures, unjustifiable additions to DHS's "no-fly" list, home invasions at wrong addresses with no-knock warrants which result in the deaths of the homeowners who acted in self-defense, just to name three right off the tops of my head. There is NEVER anybody held accountable for these injustices, and bureaucrats circle the wagons and defend themselves and their operatives. NOBODY in gov't employ ever goes to jail for stealing someone's life savings, or denying them their right to move about the country freely, or for murdering them in their own beds as they rise to defend their families from home invasion. NOBODY. It is not right.

Now you can argue that my previous paragraph contains an element of emotion, but if it does, it is because I become righteously angry at injustice......which by the way, is entirely Biblical, and I try as much as possible to guide my life according to Biblical principles....but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion, except to say that EVERYBODY ought to be made angry by injustice. Here is a fact. Gov't is enormous and inefficient. It screws things up all the time, even when nothing malicious was intended. You can insist on seeing gov't as essentially benevolent, and in a perfect world, it should be, but we do not live in a perfect world, and there are lots of examples of its "benevolence" which destroyed the lives of people who had done no wrong. When you add in the lack of accountability which is built into these programs, the lack of accountability on the parts of the people TRUSTED with enforcing and overseeing them, and then add in the fact that, sure as God made little green apples, somebody who shouldn't have this digital weapon will eventually get their hands on it, I just can't justify the utility of building it under any other conditions that my bullet point #7 above, and even that is fraught with danger.......if one believes that it is dangerous to reduce the security to personal data, which I believe.

I don't expect that I will change your mind, nor will you change mine, but perhaps some fence-sitters will read this and it will help them to decide what they think about it.

This is, at its core, an extremely important issue, which transcends the importance of whatever possible benefits are to be gained in the specific instance of data that may (or may NOT, we don't know) be stored on the specific phone of the San Bernardino terrorists. Given that:

1. We are already aware of most of their foreign militant connections, and
2. given the fact that foreign terrorists operating inside the US have tended to operate in cells, which for their own operational security are isolated from one another, having only foreign direction and/or inspiration in common, and
3. given the fact that these cells tend to be very small (the 19 9/11 hijackers were a rare exception to the norm), and
4. given the fact that we are already aware of most of their other local contacts,

....it seems to me that there is not very likely to be much actionable intelligence to be found on that phone. When you balance how much actionable intellgence might possibly be found, against the collective liberty of American citizens to be free form intrusion into their personal data security, it just does not seem like a "high value" proposition with the attendant risks.

That's just my 1,249¢. Others are free to disagree.

[WildBill]

[*]The FBI wants Apple to rewrite their iOS to include such a hack.

Excuse me TAM, but I don't see that anywhere in the writ.
The post by Apple says this is the case, but I don't see in the writ.
Perhaps there is another document that they haven't posted.
According to the way I read it, the writ applies to only to this one particular phone [ON SUBJECT DEVICE].

I am tired today so if you care to answer, please do in five sentences or less.

[bayou]

wholeheartedly with TAM

[SewTexas]

I am going to create a meme that says I agree with TAM and just keep posting it. :) :)

[The Annoyed Man]

[*]The FBI wants Apple to rewrite their iOS to include such a hack.

Excuse me TAM, but I don't see that anywhere in the writ.
The post by Apple says this is the case, but I don't see in the writ.
Perhaps there is another document that they haven't posted.
According to the way I read it, the writ applies to only to this one particular phone [ON SUBJECT DEVICE].

I am tired today so if you care to answer, please do in five sentences or less.

(1) Apple's claim is that acceding to the FBI's remain will create a de-facto back door for iOS. (2) If Apple is falsely claiming to be under pressure to build the FBI a back door, that will become apparent in court, won't it? (3) And that is where this is headed.....to court. (4) The outcome will prove them to be either telling the truth, or lying, will it not? (5) My gov't lies to me all the time, but as an Apple user, I've never been lied to by Apple.

(6) That's six sentences, including this one.

[WildBill]

[*]The FBI wants Apple to rewrite their iOS to include such a hack.

Excuse me TAM, but I don't see that anywhere in the writ.
The post by Apple says this is the case, but I don't see in the writ.
Perhaps there is another document that they haven't posted.
According to the way I read it, the writ applies to only to this one particular phone [ON SUBJECT DEVICE].

I am tired today so if you care to answer, please do in five sentences or less.

(1) Apple's claim is that acceding to the FBI's remain will create a de-facto back door for iOS. (2) If Apple is falsely claiming to be under pressure to build the FBI a back door, that will become apparent in court, won't it? (3) And that is where this is headed.....to court. (4) The outcome will prove them to be either telling the truth, or lying, will it not? (5) My gov't lies to me all the time, but as an Apple user, I've never been lied to by Apple.

(6) That's six sentences, including this one.

Siri has given me a lot of evasive answers.

[WildBill]

[*]There is only one SAFE way to write such a hack, and that is for the FBI to (of course, observing all the proper chain of custody standards) give the phone to Apple, have Apple write a ONE TIME USE hack, have Apple crack that ONE phone's security, and then when that ONE phone's data has been recovered, destroy the existing copy of the hack so that it cannot be used in the future. (* There is a problem with this which I will detail below.)

* Item #7 assumes that Apple's systems are 100% secure from intrusion. Once word has gotten out that Apple were cooperating in the manner described in item 7, how long would it take before hackers worldwide overwhelmed Apple's digital infrastructure in attempts to access and steal the "tool"?

What am I missing?
If Apple systems are 100% secure from intrusion, then there is no SAFE or any other way to write a hack.
Do you mean 100% secure from intrusion by non-Apple people? If so I would suggest that outsiders could also hack it.

[Solaris]

[*]There is only one SAFE way to write such a hack, and that is for the FBI to (of course, observing all the proper chain of custody standards) give the phone to Apple, have Apple write a ONE TIME USE hack, have Apple crack that ONE phone's security, and then when that ONE phone's data has been recovered, destroy the existing copy of the hack so that it cannot be used in the future. (* There is a problem with this which I will detail below.)

It is not bout safe, it is about precedent. If Apple does this, the world knows the phone can be compromised at any time. What happens with the next terrorist and FBI wants to get into his cellphone? What about France? Germany? UK? all are investigating terrorism. What does Apple do then?

It seems to me, Apple needs to redesign the phone, so this hack will never work either.

[The Annoyed Man]

[*]There is only one SAFE way to write such a hack, and that is for the FBI to (of course, observing all the proper chain of custody standards) give the phone to Apple, have Apple write a ONE TIME USE hack, have Apple crack that ONE phone's security, and then when that ONE phone's data has been recovered, destroy the existing copy of the hack so that it cannot be used in the future. (* There is a problem with this which I will detail below.)

* Item #7 assumes that Apple's systems are 100% secure from intrusion. Once word has gotten out that Apple were cooperating in the manner described in item 7, how long would it take before hackers worldwide overwhelmed Apple's digital infrastructure in attempts to access and steal the "tool"?

What am I missing?
If Apple systems are 100% secure from intrusion, then there is no SAFE or any other way to write a hack.
Do you mean 100% secure from non-Apple people?

Yes. What I am saying is that possibly Apple (rightly so IMHO) fears that it would be nigh onto impossible to develop such a hack without making themselves a massive and tempting target for black-hat hackers intent on obtain it for their own nefarious uses. Consequently, developing the hack is not only unsafe for reasons having to do with what happens to it after they give it to the FBI, but it is unsafe to Apple's own infrasctructure because it invites attacks on it.....which would threaten the safety of having Apple do the development on their own systems.

It's a lose/lose situation. Effectively, it seems to me that there are only three possible outcomes:

One is to stick to their guns, and refuse to be involved.

The second is to try and write a one-time use hack, break into the phone, recover its data, and destroy the hack again (as if the FBI would allow that tool to escape them once it had been created).

The third is to write a back-door into the next update patch — which would be v. 9.2.2, as I believe 9.2.1 is the current iOS release....at least for the US market.....and allow it to be universally installed as all Apple users update their devices. Once it is out there, then all a hacker has to do is buy an iPhone with the latest OS and find the back door.

Apple will never willingly cooperate with #3, nor should they. My take on their response is that they would cooperate with #2 if they thought it was possible to do so without subjecting either their own systems, or all of their user base to a significant security risk; but they don't think that is possible, ergo they are sticking to their guns and refusing to cooperate under those terms.

There is a consequence for Apple to doing #3, and that is the breaking of faith with their customer base over the security of their devices - which would have a significant impact on their market share as former users abandon the brand in search of a more secure product. The FBI has no moral authority to ask for that.

I hope everyone understands that I am NOT advocating that Apple should not help IF IT CAN DO SO WITHOUT RISKING ALL OF ITS USERS' PRIVACY. I've said from my first post on this subject both here and in the other thread that I think they should help if it is possible under those conditions.

I am merely taking the position that, if forced to balance the privacy of ALL Apple users against the likelihood of obtaining a gold mine of actionable intelligence from that one phone, I'll take privacy. One phone is not going to win or lose the WOT.

What Solaris said.