http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35656553?sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
>Mr Cook told ABC his company first learned of the controversial request when it was reported in the news media.
>However, a source close to the investigation told the BBC Mr Cook's claim was "simply not true", and that Apple's legal team was "the first to know".
Odd.
>Elsewhere, the New York Times reported that Apple had begun working on an upgrade to its devices which would make it impossible to break into an iPhone using the method proposed by the FBI in this case.
>The FBI has argued that Apple is overstating the security risk to its devices. FBI Director James Comey said Apple had the technical know-how to break into Farook's device only in a way that did not create a so-called "backdoor" into every Apple device.
The FBI really doesn't like the term "Back-Door." Apple phones might become the most secure smart phones out there because of this...
I agree with Tim Cook 100% on this. Corporations should never have any obligation to work with the government.
I'm an apple hater, but I'm with them on this
iphones are overpriced pieces of shit but, Good on you apple.
Fight the good fight.
Why is everyone supporting Apple on this one? The ability for the government to use this technology only applies to this particular case, and Apple has opened phones for the government before, so what is the problem now? I believe what has happened is Tim Cook would've gladly cooperated with the US gov, but the story went public and in fear of damaging the reputation of the phone is now publicly against it. I don't think Apple is a good corporation, so I don't believe that they're doing this for any other reason than money, I mean Apple already does everything they can to squash out competition and dodge taxes, so why should we trust they're doing this for the common good now?
The only legitimate argument against this is that you could argue the gov won't hold their word and they will use this technology in other cases against law abiding citizens, which in my opinion right now is no big deal, as the US gov already has all ur info (I don't agree with that, but why is it now all of a sudden a big deal?)
>>25428
At this point Apple's motives don't seem to make that big of a difference. Their PR is more important and they seem to know the right moves.
jesus why doesnt the fbi just send the phone to apple, have them "break" it and then send all the data to them, that way the fbi gets nothing to make a back door out of.
Who gives a shit of some scrubs in public see the files, this is a reasonable deal that i imagine people would not have any qualms about doing.
This is all a ruse by the NSA to make you trust apple
because i guarantee you the NSA just walks into any iphone they want. things like 'judges' and 'courts' and 'laws' dont really concern them
>>25428
>The ability for the government to use this technology only applies to this particular case
maybe legally
Didn't Bill Gates state that Apple should just crack that iPhone and give them the data without needing to create a backdoor for every device? Why not do that?
>>25459
Because the FBI _are_ the terrorists, and you don't want to help terrorists, do you?
Can someone explain what it is the FBI wants with a dead man's phone?
They can get whomever he contacted with it from his service provider with or without a warrant.
If there is dangerous data on this phone itself it's destruction would defuse that danger with certainty as it is in their custody.
What remains to serve the national security given this?
If nothing, this is a fishing expedition and illegal.
If something, let whomever knows speak or forever hold their tongue.
>>25459
If Apple could just "crack" the phone, that would mean there is already a backdoor in the device. That would also mean there would be a backdoor in every other Apple phone.
There is no backdoor, hopefully, and that is the reason why the FBI is trying to force Apple to make one.
>>25387
I don't understand how this is still in discussion.
No judge or jury (unless illegally pressured by the government or FBI) could think this is a good idea.
Why does this thing take so long? Is everybody THAT ignorant about how security works? All you need to know is that it's fucking difficult, and that law requires companies to comply only when they don't have to go out of their way and change their whole design to do it.
>>25428
because the moment the government has acces to a backdoor hackers do to.
And apple isnt going to kill its won business
>>25387
It's all bullshit. The FBI just really want a back-door and have done for a long time. Also:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070&nwltr=abcn_tco
The FBI asked for backdoors last april. The congressional hearing was a disaster for the FBI, and it's pretty awesome.
The FBI is petitioning them to allow a law to be passed so they sent a lawyer, Ms. Hess. She gets to go first: https://youtu.be/YG0bUmuj4tg?t=1373
She lays out her argument as to why they want the law passed. To show support for the FBI, Mr. Conley is second. He's a DA from Boston and represents the national DA association. He takes his best shot: https://youtu.be/YG0bUmuj4tg?t=1689
Then they hear from a lineup of people from the tech industry and privacy advocates who are against the law. They each get 10 minutes or so for prepared remarks as well, and it's 30 minutes of 4 or 5 reasons that each by themselves would make this a bad idea. Then the politicians get a chance to ask questions of the petitioners. But these politicians are on the technology committee know what's up and it quickly turns into them laying into the FBI lawyer and the DA representative about bulk data collection and privacy laying bare the issues at hand.
The first session is pretty tame by comparison. The 2nd session opens up with Rep. Ted Lieu, and he's clearly pissed: https://youtu.be/YG0bUmuj4tg?t=5203
Mr. Blum is cool. He's not that mad, makes sure to tip his hat to his law enforcement supporters, then makes a great analogy comparing their request to a home builder installing cameras in a home and promising to never turn them on: https://youtu.be/YG0bUmuj4tg?t=5483
>>25527
The reasons backdoors are a bad idea:
It's practically impossible from a computer science standpoint to make strong encryption have a secure backdoor. That's counter to everything encryption is.
Anyone who law enforcement would be targeting would just use another technology, making the law useless for the intended purpose.
If American companies have to do this, nobody would buy their products, rendering the entire US tech industry moot. Might as well pave silicon valley over and build strip malls. Other countries without these restrictions would become the new tech giants. Making the US government dependent on secure devices from another country. What the hell would our own government do?
Any back-door would then be a target for hackers, and eventually the key would make it's way into the hands of criminals. It's only a matter of time. Life, uh...Finds a way.
Also if you really just want the juicy part, I'd go with Ted Lieu showing his disgust at law enforcement: https://youtu.be/YG0bUmuj4tg?t=5356
>>25490
What they want is precedence. If the government forces Apple to do this for this one device they can (and will) for more in the future. In fact there are lots of people keeping an eye on this just for that reason. Oh also if Apple did as they asked and the FYI got a copy of the backdoored OS they could use it on any encrypted iPhone they want.
>>25500
It's not a backdoor but they want Apple to create a hacked version of the Apple OS they can load on the phone that will remove the ability for the phone to wipe the memory after the wrong pin is inputted 10x and also remove the wait time between pin tries. Also I believe they want to be able to use a computer hooked up through the lightning cable to do the inputs instead of having and agent input them manually.
>>25551
>>25551
So as I said, no national security interest whatsoever. Let a court of law decide the issue.
In my view any reasonable analysis will view this as simply an injudicious grab for power by an activist law enforcement flying under a false flag of impartiality.
Any action justified by the case itself has been exhausted. We are now above and beyond the law is not an argument.
No precedent on that basis may be allowed without undermining the authority of law itself.
>>25387
how could they spy on something they dont have seizure of.
>>25404
true but because of the DMCA anti circumvention act they cant decrypt the software without permission from the original software manufacturer
>>25553
From the wiki
>A backdoor is a method, often secret, of Bypassing Normal Authentication in a product, computer system, cryptosystem or algorithm etc. Backdoors are often used for securing unauthorized remote access to a computer, or obtaining access to plaintext in cryptographic systems.
From the dictionary
> A means of access to a computer system that allows unauthorized users to Circumvent Normal Authentication Procedures.
So creating a Hacked OS for Apple phones that disables a security feature, wipes data after x amount of failed login attempts, does not at all fit the definition of a backdoor. Huh...
Instead of giving the Hacker a Normal ten or so tries to crack into someone's private smart phone that contains all their Contacts, Pictures, Calls, Email, Texts, Music, Notes, Facebook, Imgur, etc... You propose to give the Hacker an unlimited amount of tries by Circumventing the security feature designed to stop brute force attacks.
Oh it's all fine and dandy. They'll never let human fallibility compromise the secret of cracking everyone's Apple phone, or let some misanthrope create Malware to specifically target iPhone users and download a modified, hacked OS. Forget lightning cable, the Phone would be vulnerable over WIFI.
Of course the last bit being a worst case, Doom of Apple and Apple user's scenario. Tort...er, Enhanced Interrogation of detainees would never get out of hand. Rand...uh, Signature Strikes are guaranteed not to be civilians.
>>25387
Can't they just send the phone to Apple and have them extract the data from the phone or even just remove passwords? Or is the possibility of some employee tampering with the data just too high?
>>25614
Apple cannot extract or change your personal data without cracking the device by either backdoor or by guessing the password with stupid luck(1 in whatever odds).
>>25614
Yes. It is incredibly easy to get into this phone. The FBI are just using this to try and get a back-door like they've wanted for a long time.
Food for thought
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/technology/justice-department-wants-apple-to-unlock-nine-more-iphones.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&referer=
>>25614
Here is a detailed explanation by crypto and hacker folks about how the answer is "yes, mostly".
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/
>>25588
>hackers will find a back door regardless.
no they wont. because there isnt any unless you download one AKA jailbreak. Even apple made that claim
>>25714
Yeah but so have other soften wear companies broken into. Look at psp and vita for example. Plus a jailbreak is made apple doesn't release the jailbreaking files. IE a person or persons found a way around the firmware, that sounds like finding a backdoor to me.
>>25459
Because Bill and Apple know that once they create the tool which lets you bypass their auto-destruct safeguard, the Feds can just raid them and seize it for National Security reasons, or get their own hackers or spies to steal it from them.
>>25613
definitely IS a backdoor
>> A means of access to a computer system that allows unauthorized users to Circumvent Normal Authentication Procedures.
Replacement OS:
a means of access to a computer system?
check.
allows unauthorized users?
check.
to circumvent normal authentication procedures?
check.
