Originally posted by Surtur
If I was Apple I would just tell them okay, you have infinite password guesses..have fun.
It's not that easy, enabling that has consequences for all other models as well (not to forget the precedent it sets).
And if the FBI has infinite guesses it's very likely they'll be able to crack the password in a reasonable timeframe (unless the perpetrator had a very complicated password which seems unlikely. Especially since the default at the time was a 4 digit numeric passcode.
Okay...here's what I don't understand...
The iPhone most certainly doesn't come with a bitlocker. And they can easily clone the entire contents of the SSD in the iPhone. Then they can setup several VMs to hack away at the phone. If done properly, the clone will stay at the remaining number of attempts left when the clone was created (So if they tried 5 times, there should be 5 attempts).
So they just need to create VMs with emulation to run each clone. After using 5 attempts and it fails to crack the passcode, wipe that clone away and reload the base clone and start over with 5 new attempts.
A script can be written to repeat this process until it is cracked. If it is indeed just four digits, then it can be cracked in 200 attempts (assuming 5 tries each time a new image is loaded into the emulator).
Since that seems too simple, there is probably something else going on. He may have third party software on the iPhone (which the FBI is not releasing nor should they release to the public). In that case, a far more complicated password and locking/wiping mechanism can be put in place making a cracking attempt, even through brute forcing with cloned and emulated environments, futile in any sort of reasonable time.
The iPhone does have full-disk encryption.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialInteresting.
Wow, this is interesting!http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-apple-idUSKCN0VQ02R
http://gizmodo.com/judge-orders-apple-to-help-the-fbi-hack-san-bernardino-1759533915
Found something interesting. Apparently Apple in the past has indeed been asked to unlock phones and has done it.
The figure of them doing this at least 70 times is an estimate, but the point is they seem to of done it before, but don't want to do it now. This adds a new layer to it.
So is this really over privacy or is it just they know deep down they can't do it? See if this is true and I actually bought Apple products? I never would again.
They have done it in the past however the circumstances are completely different now.
To put this into a not perfect analogy:
Apple makes houses, they used to make wooden houses, sturdy, but not unbreakable, and used normal keys. The FBI back then asked them "can you let us into the house" and Apple, while not wanting to, knew that it could and would ultimately lose a court fight so they complied, went out with the FBI and unlocked the door with a simple key.
Since then Apple has upgraded their houses, they now make incredibly strong concrete houses, and they don't have normal keys, they have these passcode keys that only the person living in the house knows...the houses are really popular too, no one has ever broken into one of them, the people are a lot safer. Now, the FBI comes and asks the same question "can you let us into the house" and the fact is...Apple can't let them into these houses, so the FBI demands "well, you could let us into the houses before, so I think you should just downgrade all the houses back to the wood and key design and then let us into this specific house"...obviously that's a much bigger ask, and one that risks the now established security of every single person that bought one of these new concrete houses.
Yes, but do you agree Apple tried to partially frame this as a moral issue?
Since they weren't just going "oh they want us to downgrade" they tried to also preach about protecting the privacy of their customers. When in the past they didn't protect the privacy of customers. It's just now the violation attempts it seems would be infinitely more difficult.
Since at the end of the day I still see it as Apple on multiple occasions had no qualms about invading peoples phones when asked. Not once or twice, but an estimated 70 times. So it's not like they did it once and had a change of heart.
If they have done it before then I can't see why they wouldn't do it for a terrorist. I understand the security is higher now, but they shouldn't of set the precedent of doing this kind of stuff in the past then, right? So now for me the only legit excuse is not that they won't do it, but that it is literally impossible for them to do.
Since otherwise..they pretty much did the same thing before, it just took less effort. To use your own example, if you build wooden houses and you go around letting the government into those houses then should you be surprised that they ask you to do this again in the future, even if you have come up with better more secure houses?
The New York Times made a very important point (and then strangely removed it in a rewrite):
China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say the Chinese government does take cues from United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would most likely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in United States.Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firms providing encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign trade groups. …
“… a push from American law enforcement agencies to unlock iPhones would embolden Beijing to demand the same.”
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it is a moral issue, and I think Apple is right in framing it as such. More than that it's an issue of national security.The question is, do citizens have the right to use tools that the government can't break into? And the FBI is basically saying no.
If it's a moral issue for Apple then how come the moral issue didn't crop up before? All I know is the company has a history of doing this so it's hard to see them specifically playing the morality card. Sounds like picking and choosing when to apply your morals. Which for me means you don't truly have any at all, they either apply or they don't.
People in wooden houses deserve the same consideration as those in the more advanced homes.
Originally posted by Surtur
If it's a moral issue for Apple then how come the moral issue didn't crop up before? All I know is the company has a history of doing this so it's hard to see them specifically playing the morality card. Sounds like picking and choosing when to apply your morals. Which for me means you don't truly have any at all, they either apply or they don't.People in wooden houses deserve the same consideration as those in the more advanced homes.
Like I said, the instances before were not the same as the one now. Before they asked Apple to open up a lock that Apple had a key to. This time they are asking Apple to exchange all the secure locks for easily breakable ones. That's completely different.
But they still violated privacy, that is the thing. It's not 100% the same, but it's still a violation of privacy.
The only difference seems to be it would cause Apple a large headache to do what they are asking, but they still violated privacy in the past, correct?
So I would have them frame it as a business issue, as an issue of "we don't want to decrease the quality of our product". Not a privacy issue, since they violated that numerous times.
Originally posted by Surtur
But they still violated privacy, that is the thing. It's not 100% the same, but it's still a violation of privacy.The only difference seems to be it would cause Apple a large headache to do what they are asking, but they still violated privacy in the past, correct?
So I would have them frame it as a business issue, as an issue of "we don't want to decrease the quality of our product". Not a privacy issue, since they violated that numerous times.
I don't think it's so clear cut. Apple is not breaking the law. In the earlier cases it was akin to them having a key and the FBI getting a warrant for Apple to use the key. Apple has to comply with that. And I'm sure their lawyers told the "You can try to fight it, but you will definitely lose, it's completely pointless". So they didn't fight it in court (they did however vehemently oppose it when a judge actually asked them whether they think they should be forced to do this).
Now in this case the FBI is asking for much, much, much more than just a key that's in Apple's possession. The FBI is asking to undermine the security of ALL users. And I suspect this time Apple lawyers told them "You can fight this, you might win, it's not as clear cut as in the past, it's worth a try". That's why they are now fighting it in court.
Morally I suspect they have always been opposed to it, at least their rhetoric (and the moves in software development) suggest so, but they are not going to partake in civil disobedience to fight for this, they'll go the legal route instead.
A cynic may also say that this is good for marketing as well, if Apple is seen as a company that fights for your privacy and that offers extensive security (both of which are true), that makes it more valuable in the eyes of consumers.
At any rate, I think the framing of it as a privacy issue is correct as well.
The problem with them trying to be a company that fights for your security is this story right here, which even if it isn't 100% the same it still doesn't reflect on them well. For some people all they'll need to know is Apple would help out in the past, but not with terrorists.
I also suspect this might be about marketing, but in a different way: Apple doesn't want to seem incompetent. Since I would ask why the government isn't asking them to do what they did before..and the only thing that makes sense is because they can't, so they think the only option is for Apple to mess with the security of all customers. You might think "wait it makes Apple look good, their devices are so secure" but some would see it and think "Hmm, Apple can't even get into an individual device, to the point where the only way is to screw over every customer?".
Plus it just seems the scale has changed. Apple was cool with invading the privacy of customers, just not in a way that screwed over every single customer. Which eh, doesn't paint them as champions for freedom and privacy. So they *will* invade your privacy if possible, just they won't sacrifice the security of everyone to do it. Is that a fair statement to make?