Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pyxl101 | Hacker News Reader

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other circumstances.

View on HN

That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated.

> "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."

The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.

FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this?

Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.

No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.

I think you greatly underestimate what it takes to rise to the top of a tech company. Pretending to be an idiot in tech matters doesn't generally work.

> When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.

Not that I believe Apple's CEO is lying, however…

You don't knowingly lie if you think the risk of getting caught is unacceptably high. That last part is important, I think, and indeed, you state, "because he knows someone will find out", so I know you get it. However, I don't think we should forget that a great deal of the concern we have presently in this thread about the government's capability in introspecting our technology is indirectly the result of the DNI lying under oath¹.

¹I know your post says subpoena, but it seems similar enough that its worth reminding…

No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating.

Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish.

As in, Apple can't make this change and guarantee that nobody else will use it. In the same way that any software change (which they do regularly) could open up a security flaw. That doesn't mean it's likely, or any more likely than any other software update.

> No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating.

I wouldn't put it past the NSA to have snapped up a former iOS developer for explicitly the purpose of breaking into iPhones. An ex employee could certainly call him out.

> Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish.

Cook is trying to be as clear as possible to a public who doesn't understand encryption or why Apple is standing up to the FBI. That's a lot to swallow, and yes his letter is carefully worded for good reason. Given that there is a backdoor that Apple could create, it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too.

> it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too.

This sounds like a misunderstanding. No clever third parties are going to find a way to break code signing. To exploit the security hole Apple already created would require having Apple's signing certificate so that a phone could install the code. If it wasn't for the certificate, it would be quite a bit more trivial to hack a firmware to do a malicious thing and install it on any phone.

Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.

It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.

What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.

It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need."

Except that invention != turning over information.

The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do.

Which is a massive, blatant power grab.

Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious changes.

That's just silly. The "pedestal," as you call it, that they're defending is a non-insane interpretation of writs.

If the government wants to go past that, pass a law, and hope it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution.

For instance, there's also a law that compels telecom providers to give the government cooperation in installing monitoring equipment in their pipes. But that's an exceptional situation, which is why they had to pass an additional law: it does not just follow from All Writs.

It'd be the same if Apple was building a sewer system:

---

FBI: "Hey, company building a sewer system!"

Apple: Hi.

FBI: "We have an ongoing investigation, and need your cooperation."

Apple: Rock on. I'll comply with the law! I have access to the system at all of these points. If you need access to that, just ask.

FBI: "No, we need access to a specific toilet bowl in a specific house."

Apple: ... I don't have access to that. They haven't flushed it; it's still in their house.

FBI: "Yeah, but you designed the system. So to comply with our request for information, we need you to come up with an easy way for us to break the system."

Apple: Break it how? Gee, FBI, this sounds a lot more involved than just giving you access to some information.

FBI: "No, this is just like turning over some papers. Now, we need your engineers to drop everything and immediately come up with a foolproof way of suddenly, and violently, reversing the flow and pressure of any arbitrary customer's toilet so that we can use it to propel an FBI Fecal Trawler drone into their house."

Apple: Whoa. You're asking us to develop, for you, a massive new operational capability. But there's not a law that compels us to suddenly spend our time being FBI contractors! Also, if we develop this the way you are asking us, that means many of our engineers will be working on, and learn how to, turn our toilet connections literally into deadly weapons! That's just ... gross, and immoral! And probably a breach of our duty to our customers!

FBI: No. It's law. Turn over our writs.

Apple: This is insane. You got laws passed to make telecom companies do this kind of thing -- I'm sorry, but until you get a similar law passed, and have to take it before the public in the way that will entail, I really think this is government overreach! ... Why are you even talking to me about this? Go in through the front door or something.

FBI: We threw the key away.

---

And yet the reporting on this story continues to be "Oh, Apple, why you can't be like those good nerds on </scorpion> who know how to help their country?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com