vectorjohn

That would be impossible. The code must be signed, so it cannot be tampered with. That's why they need Apple's help.

The gasoline dwarfs the initial car manufacturer, as far as environmentalism goes.

And if they lost the knowledge of English grammar.

People are not the limiting factor on number of tanks. See: the rest of the military. This is an implausible scenario.

But when anyone brings up that if Apple were to do it they could make a version that doesn't have the possibility of hacking anyone's phone, people seem to think that isn't possible. Clearly it is.

It's a temperature range. You see there four integers.

How is it different than getting a phone company to install a wire tap?

What you describe is not what's being asked for. What the FBI wants is a tool to get into this phone. They will definitely want to get into more phones in the future, but that's not the same as a single tool that gets into any phone. It can be a new one every time. If it wasn't possible to make such a tool, I'd be a lot more outraged. But it is. Tell me why that can't be done.

The thing is, Apple made a phone with a backdoor. It has a backdoor already. Unlocked by apples software signing keys. If Apple wants to continue to do that, but wants to mostly respect their customers' privacy, they need to create a facility to unlock it selectively upon seeing a warrant. It really isn't that hard to do, since they can make firmware updates that only work on specific devices. It can and probably will be argues that this is exactly like wire tapping, where it is up to the telecom to actually demand a warrant before giving the gov access.

It would be neat if the supreme Court would say this is unconstitutional on some ground, because that would seem to apply to other forms of wiretapping. They aren't fundamentally different. I'm sure the first time the gov asked a company to help them install wire taps, it seemed like a big deal.

I think some people are being intellectually dishonest when they say a backdoor can't be created without sacrificing security for everyone else. It can be done such that your privacy on an iPhone is just as good after a backdoor is created as it was before. Which is to say, not perfect because Apple had the key either way. If you want real security use a good passcode and keep it in your head.

All I've seen is people asserting there is a slippery slope, or that a dangerous precedent will be set. It's on you, not me, to make a case. And you completely missed the point, which is that it's possible for smart well informed people to disagree with you. Maybe you should come up with a convincing reason I should fear this FBI request instead of jumping straight to "you must be ignorant".

People always bring up the idea that they didn't have this capability until recently as if that bolsters your position. Since criminals didn't have this capability 15 years ago they couldn't use it to hide criminal activity. How does that make your case? "Regular old police work" has become less effective because it will find less evidence. If criminals are sufficiently on top of their shit, they can be very hard to catch indeed.

I mean, why draw the line here? Bugs and taps were new at one point. Why not say "police used to get things done without these newfangled spy devices, so why should we allow it now?" I would say a bug or tap is actually very invasive, but as long as a warrant is required, it doesn't seem so bad.

Let's not play dumb. If we (me included) get our way and have perfect digital security, it WILL make it harder or impossible for law enforcement to do proper police work. Criminals will be able to do all business and communication with 100% privacy from spying.

Let's debate honestly about what we think is acceptable. I honestly don't know, but I think perfect security is a mathematical inevitability, so I guess I'm more on the side of figuring out how to live with it.

Or, gasp, not every person, even really well informed people, agrees with you. Not everyone sees this as a slippery slope. Not everyone thinks the FBI could later argue this is the same thing as built-in backdoors in software. Maybe we don't even think this is an overreaction to terrorism, bit instead a reasonable way to collect leads for any serious crime. Some people may even make the mental analogy of a small code change to any other simple assistance.

Or everyone who disagrees with you is dumb or a shill. Sounds like real sound reasoning.

> 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.

A condescending attitude won't go far though.

Not everyone will agree with you, even if you use itty bitty words they can understand. I understand the issue, even when explained in grown up words. And I don't agree.

In this case, Apple already was not "keeping good security practices in place" because they made a weak system. If they had actually made a phone that kept good security practices in place, it wouldn't be possible for them to help the FBI.

They should comply with this and then fix their crap. Then you can worry about explaining the importance of fighting any law that would undermine strong security.

Yes, Apple does have a "thing". And the thing is the signing certificates. The fact that some work is involved in using the thing makes no difference. Every demand requires some work. The fact that they're being asked to do thing A instead of thing B to get some outcome seems to be a weird place to draw the line. If it took hundreds of man hours to collect and properly separate out data for a single person to hand over to the FBI as evidence, they would be expected to do it. And they will even be compensated for it.

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.

The master key they have is the ability to sign firmware updates for all phones that could disable security. The point is, it isn't a new master key. If the key was somehow lost, Apple phones would be vulnerable, just like in the dystopian hypotheticals being thrown around here.

That does seem to be the argument. It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to assume this sets any sort of precedent.

And it should be pointed out that point A never existed. Apple's device is not fully secure, or they wouldn't be capable of complying with the FBI.

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.

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.

Which doesn't change regardless of the outcome of this FBI case.

Nothing, but that would be terrible. We WANT Apple to do it because they could ensure the software is device locked.

What Apple should have done is quietly comply and NOT set a precedent. Then quietly make it impossible to comply on later phones. Instead they're making a scene about an issue they probably will and should lose.

You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all!

And to your last point: this software is not secure. That's why we have this backdoor option.

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.

Hmm, that seems untrue. Is this the first case where an agency had to get some assistance from a third party to execute a warrant? Like, getting access to a storage unit, or getting access to documents? In the case of a locked door, don't you think it would be reasonable to require a landlord or such to unlock the door if they could? Especially if the walls were literally impenetrable.

I don't know. It seems like that is the way the law works now. If it's not what we want, maybe that should be the discussion. But this doesn't seem fundamentally different than any other normal search order. Superficially different, sure. Instead of simply unlocking a door, it's more like Apple has the blueprints for how to make a key and they're being asked to do so. Apple is implying (but strangely, not explicitly saying) that they can't do that without harming security for other people. I don't believe it, or they should come out and say that.

And lastly, I think it's splitting hairs to complain that they're being asked to write special software rather than just hand over documents or unlock a door. To a lay person that may seem like an over burden, but for SMEs it should be pretty easy. If it isn't easy, again, that should be what Apple says, but they haven't. Because it's embarrassing for them.

The position Apple should be in, is to say "we cannot comply with this request". That would be great. But they can, pretty easily I would guess, so they're beating around the bush instead.

From a PR perspective, sure. They don't want to look bad. Their reputation should already be damaged though, to anybody paying attention. Because they clearly made a piece of software with a backdoor. I don't put much weight in their letter to customers claiming it's so bad though. It's full of exaggerations and half truths, which to me implies they are trying to save face for something like creating a poorly secured device.

> You're contradicting yourself.

No, you appear to be purposely taking my words out of context.

I said the government should not be trusted with a carte blanch skeleton key to access any phone.

Then you said I'm trusting the government not to get access to Apple's signing keys. Which of course I trust, and which you do too. If the government could get Apple's keys, they could just make their own firmware change, sign it, and install it on any phone they want. They wouldn't need this case.

> No I'm not. The keys will be acquired when necessary, if they haven't already.

Now that is some tin foil hattery. That would be reason for outcry. It's a big leap from where we are now.

If this case sets a precedent in either direction (pro or anti privacy), then the battle is already lost because nobody understands what's going on. This is in no way the same as the government circumventing privacy. If people don't understand that, then they're not going to understand a more principled argument of a company impeding a perfectly legal request to get access to the data on a phone.

Is your problem that you don't like the ability of the government to get and execute a search warrant against a person? You don't think they should be able to? If they can search your property, and they can demand for example that your landlord grant physical access, then I see no problem with this request. The responsibility is Apple's to make it so the phone can't be unlocked by Apple.

Yes they can. And that's how it should be in my opinion. Every time a company is demanded to hand over documents or information about an investigation, that is what happened. A company was ordered to do involuntary work. And it's fine as long as we make sure to keep the warrants in check and not rubber stamped.

Drawing the line at software is arbitrary and does a disservice. It's that same narrow minded view of software (as being somehow different than the physical world) that leads to idiotic things like treating email inboxes different than physical inboxes.

I don't know what you mean... but it's pseudocode for what the FBI asked Apple to do. It's a backdoor that only applies to a single device. Since it must by signed by Apple, it can't itself be backdoored by the FBI or a hacker or anyone else without Apple's consent.

Edit: oh, I see what you mean. The single =. But it's pseudocode. That happens to look a lot like Javascript with a bug :)