US Dept of Justice vs Apple

[badbadboy]

Apple is in the courts now protecting the rights of privacy vs the US DoJ and FBI warrants to "backdoor" an iPhone 5 owned by one of the San Bernadino Terrorists.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/19/doj-files-motion-to-compel-apple-to-comply-with-fbi-order.html

It's interesting to note that many of Apple's key competitors have also supported them vs the US Govt demands for "a" phone to be opened up for analysis by the FBI.

Here is Apple's webpage on privacy

http://www.apple.com/ca/privacy/government-information-requests/

Personally, I can see both points of view about privacy vs the need for public security. If the "backdoor" was enabled for this singular phone and not all phones; I would be agreeable to the one off.

But, this is key because the US Gov have been terrible liars with regards to NSA, Data Mining, large dragnets of everyone's phones, emails and text messages since the Homeland Security Act came into existence. They want Apple's IOS unlocked to view one phone but in essence it's opening Pandora's box for all to become under the scrutiny of Uncle Sam.

Generally speaking the security of tall public should take priority over the rights of a person involved with a terrorist act but my gut tells me this is just another way for the US to mine data on all phones, tablets and get access to iCloud accounts.

 

[thodisipagal]

Apple is in the courts now protecting the rights of privacy vs the US DoJ and FBI warrants to "backdoor" an iPhone 5 owned by one of the San Bernadino Terrorists.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/19/doj-files-motion-to-compel-apple-to-comply-with-fbi-order.html

It's interesting to note that many of Apple's key competitors have also supported them vs the US Govt demands for "a" phone to be opened up for analysis by the FBI.

Here is Apple's webpage on privacy

http://www.apple.com/ca/privacy/government-information-requests/

Personally, I can see both points of view about privacy vs the need for public security. If the "backdoor" was enabled for this singular phone and not all phones; I would be agreeable to the one off.

But, this is key because the US Gov have been terrible liars with regards to NSA, Data Mining, large dragnets of everyone's phones, emails and text messages since the Homeland Security Act came into existence. They want Apple's IOS unlocked to view one phone but in essence it's opening Pandora's box for all to become under the scrutiny of Uncle Sam.

Generally speaking the security of tall public should take priority over the rights of a person involved with a terrorist act but my gut tells me this is just another way for the US to mine data on all phones, tablets and get access to iCloud accounts.

For FBI to try to force Apple to unlock the iPhone, imho, is akin to trying to deny a lawyer the sacred attorney-client privilege, or to force a journalist to identify a secret source. If the government is successful in doing these things in the name of "national security", then we can kiss goodbye to our freedom.

 

[westwoody]

Income Tax was introduced as a temporary measure in response to an emergency- World War One.

How did that work out?

Once LE gets a backdoor they will use it every opportunity they get. The RICO laws were specifically designed to be used against major organised crime like the Mafia, biker gangs, etc. They allowed extreme measures and were soon used by local LEO against high school kids selling pot. A backdoor will be used every time someone gets busted.

Some US police have a device that copies the entire contents of your phone. Some carry it in their car and routinely copy people's phone contents any time they pull someone over. They do not tell you either. Warrantless search and invasion of privacy, but they always say if you have nothing to hide, you will not object.

I know a few cops, personally. Great people, they mean well, but cannot see anything from anyone else's point of view. They lose all sense of right and wrong, the end justifies all means.

 

[ReedRothchild]

As users of cell phones for criminal activity, I would think perbites have good reason to be particularly concerned about the government potentially gaining indiscriminate access to all cell phones. Slippery slope.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

...and if you do i promise not to cum in your mouth...

 

[badbadboy]

What is galling is the FBI wants its own IOS layer over top of any suspect criminal phone. Obviously this is an onerous request on Apple.

More interesting reading:


Here's what Apple says

Apple doesn't currently have access to individuals' iPhone data. Encryption — where algorithms scramble communications into a unique code language used to transmit electronic data — protects photos, music, notes, financial information, locations and health data from hackers. Apple is "deeply committed" to safeguarding customer data, so much so that the company itself doesn't have access to your iPhone's contents. In other words, Apple argues it doesn't keep "keys" to your phone lock.
Apple would have to build a new version of iOS to meet this demand. Apple has complied with subpoenas and search warrants and provided engineers to help the FBI. But this request requires a new type of tool that Apple doesn't already have: a so-called back door.
There's no way to limit that new version to a single phone. Cook makes an argument that if a less-secure version of the iPhone is built, there is no way to guarantee that the government can limit it to just one phone. "Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices," Cook writes. "In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks."
There's no precedent. Apple argues that the law in question — the All Writs Act of 1789 — has not been used for the purpose of forcing a company to turn over customer data. If this case is used as precedent for future actions, it could open floodgates to expanded government oversight over all mobile phone users.
Read MoreOrder to hack iPhone for FBI 'chilling': Tim Cook

 

[meaghanmcleodDELETED]

Some US police have a device that copies the entire contents of your phone. Some carry it in their car and routinely copy people's phone contents any time they pull someone over. They do not tell you either. Warrantless search and invasion of privacy, but they always say if you have nothing to hide, you will not object.

Can they do this to a locked phone? Or just an unlocked phone?

 

[badbadboy]

Can they do this to a locked phone? Or just an unlocked phone?

It has to be unlocked because IOS upgrades can not happen nor can an iTunes Synch occur unless it's unlocked.

If ever asked by LEO to view the contents of a phone it's best one advise them to secure a warrant first. Taking a pristine phone across the border is advisable since they won't let you in if you deny them access to your phone.

 

[Sporting]

https://twitter.com/techvibes/status/701150968461684737
Pandora's iPhone

 

[badbadboy]

of course in this particular case, the government has legal possession of the phone in question and can physically disassemble the phone, remove the data storage device and raw copy the encrypted data off of it for processing on their code-breaking computer systems. They don't actually need IOS at all if accessing the data was what this was really about. As this is supposedly an imminent national security issue, there really is no impediment to allocating the resources required.

What is galling is the FBI wants its own IOS layer over top of any suspect criminal phone. Obviously this is an onerous request on Apple.

More interesting reading:


Here's what Apple says

Apple doesn't currently have access to individuals' iPhone data. Encryption — where algorithms scramble communications into a unique code language used to transmit electronic data — protects photos, music, notes, financial information, locations and health data from hackers. Apple is "deeply committed" to safeguarding customer data, so much so that the company itself doesn't have access to your iPhone's contents. In other words, Apple argues it doesn't keep "keys" to your phone lock.
Apple would have to build a new version of iOS to meet this demand. Apple has complied with subpoenas and search warrants and provided engineers to help the FBI. But this request requires a new type of tool that Apple doesn't already have: a so-called back door.
There's no way to limit that new version to a single phone. Cook makes an argument that if a less-secure version of the iPhone is built, there is no way to guarantee that the government can limit it to just one phone. "Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices," Cook writes. "In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks."
There's no precedent. Apple argues that the law in question — the All Writs Act of 1789 — has not been used for the purpose of forcing a company to turn over customer data. If this case is used as precedent for future actions, it could open floodgates to expanded government oversight over all mobile phone users.
Read MoreOrder to hack iPhone for FBI 'chilling': Tim Cook

If you read my previous post you will see that Apple would in fact need to have a separate IOS just for the terrorists phone to unlock the phone because after 10 attempts the phone would be bricked. It's not a case of physically removing the data portion for analysis by their super computers.

 

[sdw]

Can you explain why this is the case?

I know that what you posted is the story that a government talking head gave for public consumption but that does not automatically make it bear even passing resemblance to reality. I fully understand that a computer (in this case an IPhone) can have a software lock that limits the number of attempts to break the lock and that can wipe specified information if certain conditions are met. But for the software to do this, the computer has to be turned on.

If one cannot get through the software, why not just bypass it by not turning the problem computer on? The memory device survives loss of power and so, in theory it should be possible for it to be removed from the phone, installed in an alternate memory reader and copied bit for bit. I realize that the device is not a hard drive which can have even somewhat damaged disks removed and installed in fresh drive mechanisms and read bit for bit without an operating system. I would think that one should be able to remove the NAND chip (or cut the circuit board leads to it and attach leads from the chip to your reader device) and query it directly if you had a few really smart people and a the kind of technical resources that the American Government can bring to bear on a problem.

Granted, it has been decades since I toyed with circuit building and I was never one for building logic circuits but at its cote it's just electronics. Destructive electronics with just one copy of the phone to experiment with, so be careful. But I don't see there not being a way to read the memory chip without running the operating system. Its basically the same flash ram built into thumb drives.

Because Apple uses hardware encryption of the storage media, the media can only be read on the device that the media was installed in. Here's Apple's guide: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Hardware security features
On mobile devices, speed and power efficiency are critical. Cryptographic operations
are complex and can introduce performance or battery life problems if not designed
and implemented with these priorities in mind.
Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256 crypto engine built into the DMA path
between the flash storage and main system memory, making file encryption highly
efficient.
The device’s unique ID (UID) and a device group ID (GID) are AES 256-bit keys fused
(UID) or compiled (GID) into the application processor and Secure Enclave during
manufacturing. No software or firmware can read them directly; they can see only the
results of encryption or decryption operations performed by dedicated AES engines
implemented in silicon using the UID or GID as a key. Additionally, the Secure Enclave’s
UID and GID can only be used by the AES engine dedicated to the Secure Enclave. The
UIDs are unique to each device and are not recorded by Apple or any of its suppliers.
The GIDs are common to all processors in a class of devices (for example, all devices
using the Apple A8 processor), and are used for non security-critical tasks such as when
delivering system software during installation and restore. Integrating these keys into
the silicon helps prevent them from being tampered with or bypassed, or accessed
outside the AES engine. The UIDs and GIDs are also not available via JTAG or other
debugging interfaces.
The UID allows data to be cryptographically tied to a particular device. For example,
the
key hierarchy protecting the file system includes the UID, so if the memory chips
are physically moved from one device to another, the files are inaccessible. The UID is
not related to any other identifier on the device.

Hardware encryption is not unique to Apple. Some Hard Drives use a hash of the system the Drive is installed in to create the encryption key. The old trick of removing the Drive and reading it on another device simply does not work, because the device that is used to attempt to read the Drive doesn't have the same system hash.

Component builders and System builders have been lead in this direction because it's not only LE that attempts to read your drive. With companies supplying laptops to their employees, it's even more important to use strong encryption. People do lose their laptop, people do have their laptop stolen.

Modern Laptops can "Phone Home" if they are lost or stolen. With some Laptops, stripping the hard drive out means the hard drive can "phone home" if it's installed in another device and the Laptop, even with a new hard drive can also "phone home"
http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/PDFs/lenovo_anti_theft_protection.pdf
http://www.csoonline.com/article/2949852/data-breach/when-stolen-data-can-phone-home.html

If you check the price of a hard drive and the price of a hard drive with hardware encryption, you will find that the more secure option is not that much more expensive.

 

[badbadboy]

It was the article from a tech journalist.

Should you know and I do mean actually know in fact please do share with us.

You assert there are other ways of retaining the information from the cell phone in question. Personally, I don't think you really know but "think" that's how things actually work. The phone is locked and ten unsuccessful attempts to unlock it will brick the phone. Get your own phone out, change the code, input the wrong new code ten times and then get back to us.

If that were the case then merely removing the memory storage and analyzing on some super computer would be easy according to you. Think of all the lost or stolen phones out there that could be easily cracked and why the hell would the US Govt go to these lengths with Apple Corp in Court?

If I am incorrect then it's plain to me you are wasting your time with us on Perb and you should sharing your infinite knowledge about everything at the NSA or wherever.

 

[CanineCowboy]

I find it amusing that people are so upset about the court order compelling Apple to aid the FBI in unlocking an iphone. Generally speaking, people have been freely giving up their privacy since they picked up their first smart phone. Every app, most search engines, and all carriers have been mining your information from your first click.

 

[thodisipagal]

I find it amusing that people are so upset about the court order compelling Apple to aid the FBI in unlocking an iphone. Generally speaking, people have been freely giving up their privacy since they picked up their first smart phone. Every app, most search engines, and all carriers have been mining your information from your first click.

If that is so, why didn't FBI go to the carrier of Syed Rizwan Farook's phone service instead of putting the weight of the government's power on the shoulders of Mr. Cook?

Also, just because a court orders a citizen or a company to comply to government's demands, doesn't mean that the order is legal. The judge may think it is legal, but it has to first pass the interpretation of the law that has the power to make Mr. Cook comply and at the same time meet the citizen's privacy provisions enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, especially: privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information (5th Amendment).

 

[thodisipagal]

I will say it here that I do not know what law the court relied on in ordering Apple to comply with FBI's demands. The Patriot Act?

 

[thodisipagal]

If that is so, why didn't FBI go to the carrier of Syed Rizwan Farook's phone service instead of putting the weight of the government's power on the shoulders of Mr. Cook?

Also, just because a court orders a citizen or a company to comply to government's demands, doesn't mean that the order is legal. The judge may think it is legal, but it has to first pass the interpretation of the law that has the power to make Mr. Cook comply and at the same time meet the citizen's privacy provisions enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, especially: privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information (5th Amendment).

I think Mr. Cook understands this well and I think that's why he says the Congress is the appropriate venue to discuss the issue. Where is the law? What law was used to order Apple to comply with FBI demands? Is the law constitutionally valid?

 

[Tugela]

It was the article from a tech journalist.

Should you know and I do mean actually know in fact please do share with us.

You assert there are other ways of retaining the information from the cell phone in question. Personally, I don't think you really know but "think" that's how things actually work. The phone is locked and ten unsuccessful attempts to unlock it will brick the phone. Get your own phone out, change the code, input the wrong new code ten times and then get back to us.

If that were the case then merely removing the memory storage and analyzing on some super computer would be easy according to you. Think of all the lost or stolen phones out there that could be easily cracked and why the hell would the US Govt go to these lengths with Apple Corp in Court?

If I am incorrect then it's plain to me you are wasting your time with us on Perb and you should sharing your infinite knowledge about everything at the NSA or wherever.

They could get the information directly if they wanted to, but that is expensive and time consuming. Much easier to get Apple to do it.

And in any case, this is not so much about this particular phone, but rather that they want Apple to create a back door, which they could then use on ALL iphones, not just this one. Having a special OS that they could load and get the information they want whenever they want, without having to go to all the trouble of removing the memory and getting it the hard way, is what they are really after.

It is more compelling to say "oh, these are terrorists, and it is in the public interest to fight terrorists, so you HAVE to do it", than to say "we want free access to the phones of anyone we consider to be a general douchebag".

 

[westwoody]

"we want free access to the phones of anyone we consider to be a general douchebag".

Or in the case of Richard Nixon, anyone who is in a different party.

 

[badbadboy]

They could get the information directly if they wanted to, but that is expensive and time consuming. Much easier to get Apple to do it.

And in any case, this is not so much about this particular phone, but rather that they want Apple to create a back door, which they could then use on ALL iphones, not just this one. Having a special OS that they could load and get the information they want whenever they want, without having to go to all the trouble of removing the memory and getting it the hard way, is what they are really after.

It is more compelling to say "oh, these are terrorists, and it is in the public interest to fight terrorists, so you HAVE to do it", than to say "we want free access to the phones of anyone we consider to be a general douchebag".

Like I said in the OP I do not trust them and once Pandora's Box is opened, they can snoop on anyone anywhere whether or not that person fits a profile.

NSA harvested emails via a huge dragnet as exposed by Snowden and Wikileaks. They looked at all incoming cellphone traffic via ATT et al servers at their NOC's.
They looked at all text messages etc etc.

They must think people are stupid if they say they are only interested in One particular phone. Once they have the software in hand it will be the same problem all over again.

I am happy Apple and Tim Cook are making a stand. Its assuring their competitors are supporting their efforts too.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/common-software-could-have-allowed-fbi-to-unlock-shooter-s-iphone-1.2786812

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/profit-or-precedent-what-s-behind-apple-s-feud-with-the-fbi-1.2783823

 

[CanineCowboy]

If that is so, why didn't FBI go to the carrier of Syed Rizwan Farook's phone service instead of putting the weight of the government's power on the shoulders of Mr. Cook?

Also, just because a court orders a citizen or a company to comply to government's demands, doesn't mean that the order is legal. The judge may think it is legal, but it has to first pass the interpretation of the law that has the power to make Mr. Cook comply and at the same time meet the citizen's privacy provisions enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, especially: privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information (5th Amendment).

Thodisipagal, read BBB's last post. Look online at how many requests ATT and Verizon are receiving annually from the Feds for client data information. If they are receiving requests for data, the data is in their possession to give. Reread the terms and conditions of any app and your carrier.

Also your earlier claim that what the FBI is asking is akin to breaking attorney client privilege is crazy - there is no similarity. And the fifth ammendment deals with not being compelled to provide testimony against ones self, it has nothing to do with protecting someone from recorded evidence that implcates them in criminal behaviour.

I also heard someone on CBC's the Current this week talking about how the FBI could probably go it alone in breaking the iphone, but legally it's easier if Apple does it for them and Apple's familiarity with their own product would probably make it faster. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple already had access to the technology requested.