OT: Apple and Privacy vs. National Security

Submitted by StephenRKass on

I haven't generated any posts lately, but there's a current hot topic I'm interested in. I'm curious for info on the privacy vs. national security questions raised in recent days, between the FBI and Apple. Here's the synopsis, if you've been living under a rock. Apparently, the San Bernardino terrorist's Apple i-phone wasn't destroyed, and the FBI wants Apple to help unlock the encryption so they can presumably see a record of calls and stored information, contacts, etc.. And (edit) Tim (not Robert) Cook of Apple is refusing, suggesting that to do this would be to create a "backdoor" giving the government access to every single i-phone out there, and all the content.

I've googled this topic, and read several articles on it, but still am unsure about what to think. Here's what I don't understand. Why can't Apple unlock the phone for the FBI and assist them in getting the data off of the phone? Can't they do this without giving the FBI software that would allow for the creation of a universal backdoor the FBI could use on everyone's phone? From what I've read, the encryption is so good that even Apple can't get in . . . it would have to write new software to be able to get in. And Cook doesn't even want that kind of software written, even if it is in-house at Apple. Is that correct?

My interest is really in what Apple can do to preserve privacy, and at the same time allow for the government to do everything it can towards national security. Is it possible, or do we really have to choose between either privacy, or national security concerns? I want to have my cake and eat it too!

MGoBoard
Recruiting
apple
Privacy
national security

MgoBlueprint

February 18th, 2016 at 7:58 PM ^

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I this public battle is simply for show. The problem with this is the problem that we've seen for years now, the government using this against innocent citizens. It's starts with legislation or a measure to combat an illegal act, but used afterwards to infringe on personal freedom.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/15/2008

MGoPoints: 11576

Danwillhor

February 18th, 2016 at 7:33 PM ^

They could do this in minutes. Regardless, if we pretend they can't I say the crime was committed so Apple should decrypt it themselves and given the info. No need to have the government the key, too. Overall I think that NO CRIME OR THREAT is worth giving up a speck of privacy over. If we have to give up privacy to stop people from killing us, if they are that determined and hate us that much we need to look into why people hate us that much. Muslims didn't suddenly decide to hate America and the reason isn't "hating our freedom" and other such childish BS. After 9-11, Bin Laden gave clear and listed reasons for doing what he did and zero involved hating our freedom. You don't go from friends to mortal enemies on a whim. We need to realize we aren't the world police and over a billion people kinda care when we build military bases on holy land, give nukes to Isreal but refuse other regional nations the right, etc. I'm for evaluating WHY people want to kill us above not evaluating/giving a shit and losing privacy in am effort to kinda curb the attacks of people that hate us so much they're happy to die if it kills some of us.

Joined: 12/02/2008

MGoPoints: 8608

s1105615

February 18th, 2016 at 7:46 PM ^

Haven't ready all the comments so I hope I'm not the first to say, why does a dead terrorist or any other criminal deserve privacy? Why would Apple unlocking the phone (which I think everyone knows they could so what difference to privacy proponents does it make if a private corporation or the government can see all of our dirty little secrets? Aren't both scenarios equally bad? I digress...) create a precedent to anything other than unlocking phones of other dead terrorists/criminals? Why do people take such simple questions and blow them out of proportion just to make a political stand? Seems like this should have been a non issue.

Joined: 03/01/2014

MGoPoints: 8605

Sports

February 19th, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^

Not really...they're essentially telling innocent citizens that they do have their back. We all want our data encrypted. I don't want my identity stolen, I don't want people to see the bank accounts I access from my phone or my conversations with my girlfriend. If Apple created this patch, it would get out and the entire encryption system would be compromised. Do you do online banking or check balances on your phone? Now there's no encryption and people can break in. Have you ever pulled up a patient portal with your doctor to view test results? Now your medical history is up for grabs. That's why Apple doesn't want to do this. If they create this patch and it gets out, they're ruined. A whole bunch of people will get absolutely fucked and there will be nothing Apple can do because the government forced them to fuck over everyone with a smartphone (this will ultimately serve as a precedent that will screw android users too). Goodbye to your privacy.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 04/23/2014

MGoPoints: 5469

s1105615

February 24th, 2016 at 9:56 AM ^

But my point is, if Apple can (and i have no doubt that they can) unlock any iphone to find out whatever they want in order to sell information about their customers, and I'm sure that this is common practice, this is not materially different than allowing the government access to data on these phones for law enforcement and national security reasons.  I have never read the user agreement that pops up every time i get a new software update from Apple, but I'm willing to bet Apple asserts it's right to mine the phone for data it can sell any time it wants.  I agree that Apple cannot and should not give the government the keys, but they should be willing to take the phone and give the data to the government in these types of cases.  This entire argument is completely moot since any information is probably completely useless at this point, but when we find a phone on a dead terrorist, I would think people would want to find a way to help the government, not find excuses to roadblock them.  I gave you an upvote because I don't think we differ that greatly in opinion here, just a nuanced position.

Joined: 03/01/2014

MGoPoints: 8605

misterpage

February 18th, 2016 at 7:48 PM ^

Isn't there a way to unlock just this one phone? Why would this automatically give the FBI access to everyone's iPhone?

I'm under the impression the government probably has us all bugged already anyway. They absolutely know where we are all the time anyway by the fact that our phones track that.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/10/2012

MGoPoints: 2466

BlueInWisconsin

February 18th, 2016 at 7:57 PM ^

I'd prefer if Apple would direct some if this energy into making iTunes not the worst piece of garbage software ever written. And while they're at it, try designing some headphones that down fall out of your ear in a gentle breeze. Then we might be getting somewhere.

As to the topic, there are privacy concerns but on the other side a lot of technology giants are enabling terrorists. There can't be carte blanche.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 03/27/2009

MGoPoints: 4553

phork

February 18th, 2016 at 8:15 PM ^

My position is that if its my device then piss off.  If its a corporate or gov phone then it should have a corp or govt unlock on it.  Personal devices should be untouchable.

Frankly I don't believe Apple when they say they don't have access to your phone.  I believe they are  putting up a front.  This story will die because the info is already extracted.

And all these people who say "I have nothing to hide so go nuts" are missing the point.  The government is an agency that can lock you up in a room and then throw away the room (upvotes to those who get the reference).  

Joined: 11/01/2009

MGoPoints: 4486

Darker Blue

February 18th, 2016 at 8:29 PM ^

Fuck all this shit

fuck apple

Fuck the United States Government 

We live in a world that is run by fear. Everything is supposed to make us afraid, and in our fear we're supposed to rely on our ultra trustworthy government for protection. 

I'm going to guess that aproxemetely 98.5% of the world doesn't want to commit terrrorist acts, doesn't want to murder anybody, but we pay all the attention to some "Terrorists" that want to hurt people. 

Its absurd. We could change the world if we focused on making everything better. 

But instead we'll worry about whether apple is going ot allow back door encryption into apple phones....

Joined: 10/30/2011

MGoPoints: 80495

Darker Blue

February 18th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^

You can have conflicting interests without wanting to burn the world.

Because we've spent the last five thousand years killing or enslaving anything that we don't agree with,  we all think it's normal to behave this way (and maybe it is normal now).

We can make the world a better place. It's possible. We can help one another, drop food not bombs, all that happy horseshit. 

But we have to be the ones to initiate the change. 

 

Joined: 10/30/2011

MGoPoints: 80495

Ecky Pting

February 18th, 2016 at 8:37 PM ^

Straightforward obstruction of justice. It's got nothing to do with giving to government back door access to iOS or anything beyond the contents of one phone. No two ways about it. FBI has a court-ordered warrant and the permission of the phone's owner to search it. Apple needs to seek both better counsel and less myopic PR on this.

Joined: 09/06/2013

MGoPoints: 4655

Ecky Pting

February 19th, 2016 at 10:26 AM ^

It really is pretty simple. Law enforcement requires a bank to provide keys in order to open a safe deposit box when a warrant is presented, which establishes probable cause for the search, which is provided for under the 4th Amendment. When the key is made is immaterial. Apple will be facing some DOJ music if they persist.

Joined: 09/06/2013

MGoPoints: 4655

smoph

February 18th, 2016 at 8:38 PM ^

I don't see this as being about THIS phone. If the only implication was THIS phone I don't know if many people would object, but from everything I've read is the FBI was waiting for a seamingly obvious case like this to allow them to set a precedent. The issue is the precedent this sets with what the government can compel private companies to create to allow them to search property. I haven't read every comment but something I didnt see is the implications for Apple in other countries, ie China, and their view is much more global that ours will be. If the US can compel them to break into phones why can't the Chinese or Russian governments compel them do to the same based on their local laws using their definition of terrorism?

Personally I have no issue with them doing THIS phone THIS time but once Pandora's box is open you can't go back and claim that you can't or aren't willing to do it.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 37

sadeto

February 18th, 2016 at 8:52 PM ^

The fact that the Chinese haven't, to our knowledge, cracked down on this version of iOS means that either Apple has compromised its stance in China and isn't revealing that, or the Chinese are confident they will devise a way to crack the code themselves.

Joined: 01/17/2014

MGoPoints: 10469

sadeto

February 18th, 2016 at 9:21 PM ^

As I said in an earlier comment, it's the Federal Bureau of Incompetence. There is a non-zero probability that the NSA can do it but won't share its toys with those idiots. For the Chinese, it's a numbers game, they can mobilize thousands of programmers at a time. Plus they will undoubtedly pressure Chinese working for Apple to share what they know. And they'll just hack and steal.

Joined: 01/17/2014

MGoPoints: 10469

Black Socks

February 18th, 2016 at 9:23 PM ^

If you research San Bernardino it is most likely a CIA / Mossad event. Shooting drills every day at that building for months, nobody heard gunshots, no bodies, and the security cameras didn't work. How convenient. The way people behaved with two dangerous persons on the loose sealed it for me.

Joined: 11/30/2009

MGoPoints: 14362

mgowake

February 18th, 2016 at 9:40 PM ^

This issue is a big deal. This is not the same as wire tapping (to which tech companies have upped their encryption capabilities drastically)

 

There are two angles here. The first is technical. I'm in the field and have a bunch of experience working with enterprise customers who want a similar encryption scheme to what the iphone has. The second is legal. I'm not an expert at this but have researched the issue a bit.

(1)

  • The FBI is asking Apple to help them to either 1) bypass the maximum of 10 incorrect pin code entries before deleting the phone's data, or 2) Provide a way for non-apple firmware to be installed on the phone, which presumably they'd write and enable the same functionality to brute force it. 

If the 10 passcode limit is gone, then all you have to do to unlock the phone is try 10,000 combinations. Nobody wants that capability in the hands of bad guys.

From Ars: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-k…

The encryption used by the iPhone to protect its storage is a multi-tiered system. At its core are two keys, one embedded in the hardware and the second derived from the PIN. The hardware key is used to generate a file system key that is in turn used to encrypt the file system metadata. That metadata includes an encryption key for each individual file. That per-file key is encrypted using (indirectly) an encryption key that is derived from a combination of the hardware key and the PIN key. As such, without the PIN key, it's impossible to decrypt those per-file keys and hence impossible to decrypt files stored on the iPhone.

This way even if apple owned or possessed the device (see legal section) apple cannot actually comply with a request to produce data. There are a bunch of cloud vendors who offer this kind of service to banking customers, etc. As a consumer, you absolutely want this.

 

(2)

  • The second issue is legal. Essentially the Government is relying on a law from 1789 called the All Writs Act. This law essentially is a catch all requiring people or businesses to assist the government in their investigations. 

 

The entire text of the law is this:

"(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/how-apple-will-fight-the-doj…

The government is citing a 1977 supreme court case:

"In the present San Bernardino case, US Attorney Eileen Decker specifically cited New YorkTelephone's "three factor" test. Those factors include the company’s distance, or "remove" from the case; whether the government’s request places an "undue burden" on Apple; and whether the company’s assistance was "necessary.""

Apple, and others probably would use the same argument against these three factors.

Even if the All Writs Act applies, it still cannot be used to accomplish the result that the government seeks. Apple does not possess or control the device. Rather, the government seeks to force Apple to take receipt of a device in the government’s custody and provide what are essentially expert forensic services for the government by bypassing the security on that device to extract data belonging to the device’s owner. This commandeering of Apple personnel and resources to do the government’s investigative work is materially different from asking a communication service provider to access or provide data on its network or in its possession.

Absent clear legal authority, Apple should not be compelled to act as the government’s ‘forensic agent’ to disable security measures Apple built for the benefit of its customers. Should this Court conclude that the All Writs Act does not provide such clear authority, then the Court should err on the side of caution and deny the government’s request.

Apple also will likely cite this dissent in the 1977 supreme court case:

 

The money quote: 

The use of that writ by the judges appointed by King George III was one British practice that the Revolution was specifically intended to terminate.

 

 

Joined: 11/23/2009

MGoPoints: 1062