Pleased the FBI and the rule of law won

[leehljp]

For a long time I have been on the fence with this subject. Still am.
I am for what needs to be done for national security against terrorism.
At the same time, I have a strong feeling this is an issue that specifically opens the door for the big brother aspect and open my home to hacker invasion and even tracking of kids, beyond big brother.


Then there is the CELEA law: “twenty years ago, Congress passed a statute, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) that does not allow the government to tell manufacturers how to design or configure a phone or software used by that phone — including security software used by that phone,”


The FBI already knew about the CALEA law and their inability to make Apple do this. There are some who say this law does not refer to the current Apple/FBI case as it has enough differentiation to not apply.


It is my opinion that the security issue should be left to congress - who would probably mess it up even more . “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. With Ben F stating this back then, it is easy to see that the whole purpose of laws then was individuals rights, freedom and the protection thereof. This was from the perspective of being against repressive kings/oversight.




Most of us will emember the Emron/ Inron (sp? I was in Japan at the time) event in which a couple of guys were recorded making fun of a grandmother’s electric rates going through the roof and not being able to afford electricity anymore. Jerks like this are in every profession - ministry, politics, business, local government too. Remember the guy that bought the pharmaceutical company and immediately raised the price of one medical drug 1000 times more and was arrogant about it?


Well these kind of people (jerks) exist in every profession, tech world and government security too.


This is to say that your data is not safe. With smart phones and pay by phones, and credit card info ON many phones (and I saw people paying by phone swipe back in 2004/5 in Japan) the ability to readily hack a phone will change the dynamic to the point of dumbing down the phone and going backwards on technology. With phones linked to our computers for database and notes, suddenly we have insecure computers. They already have the ability to use our TV and computer mounted cameras. Apple is aware of this and are doing all they can to prevent this.


For many here who are tech minded - we accept that security is a must, and as tech minded people, know how to use security software. I watch all the time - people who have no clue, even when trained, on how to protect their computers and still know how to use them with such tight security (when to turn security off for the ability to print etc). The result is that tech minded people have become numb to security issues for the common man. It is a fact of life. Google, and even MS in some ways, have used back doors for tracking and invading for commercial purposes and gains. The government wants it for security purposes. Tech guys generally know how to circumvent much of this, but more and more, I am seeing tech guys not really care.


When back doors are there for this information, ALL information is at risk.


Back doors become known quickly in the criminal world. Jerks will not keep their cyber-mouths shut. Shucks, Government can’t keep their own security safe.


Suddenly, there is no security. Our children are at serious risk with tracking. You have money or power? Your kids will be tracked with ease, if they carry a phone. We are but a very few years from this at the best.


It doesn’t stop there.


Then there is the issue of consistency. The US Supreme court up-holds decisions in which a company or individual acts consistent with their beliefs or actions, but reject decisions when there is inconsistency. (And specifics to this are out there.) The FBI case was far more about winning a legal precedent - than opening the phone. A “promise” to limit their investigation to this phone alone and future specific cases alone was Not forthcoming. Open it once, and the supreme court will side for more (consistency). There were nearly a dozen or more State cases behind the FBI case, just waiting for the FBI to win theirs. IN other words - building in a back door would be governmentally required, and then open for every sheriff and police to subpoena Apple or Samsung or whoever, including divorce cases and doctor’s appointment discussions.


At this point, Katy bar the door to security and your computer from every competent hacker out there.


IF there was a way to absolutely guarantee that this would not become common place, I would be for Apple helping.


It is complicated. I doubt today’s Congress could settle it, even though I believe that is where it should be written - unless they consider the CELEA law to be just that.


I ask any comments to be on issues of freedom/security as much as possible and not be political one side or the other. If you feel that any part I wrote is more political than the freedom/security issue, please PM me and I will erase/change that portion. I am still on the fence. This is for smarter folks than me.

[Black wallnut]

You'd been quiet. Just making sure you were still there

Thanks for the poke

[JimD]

Companies have to expend effort to comply with court orders all the time. Law enforcement can get your credit card history, and your checking account history and your electric bill history if they can convince a judge. That information doesn't materialize without effort of the companies that have the information. With things computerized it probably isn't a huge effort but there were predictions by people in the industry that Apple's effort would not have been huge either. I just don't see it as that different. I don't want law enforcement snooping around in any of this information on me but if they do, they will be wasting their time.

I also admit there are two sides of all of these sort of issues. I just think Apple used this controversy to try and enhance the marketability of their product. I'm trying to infer their motive and that is always tricky but their multiple efforts to engage "public opinion" just seem more like free marketing to me. But maybe I'm wrong.

[leehljp]

"Community" is usually a compromise between individual's rights and community's rights, and with government it is the security of the people. What compromise and cost is acceptable to whom for what results?

Difficult!


I didn't see apple going for the headlines as much as the government covering for the psuedo-nerd who messed up the phone to begin with. Apple has long been known for their "walled" software, closed systems and anti-tracking. Their philosophy was as much a reaction against the Google "open" as it was against Google tracking Apple's users and making money off of that - going back years. This is more of a result of anti-google and hack prevention from hackers than it was government. Apple offered to help at the beginning before the nerd messed it up. Beyond that, they said no.

Of course we all know that Google's whole android software is and has been free to all - MS, Samsung, HTC, anyone who wanted it - so that Google could make money off of ad tracking and other - that was built into the android software. This is where Google made their money. Give the OS away and make the money tracking the user. This infuriated Steve Jobs. Even after an agreement 5 or 6 years ago, Google hid tracking in Apple's safari that they (Google) said they would not do. It was discovered by accident in England. It was at this point that Apple started developing encryption and anti hacking sandboxes, etc.

Again, Apple has been going down the path for a long time for security purposes. Passwords, sandboxes, strong suggestion for two part password protection (which I don't use, or others who often get hacked.) All of this was in place long before this crisis.

I think that the reason most people do not see it that way is because they assume the world is the way that they see it. Here is an example:
95% of Apple iPhones require some level of password / encryption security. You have to manually turn it off or deny it if you don't. Many/most apple iphone users assume all modern day phone OS's are encrypted to some level.
2% of Android require some level of password / encryption security. I am not sure what Android users think of security needs.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/...encrypt-yours/

If people are not into security, it would seem to them that Apple is playing on that for headlines. But the fact is, it is not true. This has been an ongoing philosophy with them. They didn't just develop this overnight, but have been working on this for several years, before SJ died.

[gerti]

Why is this thread still here? The title alone is offensive. Anyone saying Apple is just in it for the profits doesn't know the company well at all. This is a deeply complex issue, and unavoidably political.

[woodturner]

The FBI already knew about the CALEA law and their inability to make Apple do this. There are some who say this law does not refer to the current Apple/FBI case as it has enough differentiation to not apply.

The issue is primarily regarding which agencies have access to the information and the "back doors". The laws prohibiting use of any "unbreakable" encryption, requiring "backdoors" in all products, and requiring those "master keys" to be provided specify particular agencies to receive them - and the FBI is not on that list. Companies like Apple don't want the FBI to have access to that and also don't want the public to know those "back doors" are already present.

I think the issue is that some people expect phones, the internet, etc. to provide some level of privacy or security, while the tech oriented people realize there is no privacy or security on a phone, computer, or internet and that it is not possible to provide that privacy or security. We have essentially stopped caring because the information cannot be protected on internet connected devices, so we use safer methods such as using non-networked PCs for sensitive information.

[capncarl]

Having just recently left a gov job I believe I can say with a good level of certainty that we shouldn't heap much trust in the gov or fbi. It is just a job, no matter how serious they are about it, they are civil service and jump jobs like a kid on a pogo stick. A carier changing move for them is nothing. They have no horse in the race if they did loose apples encryption.

[Black wallnut]

Gerti,
Thank you for your input, we do value it. The staff has discussed this thread and have agreed that it is a borderline thread. As long as it remains civil we will not moderate it. If you think it is too political please just ignore it.

[vaking]

This thread is actually less political than it appears. This really is not about apple vs FBI, it has a much broader scope.
In US we are discussing case of FBI vs apple, in Europe there is a similar debate and it is even more fun to watch. Governments of England and France are trying to pass laws requiring phone manufacturers to create backdoors to phones for governments, effectively they agree with FBI but take it further, they try to make new laws for it. At the same time Governments of Germany and Holland are strongly opposed to such laws, they are on the apple side. So in Europe even governments are in disagreements.
Apple is a technology company and its products are sold everywhere. There are I-phones being sold in US, in Europe, in Russia, middle East, everywhere. If apple has an obligation to create a backdoor for FBI to help fight terrorism, apple also has same responsibility to help Scotland Yard in England, Belgium police, KGB/FSB in Russia, etc. All those agencies are fighting terrorism in their countries and there I-phones in all those countries. Apple is not in a position to chose which governments to trust and which not. If apple creates a tool to extract data from the phone like FBI wants, apple will have to give this tool not just to FBI but to every government that says it needs it. I think you will agree that trusting FBI is not the same as trusting Putin or Bashar Assad but if apple makes such tool - they will all get it.
Further more - many of those governments have corruption. If such piece of software is given to so many governments with weak security - it will not take long before this software gets leaked out somewhere and will find its way into a black market. Software is easier to make a copy than a nuclear warhead and even warheads find their way to black market. All this means that if apple creates such tool - content of all I-phones everywhere can be easily compromised. Today people trust their I-phones with relatively sensitive information. At a minimum - people use apple pay which means people trust their credit cards to I-phones. If phones can be easily compromised - people will stop using apple pay.

[TB Roye]

Something funny came up yesterday After the FBI has or had the phone opened, Apple now want to know how they did it. FBI isn't answering the phone or responding to Email.

[Pappy]

I think the way it could have be done was have the FBI give the phone to Apple and have one employee do the job with one FBI guy standing there watching to prevent and games. That way the government would not have the process only Apple and limited number of people would know how to do it.

Tom

I think that would have been a good approach and was I think it was brought up early on but my understanding was that Apple refused to consider it. Wonder if Apple will bring suit to find out how the govt finally cracked the phone.

[leehljp]

I think that would have been a good approach and was I think it was brought up early on but my understanding was that Apple refused to consider it. Wonder if Apple will bring suit to find out how the govt finally cracked the phone.

You guys are not quite up to Apple's security. First, an FBI nerd went through the process of trying to hack by guessing. Apple designed it like car door locks - on a rotating basis of some sorts. I am sure many of you have known or punched in the wrong password too many times and then have to call the medical office or bank to get a re-set. Well, Apple deliberately designed theirs to do this to prevent unauthorized entrances. Only Apple upped the security in which there phones lock down to the point that they can't do it. It was intentional. I know of several people who lost passwords and don't remember clues that they set, and are just locked out of their phones. Bricked. And the owners are mad about that.

Apple was dead set against people hacking in. You guys know that when someone hacks an Android, that is not news. EVERY Apple hack and malware etc makes national and world news over and over again, just to slam the company. This news sells. Android hacking and malware news does not sell. Apple has been dead serious about this for some time, and they say so in their presentations. Now that the FBI wants in, and it is news, most people assume that Apple refuses to cooperate. They haven't been cooperating with their own customers for 3 years now, for the same reason they don't with the FBI. They give ample warning to write down the code; write down the clues. If you don't, you loose. your phone is bricked. OR get a phone/computer that will let one in, fi they lose the PW. It was designed this way, long before this FBI incident.

Another instance of the same nature - if you damage the fingerprint scanner for operation of the iPhone, and decide that you want to replace it own your own, you will brick the phone. Once it is bricked, it locks itself down. Period. Cannot be un-done. Period. Like the FBI nerd did. Let Apple handle it BEFORE it is locked down, and they can recover it. Let Apple replace the fingerprint scanner and they can re-set it before it is locked down. They (Apple) DID offer to help the FBI on the iCloud aspect - until they (Apple) learned it had been locked down. At this point, Apple can't get in themselves.

You better believe that Apple wants to know how the FBI folks got it so that they can fix it. ;-)

The agencies that have the ability to get into the phone will NOT tell another agency that they can. However, the agencies that cannot, would love to be able to tell everyone that they can.

[JimD]

It seems totally different to me to let law enforcement, with a warrant, access a phone they have in their physical possession versus providing law enforcement the ability to access a phone the do not possess remotely. I am in favor of the former but not the latter. I don't want them accessing my phone while it is in my pocket. But if they have the right to take it from me (under some circumstances I think they can) then I think they should be able to see what is on it. I would punch in the access code or give it to them. I don't have material I need to hide on it. But the dead criminal cannot. Some people would not. So for me the question is whether there should be an absolute right for an individual to with hold information from law enforcement. Regardless of what a judge says. Regardless of what the law says.

I think the law already says that right doesn't exist. Apple tried to create it, in my mind, with their "guess 10 times and that's it" approach to the password. I'm glad the FBI found a way around it. I'd like it if the law was very clear that this isn't a right that companies should be trying to create. I think information on your phone (or computer) should be no different than books in your home safe. The government should need a good reason to compel you to produce the information but if they have that, they should have access.

I do not see a basis for all the hacking and back door talk. To me, that is about the remote access to the phone. That isn't what was requested. I understand that if the government can guess access codes until they "get it" criminals can too. But if they have my phone, I guess I'm willing to take that risk. There isn't information on there that would be worth their effort. I would hate losing the information but somebody looking at it is nothing I loose sleep over.

[leehljp]

I do not see a basis for all the hacking and back door talk. To me, that is about the remote access to the phone. That isn't what was requested. I understand that if the government can guess access codes until they "get it" criminals can too. But if they have my phone, I guess I'm willing to take that risk. There isn't information on there that would be worth their effort. I would hate losing the information but somebody looking at it is nothing I loose sleep over.

JIM,
Hacking and back door can be either "in posession of" or "remote. "Back door" means that you have a way to get in without having to use the code password, either in possession or remotely. Hacking means that you do an educated guess of the password or circumvent the password for the phone that you have in your possession or remotely. The location of the phone is not an issue for which to use the terms.

A friend had a computer that kept crashing when downloading huge files and he lived in Kobe. I lived in Osaka. I did not want to travel 40 miles to Kobe to fix it. I got his password for his ISP email. He jokingly tells everyone that I hacked into his computer. Later, when in his presence, he asked if I could get into his computer that had a password. I took a stab at using his wifes birthday and got in. That is a form of hacking.

As to guessing the access codes and criminals can too - well, Apple knew that several years ago, and that is the primary reason they started down the path to implement this type of shut down. I know you think this is/was done as an anti-government thing, but by your own words, "criminals can too" was the whole point that Apple started this several years ago. Wrong guess by the criminal and they just bricked the phone.

Bear in mind that a great number of iPhone users use their phone for "credit card" purchases as well as other financial transactions. I do all of my check deposits by the iPhone. I have to enter the pass code for the phone; password for the bank; another code. If I miss four times, I am out for 24 hours at the bank. Apple doesn't want criminals getting the info off of stolen phones. It is cheaper for the owner to have the phone bricked than have the criminal to use it once. Apple understands this. It is not about the FBI or NSA or CIA. It was built this way to keep the criminals out. Imagine the cost in a law suit if Apple didn't protect it to such a degree, and then people would have to stop using their phones for swipe payments and transactions. It would be like going back into 2010, or even 2005.

I am glad to know that if I lose my phone, or someone steals it, the thief or finder - ain't getting to my credit cards or bank. I would rather loose $400 over a new phone than have my bank account depleted or CC charged out. If the FBI wants it, then they have to deal with the consequences just like the criminals do. It is not about the FBI or NSA, it is about making your info safe from criminals to the point that even Apple can't get it. Even the FBI understands this. That is why they were about to sue Apple to build into it a "back door."

[TB Roye]

I heard on the Radio this afternoon that it was an Israeli company that got in for the FBI. Now that doesn't surprise me one bit. I think their intelligence capability is better than our, they just don't talk about. I got a good chuckle out Apple asking the FBI how they did it. Some time you get too big for your britches and Karma gets you.

Tom