Apple and the Feds

[CheckMyPecs]

So we got a "happy" ending. Apple showed its customers how cool it is by not giving in to the Feds' demands, while the US spooks managed to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone anyway thanks to an anonymous tip-off.

What a lucky coincidence, huh? Someone more cynical than I might think Apple agreed to secretly tell the Feds what they needed to know in exchange for them going through all this pantomime to make Apple look good.

 

[frenchfry]

So we got a "happy" ending. Apple showed its customers how cool it is by not giving in to the Feds' demands, while the US spooks managed to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone anyway thanks to an anonymous tip-off.

What a lucky coincidence, huh? Someone more cynical than I might think Apple agreed to secretly tell the Feds what they needed to know in exchange for them going through all this pantomime to make Apple look good.

EXACTLY what my immediate reaction was when I heard this.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

"Anonymous".

You don't think this was some secret super hacker, who is willing to work with the feds? And this same individual is not a concern at all about dealing with nonferrous individuals or groups to do the same thing?

 

[gregod]

what i don't understand is why this was a case in the first place.

from the news reports, the FBI could have asked the NSA to open the phone, but wanted to force apple to do it for some reason.

what am i missing?

 

[gooner]

Re:

what i don't understand is why this was a case in the first place.

from the news reports, the FBI could have asked the NSA to open the phone, but wanted to force apple to do it for some reason.

what am i missing?

Yup.

Snowden a couple of weeks back called the whole thing a stunt by the Feds. They could always have done this.

 

[Amsterhammer]

The Israeli mobile forensics firm Cellebrite helped the FBI hack into the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, NBC reports, citing industry sources.

The firm has been rumored to be behind the FBI’s newfound ability to access the device, thanks to a previous and unconfirmed report from an Israeli newspaper.

Neither Cellebrite nor the Department of Justice has confirmed the reports.

The FBI has routinely contracted Cellebrite over the last five years. The company, which publicly boasts of its ability to hack into Apple devices, has received over $2 million in purchase orders from the agency since 2012.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/274619-israeli-firm-behind-iphone-hack-report

 

[python]

Re: Re:

what i don't understand is why this was a case in the first place.

from the news reports, the FBI could have asked the NSA to open the phone, but wanted to force apple to do it for some reason.

what am i missing?

Yup.

Snowden a couple of weeks back called the whole thing a stunt by the Feds. They could always have done this.

picking a 4-digit pass code,which is what apple uses in its iphone 5s model owned by the perp - as in most common combination locks - is easy.

with the proper software it is perhaps a matter of few seconds for any professional security firm, much less the fbi or nsa. the key problem for fbi is different.

as was already reported both in the technical and popular publications, if the perp decided to use the phone option that erases ALL data after 10 failed pass codes, there is very little the fbi could do with or without the nsa.

...with or without the israeli consultants (the cover story i don't buy)...with or without the omnipotent allah help.

10 strikes and you are out. clearly a 'brute force' technique (or a computer-aided pass-code hacking even if sophisticated) would require more than 10 attempts.

either the fbi got a 'wink-wink' apple help or they along with other american intelligence agencies succeeded in breaking apple's encryption keys used in encoding everything inside apple devices. a huge project but doable for a resource rich entity like the fbi.

a disclamer. i am no it pro. just a lover of computer gadgets and own both the apple and google devices just b/c it is fun to play with.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

I'm looking forward to hear some Apple fanboy gushing about how awesome they are because they protected users' data.

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

So we got a "happy" ending. Apple showed its customers how cool it is by not giving in to the Feds' demands, while the US spooks managed to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone anyway thanks to an anonymous tip-off.

What a lucky coincidence, huh? Someone more cynical than I might think Apple agreed to secretly tell the Feds what they needed to know in exchange for them going through all this pantomime to make Apple look good.

I'm writing this from my Android phone, but you should feel ashamed of your ignorant rant.
I'm going to buy an iPhone.

The suspect's iPhone is a model 5c. The 5c is the latest iPhone with a 32bit CPU, that lacks many of the new features found on newer iPhone's Systems on a Chip.

Newer SoC have secure enclaves built in the hardware that once encrypted (as they are by default) with a firmware password, mean that iPhones after the 5s are impossible to hack. This is only true for iPhones with their Apple designed chips. Android phones are completely irrelevant on the high end these days (as shown for Samsung Mobile's latest earnings where profits dropped to levels pre-smartphones and average selling prices to bellow 200 dollars, and all other OEMs lost money) and no one gives a *** about their security.

Apple's superior encryption implementation also means that there isn't a performance penalty, and as consequence the performance of their NVMe memory solution is 2x over as fast as the fastest solution found on Android land, the UFS2.0 on the s7.

Since you also have no clue about law and jurisdiction, let me help you.

What the FBI wanted was to set a precedent. Apple is always forced to give the information that they have access to. However, if an user choses to keep passwords on their enclaves, they never leave the device, and Apple doesn't have access to them and can't help the feds.

So, why don't all users use the enclave and use iCloud? Because if you lose the password the phone is bricked. With iCloud Apple can send it to your email account. Apple already gave the FBI the iCloud info that they had. But the feds wanted to set a precedent, because on all iPhones after the 5s the info is truly encrypted and the keys are stored on the SoC. Apple doesn't have access to the keys.

The name of the Israelian company that decrypted the 5c is well known, but there are methods everywhere to do it and the NSA could've helped as well. They probably decrypted the 5c on the first day.

However, newer iPhones are different, and without a precedent, no one can build a case against Apple. And this is great. Apple is also moving to take their iCloud data from Google/Amazon/Azure's infrastructure and built their own, because that way they can encrypt the whole thing and you don't even have to store it on the device.

Even of you are too lazy to properly inform yourself about the situation, you should have the notion that all other countries were watching this. If the FBI had their way, China and every other country would be next in line.

This was never about the suspect or a particular iPhone this is about setting a precedent against Apple and to force them to create a backdoor to iOS, since the newer hardware is not hackable.

Imagine this. The most corrupt government in the world with imperialistic ideals thinking that they have the right to snoop on all users around the world. What a bunch of ***. Imagine the reaction of other countries.

It's unfortunately that people like you chose the ignorant way to voice your opinion.

But it is even worse that there despite the majority of the involved against apple toying with the ignorance of the population (think about the children!) some of them are legitimate clueless retards, as well.

What a *** up country, the US has become.

I hope someday great companies like Apple and Google move the *** out of there... After all, Apple had the writing support from all major tech companies, even if some of their rivals (like google) were a bit obtuse and slow in voicing their opinion. It's unfortunate that you are blinded by irrational fanboyism.

At least inform yourself first.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

The name of the Israelian company that decrypted the 5c is well known, but there are methods everywhere to do it and the NSA could've helped as well. They probably decrypted the 5c on the first day.

Ah, yes. Two weeks ago we were being told no-one could access the data without Apple, and now we're supposed to believe every man and his dog can it.

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

The name of the Israelian company that decrypted the 5c is well known, but there are methods everywhere to do it and the NSA could've helped as well. They probably decrypted the 5c on the first day.

Ah, yes. Two weeks ago we were being told no-one could access the data without Apple, and now we're supposed to believe every man and his dog can it.

You don't have to believe anything. You can inform yourself. Since day one it was know that Apple provided the data that they had access to.

It also came to light that the feds purposely locked the phone, by "mistake", they said. Since the 5c and earlier don't have secure enclaves that will "destruct" themselves if someone is brute forcing a combo, everybody knew that it was possible to unlock the phone.

It was almost as easy as unlocking any new Android or Windows Phone device.

But the feds just wanted to set a precedent. That way they could a) force Apple to build a backdoor just for them b) force Apple to take any phone to their labs and use as many engineers as necessary in order to comply.

Unfortunately for the Feds, even on a *** up country as the USA, it doesn't work quite like that.

Anyway, your ignorance-fueled opinions are irrelevant for the subject, and you were quickly to ignore most of my post to try to pass a sad message. No matter who your cheer, all of the other tech companies sided with Apple and are now riding on Apple's slipstream.

2 weeks ago you didn't know how to properly read, then. Since day one it was known that the Feds could've had anything they wanted and since they 1 Apple followed the law.

If the same thing happens with an iPhone 6s, Apple is also following the law by saying "i can't help you".

Being ignorant about these matters and riding the Apple hipster hate bandwagon of "Apple tax" and always trying to bury the only company that is actively doing something to protect your privacy only makes you look bad. You should be ashamed of having access to all certified and justified info at the tips of your fingers and still write *** like that.

 

[jmdirt]

While I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Apple making a deal with the feds to secretly unlock the phone while telling the world that they won't, I also can't imagine that there aren't at least a dozen or so people who can unlock an iphone

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

...Since you also have no clue about law and jurisdiction, let me help you.

Your posts are unquestionably informative, but you don't need to be condescending about it. This is a public message board populated by cyclists, it's not a court of law going over technology dissertations.

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

...Since you also have no clue about law and jurisdiction, let me help you.

Your posts are unquestionably informative, but you don't need to be condescending about it. This is a public message board populated by cyclists, it's not a court of law going over technology dissertations.

If someone brings up a biased and even insulting opinion about a subject that he is ignorant about, doesn't that give me the right to be condescending?

Some ignorant "nerd wannabes" without an ounce of proper technical background and knowledge about the matter think that it is hip to hate on the most successful public traded company of all time, just because why not,even when said company is the only one willing to go against the most dirty 1st world country on the planet and protect user data.

It pisses me off when someone has the opportunity to learn but choses to say BS and keep being ignorant.

He's clearly one of those anti Apple guys, because he thinks that he knows what a core and a megahertz are. He also thinks he is a hacker because he rooted his Android device to install adaway and xposed, so he put greenify in there as well to have a tolerable experience. Hell, he might even change roms! Oh, the talent.

Anyway, being an anti-apple ignorant nerd-wannabe is ok, the world just ignores it, but being obtuse on such an important matter due to his fanboyism screens of instability.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Being ignorant about these matters and riding the Apple hipster hate bandwagon of "Apple tax" and always trying to bury the only company that is actively doing something to protect your privacy only makes you look bad. You should be ashamed of having access to all certified and justified info at the tips of your fingers and still write **** like that.

The PR exercise clearly worked.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

If someone brings up a biased and even insulting opinion about a subject that he is ignorant about, doesn't that give me the right to be condescending?

No, and here's why.

First, two wrongs don't make a right.

Next, I viewed his post as being opinion, laced with skepticism. Insulting? To whom? Those who are knowledgeable about the issue? If this were the case every third post in the politics threads, or most of them in the Clinic would end up in huge insult and counter insult wars resulting in multiple suspensions and bans. Remember, I'm a cyclist on a message board. I'm not a tech wizard looking for absolute clarity about a legal matter involving technology. Most of us are like this. Here to banter, talk, have fun.

You can definitely state your opinion, and that you strongly disagree, and state that you have a solid background on the issue. But you don't need to do so at anyone else expense. That solves nothing, doesn't educate anyone, and time after time on this, and other message boards has shown to have the opposite effect in that it merely agitates the situation.

 

[blutto]

If someone brings up a biased and even insulting opinion about a subject that he is ignorant about, doesn't that give me the right to be condescending?

No, and here's why.

First, two wrongs don't make a right.

Next, I viewed his post as being opinion, laced with skepticism. Insulting? To whom? Those who are knowledgeable about the issue? If this were the case every third post in the politics threads, or most of them in the Clinic would end up in huge insult and counter insult wars resulting in multiple suspensions and bans. Remember, I'm a cyclist on a message board. I'm not a tech wizard looking for absolute clarity about a legal matter involving technology. Most of us are like this. Here to banter, talk, have fun.

You can definitely state your opinion, and that you strongly disagree, and state that you have a solid background on the issue. But you don't need to do so at anyone else expense. That solves nothing, doesn't educate anyone, and time after time on this, and other message boards has shown to have the opposite effect in that it merely agitates the situation.

...oh gawd, that was so reasonable and adult and correct....gee sometimes I don't think you belong here ....

...on sober second thought I think that was a pretty darn fine post....youse know it actually is nice to have responsible adults in the mix here....so there !... .

Cheers

 

[pedromiguelmartins]

If someone brings up a biased and even insulting opinion about a subject that he is ignorant about, doesn't that give me the right to be condescending?

No, and here's why.

First, two wrongs don't make a right.

Next, I viewed his post as being opinion, laced with skepticism. Insulting? To whom? Those who are knowledgeable about the issue? If this were the case every third post in the politics threads, or most of them in the Clinic would end up in huge insult and counter insult wars resulting in multiple suspensions and bans. Remember, I'm a cyclist on a message board. I'm not a tech wizard looking for absolute clarity about a legal matter involving technology. Most of us are like this. Here to banter, talk, have fun.

You can definitely state your opinion, and that you strongly disagree, and state that you have a solid background on the issue. But you don't need to do so at anyone else expense. That solves nothing, doesn't educate anyone, and time after time on this, and other message boards has shown to have the opposite effect in that it merely agitates the situation.

Well, I think that he offended everybody that was even remotely informed about the matter when he said this:
"I'm looking forward to hear some Apple fanboy gushing about how awesome they are because they protected users' data. "

Having said that, you are correct and my answer wasn't mature enough and wasn't going to accomplish anything. I will ignore this thread and I apologize for trying to prove something at the expense of someone else.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Maxiton]

If someone brings up a biased and even insulting opinion about a subject that he is ignorant about, doesn't that give me the right to be condescending?

No, and here's why.

First, two wrongs don't make a right.

Next, I viewed his post as being opinion, laced with skepticism. Insulting? To whom? Those who are knowledgeable about the issue? If this were the case every third post in the politics threads, or most of them in the Clinic would end up in huge insult and counter insult wars resulting in multiple suspensions and bans. Remember, I'm a cyclist on a message board. I'm not a tech wizard looking for absolute clarity about a legal matter involving technology. Most of us are like this. Here to banter, talk, have fun.

You can definitely state your opinion, and that you strongly disagree, and state that you have a solid background on the issue. But you don't need to do so at anyone else expense. That solves nothing, doesn't educate anyone, and time after time on this, and other message boards has shown to have the opposite effect in that it merely agitates the situation.

Well, I think that he offended everybody that was even remotely informed about the matter when he said this:
"I'm looking forward to hear some Apple fanboy gushing about how awesome they are because they protected users' data. "

Having said that, you are correct and my answer wasn't mature enough and wasn't going to accomplish anything. I will ignore this thread and I apologize for trying to prove something at the expense of someone else.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

CheckMyPecs is right to be skeptical. There are more issues in the mix than merely technical ones, and plenty of reason for an informed person to be skeptical (including certain technical matters).

The thing about being arrogant and condescending about what you know, or think you know, is that, just as in cycling where no matter how fast you are there is always someone who is faster, in discussion there is always someone who is better informed and more thoughtful. So it is good that you've shown some contrition.

 

[gregod]

After doing some digging, as I understand it, the FBI are really the nefarious actors in this case.

The FBI could have gotten all of the data from the phone from the NSA. The advantage of asking the NSA for help is that the FBI would have gotten all of the data, including deleted data, that was transmitted to and from the phone. All of it would have been encrypted, but the NSA supercomputers could have handled that in far less time than it has taken to litigate. The disadvantage is it would be de facto admitting that the NSA are vacuuming up all data traffic in spite of court rulings to stop. However, the NSA don't seem to have a problem with this, so the FBI should not be concern trolling about it. Also, given a precedent setting court ruling creating an FBI back door, in future it would give the FBI a small speed advantage over the NSA route. One indication that the FBI is not acting in good faith is that neither of these reasons are the ones they are making in their legal arguments.

The FBI's motivation appears to be it wants total control of the data from the outset without having to go through inter-agency or legal channels. With the backdoor in place, they could open any phone under exigent circumstances and get a court order granting the opening later. In other words, if actionable intelligence is discovered on a phone opened in such a manner by the FBI, they can get a court order after discovering it due to provisions in the Patriot Act. If nothing is actionable, the unconstitutional invasion of privacy would probably not be legally pursued because whomever's privacy that was invaded would unlikely be in any position to do anything about it.

The FBI's legal reasoning may be sound, but their self-serving reasoning why this wouldn't open the door to abuse of privacy rights is flawed and short-sighted. They disingenuously say they want a one time only opening into one phone. Everyone knows what can be done with one device can be done on all. With the back door in place there is no reason to prevent any other country's police agency from demanding to use it. Furthermore, the back door can and will be abused and exploited by not only by the FBI, but by anybody else who is clever enough to discover it.

 

[jmdirt]

After doing some digging, as I understand it, the FBI are really the nefarious actors in this case.

The FBI could have gotten all of the data from the phone from the NSA. The advantage of asking the NSA for help is that the FBI would have gotten all of the data, including deleted data, that was transmitted to and from the phone. All of it would have been encrypted, but the NSA supercomputers could have handled that in far less time than it has taken to litigate. The disadvantage is it would be de facto admitting that the NSA are vacuuming up all data traffic in spite of court rulings to stop. However, the NSA don't seem to have a problem with this, so the FBI should not be concern trolling about it. Also, given a precedent setting court ruling creating an FBI back door, in future it would give the FBI a small speed advantage over the NSA route. One indication that the FBI is not acting in good faith is that neither of these reasons are the ones they are making in their legal arguments.

The FBI's motivation appears to be it wants total control of the data from the outset without having to go through inter-agency or legal channels. With the backdoor in place, they could open any phone under exigent circumstances and get a court order granting the opening later. In other words, if actionable intelligence is discovered on a phone opened in such a manner by the FBI, they can get a court order after discovering it due to provisions in the Patriot Act. If nothing is actionable, the unconstitutional invasion of privacy would probably not be legally pursued because whomever's privacy that was invaded would unlikely be in any position to do anything about it.

The FBI's legal reasoning may be sound, but their self-serving reasoning why this wouldn't open the door to abuse of privacy rights is flawed and short-sighted. They disingenuously say they want a one time only opening into one phone. Everyone knows what can be done with one device can be done on all. With the back door in place there is no reason to prevent any other country's police agency from demanding to use it. Furthermore, the back door can and will be abused and exploited by not only by the FBI, but by anybody else who is clever enough to discover it.

My fist thought was, come on Apple this is a terrorist, crack open his phone. Then, as you said, I realized that this would open the gate for who knows what.