- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Surprise Surprise - FBI wants Apple to unlock additional phones
Posted on 3/1/16 at 11:49 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/1/16 at 11:49 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I still think that bothers them, but -
it bothers them because its the singular technical limitation preventing them from brute forcing the phone. they know that a user that sets an alphanumeric password has a device thats going to be much harder to brute force but they are banking on the idea that most users are going to go with a 4 digit pin because its easier.
quote:
I don't necessarily disagree with that. The "technical issue" they're worried about it the wipe, not the 128/256 bit encryption, per se. But, the precedent is important as well.
Once Apple says yes, they can never go back and say no again. What would be the basis for saying no, right? "Just the tip."
well, the encryption is not something Apple can crack regardless and neither can they. I think we're saying pretty much the same thing.
0
Posted on 3/1/16 at 12:18 pm to Spirit of Dunson
Those of us with nothing to hid should be okay. Right?
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:11 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Once such a firmware update exists - and the FBI either thinks that Apple is the only company with the knowledge and ability to make such an update - or that to do so themselves (in all likelihood, the NSA would be asked to do it for them in the SB case) would be prohibitively expensive, even if possible - it can't be undone for all existing phones. They are de facto unencrypted once the firmware exists than can be pushed to their phone without their knowledge or consent.
quote:
But, the broader issue here is that they are asking Apple to destroy encryption on every iPhone in existence
I'm aware of all of this, but I have a different stance on the subject. My belief is that this concern is overblown. If such an update can exist that does what the FBI wants, then by default the backdoor to get into the phones already exists as well. If the update cannot be done, then Apple can and should tell the FBI to piss off. However, hiding behind some newfound principle just to cover a backdoor in their encryption is my issue.
Apple should not ship phones with a backdoor designed for access by the FBI or other agencies. That is not what is being asked in this case either. The FBI is asking Apple to do exactly what you stated in your post, and if such an update can be created, then the backdoor is already there and just waiting for someone else to exploit it. I don't really understand why this is so hard for people to understand but the tin foil sect of this website is very strong in this case.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:23 pm to slackster
quote:
I'm aware of all of this, but I have a different stance on the subject. My belief is that this concern is overblown. If such an update can exist that does what the FBI wants, then by default the backdoor to get into the phones already exists as well. If the update cannot be done, then Apple can and should tell the FBI to piss off. However, hiding behind some newfound principle just to cover a backdoor in their encryption is my issue.
Apple should not ship phones with a backdoor designed for access by the FBI or other agencies. That is not what is being asked in this case either. The FBI is asking Apple to do exactly what you stated in your post, and if such an update can be created, then the backdoor is already there and just waiting for someone else to exploit it. I don't really understand why this is so hard for people to understand but the tin foil sect of this website is very strong in this case.
I dont think you understand exactly what's being asked for or how any of this works...
No "backdoor" currently exists. The FBI is asking Apple to write an exploit to their own OS that would bypass an enabled feature, in this case the self destruct feature. That would allow the FBI to attempt to brute force the device, not provide access to some backdoor that's already there.
And the encryption in question is not "their encryption". Encryption is a standard that can be utilized by computing entities to secure data. Apple didnt develop it.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:44 pm to gmrkr5
Does Apple have the ability to bypass those security features or not?
This phone has already been shipped. If Apple can write software that bypasses the protocol then the backdoor already exists, true or false?
Imagine if Boeing could access an airliner and take it down from their headquarters - would you concede that a security flaw exists? Boeing may not ship the planes with that ability just by flipping a switch, but if they could create an update that overtook control from the pilot and dropped the plane out of the sky, wouldn't you want to know?
That is my beef with Apple. Come out and say whether or not you can do it and let's get this security scare behind us. They've touted their security as being so secure they didn't have the ability to hack the phone themselves. It's time to put up or shut up IMO.
This phone has already been shipped. If Apple can write software that bypasses the protocol then the backdoor already exists, true or false?
Imagine if Boeing could access an airliner and take it down from their headquarters - would you concede that a security flaw exists? Boeing may not ship the planes with that ability just by flipping a switch, but if they could create an update that overtook control from the pilot and dropped the plane out of the sky, wouldn't you want to know?
That is my beef with Apple. Come out and say whether or not you can do it and let's get this security scare behind us. They've touted their security as being so secure they didn't have the ability to hack the phone themselves. It's time to put up or shut up IMO.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:49 pm to slackster
quote:
Does Apple have the ability to bypass those security features or not?
sure they do. it's their source code
quote:
This phone has already been shipped. If Apple can write software that bypasses the protocol then the backdoor already exists, true or false?
A "backdoor" is something that already exists, not something that theoretically could exist. That would be more of a vulnerability than a backdoor. You get a backdoor when a vulnerability is exploited.
quote:
Imagine if Boeing could access an airliner and take it down from their headquarters - would you concede that a security flaw exists? Boeing may not ship the planes with that ability just by flipping a switch, but if they could create an update that overtook control from the pilot and dropped the plane out of the sky, wouldn't you want to know?
That's a terrible analogy, but in theory I would imagine Boeing could certainly do that. If their planes "phone home" they could do what you describe, in theory. Doesn't mean a "backdoor" exists today.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 1:56 pm to slackster
quote:
Boeing may not ship the planes with that ability just by flipping a switch, but if they could create an update that overtook control from the pilot and dropped the plane out of the sky, wouldn't you want to know?
What if Boeing was 90% sure they couldn't do it, but could not definitively say with 100% certainty it couldn't do it? How far is too far for the government to be able to say you must do this work for us now and then turn over that work to us to exploit your work? The FBI could then use that data forced out of Boeing to kill a plane full of people to take out someone they believed dangerous.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:04 pm to gmrkr5
I don't see how it is a terrible analogy when it hits the basics of the Apple case as well.
Look, I don't want the FBI abusing the tool nor do I want hackers getting into everyone's shite. My problem comes with what I believe is hyperbole from Apple's side. The idea that Apple is being asked to ship phones that the FBI can access at will is ridiculous as that us not what they're being asked to do whatsoever.
I'd be perfectly willing to accept their position if they would address the question of whether or not it is possible. If what Ace Midnight explained CAN be done, then Apple will have to back off of their security claims, and that is something that they don't want to do.
Even if Apple refused to comply, their ability to create such an update targeted to this phone is an issue, and IMO it is the bigger issue.
Look, I don't want the FBI abusing the tool nor do I want hackers getting into everyone's shite. My problem comes with what I believe is hyperbole from Apple's side. The idea that Apple is being asked to ship phones that the FBI can access at will is ridiculous as that us not what they're being asked to do whatsoever.
I'd be perfectly willing to accept their position if they would address the question of whether or not it is possible. If what Ace Midnight explained CAN be done, then Apple will have to back off of their security claims, and that is something that they don't want to do.
Even if Apple refused to comply, their ability to create such an update targeted to this phone is an issue, and IMO it is the bigger issue.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:06 pm to jdd48
quote:The Buchanan Presidency.
When has the US government not overreached recently when it comes to trying to spy on its own people?
That's the best I got.
But then again, that led to civil war.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:08 pm to Dam Guide
quote:
What if Boeing was 90% sure they couldn't do it, but could not definitively say with 100% certainty it couldn't do it? How far is too far for the government to be able to say you must do this work for us now and then turn over that work to us to exploit your work? The FBI could then use that data forced out of Boeing to kill a plane full of people to take out someone they believed dangerous.
Perfectly valid point that is addressed in an article I posted once or twice in this thread already.
If it can be done, then it needs to be fixed, period.
Saying it can be done but don't worry because we won't cave is a far cry from saying it simply cannot be done at all. If the former is true, then the security is not what users were led to believe, and I thibk Apple owes it to their users to address that question.
ETA: People are kidding themselves if they act like they're perfectly comfortable with Apple or Boeing saying we promise we won't take advantage of something that us theoretically possible. Obvious it is more grave when it is a plane instead of a phone, but the logic is the same.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:09 pm to slackster
quote:
The idea that Apple is being asked to ship phones that the FBI can access at will is ridiculous as that us not what they're being asked to do whatsoever.
Who is suggesting that? I certainly haven't...
quote:
I'd be perfectly willing to accept their position if they would address the question of whether or not it is possible. If what Ace Midnight explained CAN be done, then Apple will have to back off of their security claims, and that is something that they don't want to do.
Once again, of course it's possible and I'm pretty sure Apple has stated that in theory it is possible.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:11 pm to slackster
quote:
don't see how it is a terrible analogy when it hits the basics of the Apple case as well.
Look, I don't want the FBI abusing the tool nor do I want hackers getting into everyone's shite. My problem comes with what I believe is hyperbole from Apple's side. The idea that Apple is being asked to ship phones that the FBI can access at will is ridiculous as that us not what they're being asked to do whatsoever.
I'd be perfectly willing to accept their position if they would address the question of whether or not it is possible. If what Ace Midnight explained CAN be done, then Apple will have to back off of their security claims, and that is something that they don't want to do.
Even if Apple refused to comply, their ability to create such an update targeted to this phone is an issue, and IMO it is the bigger issue.
Supposedly Apple is looking at ways to do exactly that, and to make the phone even more secure.
Personally I have a feeling the FBI will lose in court, and it doesn't seem like Congress wants to do anything in an election year. Meanwhile Apple will just throw more hurdles at the seemingly hapless FBI.
NY Times
quote:
— Apple engineers have begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhoneusing methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts.
If Apple succeeds in upgrading its security — and experts say it almost surely will — the company will create a significant technical challenge for law enforcement agencies, even if the Obama administration wins its fight over access to data stored on an iPhone used by one of the killers in last year’s San Bernardino, Calif., rampage. If the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to get into a phone in the future, it would need a new way to do so. That would most likely prompt a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
— Apple engineers have begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhoneusing methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts.
If Apple succeeds in upgrading its security — and experts say it almost surely will — the company will create a significant technical challenge for law enforcement agencies, even if the Obama administration wins its fight over access to data stored on an iPhone used by one of the killers in last year’s San Bernardino, Calif., rampage. If the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to get into a phone in the future, it would need a new way to do so. That would most likely prompt a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple.
aaand this is Apple taking away the theory of this being possible. Now they will be able to say "sorry fellas, cant help"
If I were Apple I definitely wouldn't want to have any reoccurring fiduciary duty to the Fed
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:13 pm to slackster
quote:
The idea that Apple is being asked to ship phones that the FBI can access at will is ridiculous as that us not what they're being asked to do whatsoever.
Earlier you quoted pending legislation in Cali and NYS where the state could mandate that phones have a built in back door. If the FBI wins here you don't think that would set up legal precedent to do exactly what the legislation proposes?
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:14 pm to gmrkr5
This thread is littered with people making that exact claim and it distracts from the issue at hand.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:14 pm to soccerfüt
quote:.
If forced to take an extreme from the two choices, I'd rather that than anarchy.
I bet if push comes to shove, you'd choose a life of slavery to a life of livery as well.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:17 pm to slackster
quote:
This thread is littered with people making that exact claim and it distracts from the issue at hand.
well... they're wrong at this point. What a previous poster just said regarding state mandates is certainly an issue that would arise if this precedent were set though.
It's a very slippery slope and I think most people with some knowledge around this subject and the issue at hand can see where it leads...
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:20 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Earlier you quoted pending legislation in Cali and NYS where the state could mandate that phones have a built in back door. If the FBI wins here you don't think that would set up legal precedent to do exactly what the legislation proposes?
On the contrary, I think you can make the argument that if Apple caves here then they could avoid that kind of legislation passing in the future. I'm not suggesting they should cave because of that, but failing to cooperate here would increase calls for that kind of legislation, don't you think?
Basically, states will day that if you won't follow a court order then we'll pass legislation that will force you to ship phones with security flaws built-in. I'm not saying that is right, but that is the motivation.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:21 pm to slackster
quote:
On the contrary, I think you can make the argument that if Apple caves here then they could avoid that kind of legislation passing in the future. I'm not suggesting they should cave because of that, but failing to cooperate here would increase calls for that kind of legislation, don't you think?
Basically, states will day that if you won't follow a court order then we'll pass legislation that will force you to ship phones with security flaws built-in. I'm not saying that is right, but that is the motivation.
Posted on 3/1/16 at 2:23 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
aaand this is Apple taking away the theory of this being possible. Now they will be able to say "sorry fellas, cant help"
To me this is Apple saying yes it can be done, but now we're going to close that loophole. That is a different position that the one they've been pushing.
This post was edited on 3/1/16 at 2:24 pm
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News