Interesting article - How Apple could let the FBI crack your encrypted iPhone

[RKP5637]

Just fyi ... I found this an interesting article. This looks at the situation from a technical perspective, not the pros and cons of privacy.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3035253/encryption/how-apple-could-let-the-fbi-crack-your-encrypted-iphone.html?token=%23tk.IFWNLE_nlt_infoworld_daily_2016-02-19&idg_eid=b959ac7c152e042b9cad78f7c2cf7a7c&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InfoWorld%20Daily:%20Afternoon%20Edition%202016-02-19&utm_term=infoworld_daily#tk.IFW_nlt_infoworld_daily_2016-02-19

Let’s set aside the discussion of whether or not Apple is right to fear that the court order to assist the FBI in accessing a terrorist's locked iPhone sets a dangerous precedent, and instead focus on the technology. Considering all the security features Apple has built into iOS, is what the judge asking for even possible?

[True Earthling]

1. Anyone who opposes this cannot claim privacy protection as their justification...

Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The only rationale that would make sense is that they are anti-gov't or anti-LE.

There is a lot of confusion as to what the FBI is requesting and what Apple can do. It's a good article that everyone should read if they want to understand what is at stake.

Apple is not giving the FBI a back door. With what the FBI is requesting, to crack a phone... a criminal would need the physical phone AND a copy of the Software Image File AND a signed special key that only Apple possesses which is specific to only that phone.

There would be virtually zero risk that this would expose millions of phones hacking.

[RKP5637]

2. I agree. IMO this one phone could be cracked with Apple doing it without risk to anyone else.

I am in full agreement with privacy rights. Done correctly, this would be IMO a one shot deal.

[True Earthling]

7. The fearmongering by privacy advocates is way overdone IMO..

They make terrorism fearmongering accusations against anyone who supports the FBI while they engage in their own fearmongering about the scary, evil gov't/LE. Then they spout statistics about how low the odds are of dying in a terrorist attack like terrorism only matters if it directly effects them..and not when it happens to someone else. It doesn't seem like they're aware that the low statistical chance of a terrorist attack is not because the terrorists are not trying... it's because of the efforts of the gov't & LE to gather information and uncover plots and that for every successful attack there are probably hundreds of attacks that have been prevented. The real issue is preventing another San Bernadino or Paris.

[RKP5637]

10. As a strong supporter of privacy and encryption, I strongly agree with you!!! n/t

[randome]

3. Apple simply needs to give a good faith demonstration of why this may be impossible.

They may be afraid it is possible, and they don't want the public to know it. Otherwise, why stonewall? It seems that the public would be doubly assured of Apple's privacy protections if the government comes away from the effort with, "They're right. It can't be done."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[RKP5637]

4. It's an interesting dilemma to say the least from both a privacy and a technological aspect.

Whatever happens, it will certainly set a precedence.

[randome]

5. Your linked article discusses why it probably can be done.

And it also sounds like the FBI is quite willing to hand over the phone to Apple for the effort, which means the FBI would never have this 'back door' in their possession.

The warrant is not as broad in scope as some have made it out to be, at least from what the article describes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[RKP5637]

6. To me, although a strong believer in privacy, I think this should be done as long as

Apple controls it.

[True Earthling]

8. Why stonewall? Because Apple is more concerned with iPhone sales than preventing terrorist attacks..

The DOJ motion says it all...

"Apple’s current refusal to comply with the Court’s Order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy," the government filing said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-escalates-battle-apple-san-bernardino-shooters-phone/story?id=37056775

[randome]

9. Apparently the judge agrees. Or at least is willing to hear counter-arguments from Apple.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]