Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

[Little Tich]

Source: CNBC

Apple engineers have already begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone using 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 would 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, California, rampage. The F.B.I. would then have to find another way to defeat Apple security, setting up a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple.

The only way out of this back-and-forth, experts say, is for Congress to get involved. Federal wiretapping laws require traditional phone carriers to make their data accessible to law enforcement agencies. But tech companies like Apple and Google are not covered, and they have strongly resisted legislation that would place similar requirements on them.

"We are in for an arms race unless and until Congress decides to clarify who has what obligations in situations like this," said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html

[cantbeserious]

1. Very Happy That Apple Is Standing Firm To Protect Civil Liberties

eom

[onehandle]

2. iPhone 7 Plus for me this Fall. nt

[William Seger]

15. And don't back up incriminating evidence to iCloud

Apparently Apple doesn't mind giving that up to a warrant.

[Feeling the Bern]

3. just another thing I have an issue with Obama

his disregard for civil liberties in pursuit of justice. Why should police respect our "rights" when our president and his justice department don't respect them?

[longship]

4. And legislating a back door is utter madness.

When there is a back door, the encryption becomes insecure. The banks will just love that!

Those that advocate this kind of thing will find out soon enough. The idiots!

[FailureToCommunicate]

5. The wording of this makes it sound like Apple can hack it current iPhones. It cannot.

They have been saying that IF they (Apple) are forced to create a backdoor for their (currently secure) phone (for this one phishing expedition of one terrorist phone) then ALL current iPhones will be open to law enforcement, or whomever.

Hold fast Apple. Hold fast.

[LittleBlue]

6. Good. F*** the government. nt

[HillareeeHillaraah]

7. Can someone explain...

...and I Don't hang this out as some kind of a troll trap, but I really don't get it.

If I am suspected of say, murder -a serious crime to be sure - a judge can issue applicable warrants giving access for inspection to my house, my car, my ez pass, my bank accounts, my text and telephone footprints. These warrants have nothing to with my neighbors houses, phone, footprints, ect. They apply only to me. These warrants compel my landlord, my bank, and other actors to allow said access.

What I don't understand is why should the contents of my cell phone be considered sacrosanct. My landlord has to open the door, why shouldn't Apple have to open the door of this phone. If the warrants are valid and necessary to the investigation, contents of a safe deposit box..all private areas of my life becomes fair game. The banker has to open the box. What's the reason why Apple shouldn't open the box, so to speak. Isn't Apple, effectively the Landlord?

I get precedents may be set but aren't they already? Is this just a modern version of opening a safe deposit box or getting the keys from my land lord?

Again, I'm not trolling. Politically I lean so far to the left I'm practically horizontal...I just don't get why I should have an expectation of privacy when it comes to my phone's contents.

I

[christx30]

8. Because the backdoor the government wants

would be like you commit a crime, and the government wanting forever access to your home, your neighbors, and the guy down the street. Also that same key could (and probably would be) used by others, probably less ethical people, even if you are not suspected of a crime.
I guarantee that once it's written, within 6 months, you'll see versions of it everywhere. "Want to know what your boyfriend/girlfriend is doing? Click here!"

[Javaman]

9. "I guarantee that once it's written, within 6 months, you'll see versions of it everywhere."

more like 2 weeks.

[basselope]

26. Do you REALLY believe Apple doesnt have this already???

I dont believe for a SECOND they cant unlock a phone.. this is all a pr stunt to make it seem they cant.

[Javaman]

29. everything is not a conspiracy.

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[basselope]

31. What conspiracy?

I'm not suggesting they're actively looking at peoples phones... however given a company that has gone through so many draconian measures to protect its own property even taking its own customers to court... I find it incredibly unlikely that they created encryption that they don't have a way to get into.

I support them and not wanting to give that away to the government but to suggest that they don't have it in house is just laughable

[William Seger]

11. Apple is being asked to provide a version of iOS

... that will only run if the device ID matches Farook's phone. Anyone who could make a modified, loadable version that would run under a different device ID already has the ability to do what Apple is being asked to do, whether or not Apple does it.

[randome]

14. Bullshit. A phone is just a digital filing cabinet.

Information needed for prosecution should always be available except to the uber-Libertarian mindset.

Warrants are issued all the time for personal information. A phone is no different.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[hueymahl]

20. Have you ever taken a position that did not back government power?

Serious question. Civil liberties is important to me, and I try to comment whenever the topic comes up. I have never come across a post where you took the side of civil liberties vis a vis government control.

[randome]

25. This is not a question of civil liberties. It's a question of searching for evidence after a crime.

Again, a phone is nothing more than a digital filing cabinet. Do you think all filing cabinets should be locked away from legally issued warrants?

I really don't see it as any more complicated than that.

People get all bent out of shape when reference is made to 'digital' because very few of us truly understand our phones and tablets and PCs that well. But they're not magic.

And I normally only join in on threads in which I have something to contribute so I don't often make an appearance in threads in which the best I could add is something like 'Ditto'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[hueymahl]

32. This is absolutely a question of civil liberties

And the filing cabinet analogy is inapposite to the issues at hand. A phone is not a filing cabinet, it is a personal recording device of your most intimate thoughts and expressions. Just like the law prevents a lawyer, spouse or doctor from disclosing confidential information even in the face of the need by government to prosecute a criminal case, so should something like an iPhone be protected.

But the real reason it is an inapposite analogy is that a filing cabinet does not require forcing a third party to act, like they are forcing a third party to act here. Also, breaking into one filing cabinet does not jeopardize every filing cabinet in the world. From Apple's brief:

This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users’ most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance.

And this is not a one-time thing. There are other cases requesting the same thing pending in other courts, and there are dozens of law enforcement agencies itching to have this kind of unlimited power.

But here is the really important part - you could cripple iPhones security, require it to be opened any time some one demands it, but you would not do anything to thwart terrorism. Terrorists would still have access to encryption technology that is impossible to break. Thus, the entire burden and risk of loss of data and privacy is shouldered by private, law abiding citizens without measurably increasing national security.

As far as civil liberties, this is a direct attack on the First Amendment.

It is well-settled law that computer code is treated as speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. The government is seeking to compel Apple (and its individual employees) to speak by writing code that will defeat its encryption. This requires strict scrutiny, meaning that it is only permitted if it is "narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest". In this case, the government is on a fishing expedition. It has no idea if there is any info on the phone that might lead to information about other terrorists. And they don't need the information to prosecute the case.

So really what is going on here is the government wants a back door so it can more easily monitor and control its citizens. The terrorist angle is just a convenient talking point.

[Fred Drum]

28. analogies can be tricky

i wouldn't use a digital file cabinet to call my lawyer.

but since we're playing with analogies, consider frank, my twin, and our unique language we use to communicate. frank, bless his kind heart, just couldn't take it anymore and gunned down 173 trump supporters and sadly took his own life.

the fbi searches all of franks things and comes upon our years of meticulously maintained correspondence. they have possession of all his writings, but can't understand any of it.

in an authoritarian utopia, i am obligated to do what?

[randome]

30. I believe a mass killer sort of forfeits his/her right to full Constitutional privileges.

You would not be the mass killer, of course, but you would be morally obligated, IMO, to translate for the FBI.

Can they force you to do so? It's an interesting question. In similar cases, where a hard drive is password-protected, individuals have gone to jail for contempt for failing to open them. Or for hiding evidence in some other manner.

I suppose a judge could find you in contempt but that's part of the judicial system and you have a right to appeal that, as well.

Apple, on the other hand, deliberately chose a marketing strategy that they knew from the outset would run up against public safety issues. And they have an army of legal and technical wizards who not only have unlocked phones in the past for the FBI but exist solely to deal with legal issues.

The FBI is not asking them to translate anything, of course, they're only asking for Apple to unlock something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fred Drum]

36. your technical knowledge might be lacking

apple is not being asked to unlock anything, they are being asked to write new code to run on the phone, the purpose of the new code is to remove time delays and auto-wipe features.

as for the password-protected hard drive, while i believe that person has a right to remain silent, that person was the suspect under indictment, while i am just franks brother. i fail to see how i could be compelled to even present myself before a judge, let alone be held in contempt.

lastly, morally obligated, um, "well, that's just like, your opinion, man"

[hueymahl]

40. Love the the "Dude" reference!

[hueymahl]

33. The answer to your question is they cannot compel you in those circumstances

That is well settled law. It is a free speech issue. Just like they cannot restrict what you say, they cannot compel you to say something.

[Fred Drum]

38. totally agree

they can't force apple to write code. the problem is they are framing it like "unlocking" a phone, like you unlock a safe, and the media parrots the lie

[William Seger]

10. All rights have limits where they bump up against other rights

I agree Farook forfeited his right to privacy by committing murder, but if Apple prevails in court, the decision will be based on their rights, not Farook's. Unfortunately, a lot of the reaction here seems to be based on misunderstandings of the technical issues, which is mainly due to bad reporting, and a lot of what's being said here seems to be a reaction to the outrageous and illegal overreach of the NSA. That abuse is undeniable, but this is a completely different issue. I would be very alarmed about Apple being forced to put an actual "back door" in their software, but that's simply not what's being asked for. Either other people can already do what the DoJ is asking Apple to do -- modify iOS -- or they can't, regardless of whether or not Apple does it.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

12. So this is about Apple's rights?

I agree that the overreach of the NSA is unacceptable and I don't defend their prior actions in any way. But since so much of their behaviors have been exposed, seems like in this case, from what I've read, they are being very open about what they're asking. I've read they just want the self destruct feature turned off so NSA can go about trying to find the password. Not asking Apple to do the deed or turn the key just diffuse the bomb. And performed with utmost security in a sealed room, diffusing done, then the technique immediately destroyed. One time only. That's what I've heard the gov's request is. It seems reasonable. And I guess Apple needs to protect their brand, not be seen as working with "the man"...still, I don't see how they win this one in court given the strict control parameters the gov is offering...

[William Seger]

13. They won't need to destroy the program

It will only run on Farook's phone, and as I said above, if anyone could make it run on another phone, then they must already have the ability to modify iOS -- they don't need this version.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

16. Ah,

Yes, now I get your point. Yes, makes sense. Thanks for engaging in the conversation....

[christx30]

17. As anyone that has paid attention in the last 50 years,

knows, the government's promises about restraint are pretty much useless. "We'll only do A-B-C, we promise." And the next thing you know, you're all the way down to X-Y-Z, and everyone hates it. Sometimes, we just have to tell them no.
And this isn't just about Apple's rights. It's about the rights of any innocent person with an Apple phone or anyone else.

[randome]

18. Which is why we have a judicial system that issues warrants.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[christx30]

42. Right.

And no-knock warrants and asset forfeiture will only be used against drug dealers.
The patriot act will only be used against terrorists.
SWAT teams will only be used when there is imminent threat to life and limb.
We can always rely on the courts to protect our civil liberties. It's NEVER just a matter of finding the right judge and waving a piece of paper around saying "sign this, please."

That's what we were always told anyway, when the police and the FBI requested more and more power. And we always gave them that power.

[Igel]

19. It's because

my personal rights are more important than other's rights

corporations like Apple are people and have personal rights

the government is evil, and the appropriate thing to do, according to true progressives, isn't drown it in a bathtub but make sure it never has any control over it's populace ... as long as we are the populace being talked about.

[hueymahl]

21. All rights have limits, true

But how does maintaining encryption violate anyone else's rights? Here we have a phone that can no longer be used for any nefarious purpose. It is not violating anyone's rights. No one is being affected by it. It simply contains personal information. There is no right to bump up against. There is simply the desire by a governmental agency to get access to it. Their is no exigent circumstance, no other right being violated, no imminent threat of bodily harm.

[William Seger]

22. The FBI position is that contacts and messages could reveal other jihadists

... who could be planning more attacks. The public has a right to have crimes lawfully investigated, but the court will be asked to decide if Apple's rights prevail. I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if they decide in favor of Apple.

[hueymahl]

34. See my post above - the government has no compelling interest to force apple to open the phone

They do not need the phone to prosecute the case, they have no idea if it will lead to any information about other terrorists. It is a fishing expedition.

Balanced on the other side is privacy of all law abiding citizens and Apple and its employees' free speech rights, specifically, they cannot be compelled to "speak" in the form of writing code (which is well settled as a form of speech).

[William Seger]

37. That's why I expect Apple to win

I've just been trying to clarify some of the issues.

[Xithras]

23. Because it's not the same thing

There is one simple difference. With a safe deposit box or your home safe, the government is opening it themselves. The bank can hand over a key, if they have one, but they aren't opening it.

The best analogy I've heard so far regarded mini-storage lockers. Today, a judge can grant a warrant giving police permission to open a mini storage locker. Because the owner of the locker, and not the mini-storage has the key, the government has to remove the lock themselves, usually by cutting it off.

In this case, a mini storage company has turned their storage lockers into concrete vaults with titanium doors that are incredibly hard to crack, and the FBI is demanding that the mini-storage company install a second door in a unit so the police can access it any time they want. They are also setting a precedent that may eventually require that ALL hardened mini storage lockers contain two doors...one for the owner, and one for law enforcement to use. This is a fundamental shift in principle. Historically, law enforcement had a right to search a property, but the onus was on law enforcement to actually find and gain entry to the things they were searching. The judges order against Apple essentially says, "Law enforcement has a warrant, but you (an unaffiliated third party) are required to help them execute it." It is inappropriate for the police to demand that ANYONE, whether a person or a company, help the police perform an action. It's one thing for the police to serve a warrant and do a search on their own, it's another thing entirely for the police to drag in other people and demand that they do the work for them, or modify their products to make that work easier.

[TipTok]

35. That is a quality description...

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. So they admit uncle sam could crack the current phone at will?

Or are we to believe that Apple engineers a so much smarter than any government engineers?

The only question here isn't if the government can crack any encryption technology. Only the degree of time and effort it requires uncle sam to do it. If Apple engineers can provide code to make it possible to open the device. Then Uncle Sams engineers could reverse engineer the Iphone on likewise read what is there. All it takes is time and money.

[LiberalArkie]

27. The NSA could probably get into it right now. But the FBI wants a tool to allow them to get into

only this one, but they admit that they have 12 more the would like access to also. This isn't so bad is it. If Apple allows the FBI to have the tool, then that tool will end up in Germany, England, France probably Egypt and Iraq and Pakistan and China. And you are an innocent business man on a trip to China and the police pull you over and grab your phone and plug it in to a laptop. All those business secrets you were discussing with a business in China are now in the hands of the Government.

Most things stolen by hacking devices are business secrets stolen by competitors.

[Dont call me Shirley]

39. Good. My next phone, I'm going back to Apple.

[IDemo]

41. From Gizmodo this afternoon:

Apple just took its next swipe in the fight over unlocking a terrorist’s iPhone: a court order to vacate. The company is invoking the First and Fifth Amendments to argue that the court order it received to create a back door for the device is unconstitutional. The motion is embedded below.

As you may have expected, Apple did not mince its words in explaining the catastrophic consequences of giving the government such sweeping powers. Less than a day after Tim Cook likened the back door to a “software equivalent of cancer” on national television, the company’s lawyers explained in stark terms how the government’s request would “impose an unprecedented and oppressive burden on Apple and the citizens who use the iPhone.” Check out this analogy—we’ve added emphasis:

For example, under the same legal theories advocated by the government here, the government could argue that it should be permitted to force citizens to do all manner of things “necessary” to assist it in enforcing the laws, like compelling a pharmaceutical company against its will to produce drugs needed to carry out a lethal injection in furtherance of a lawfully issued death warrant, or requiring a journalist to plant a false story in order to help lure out a fugitive, or forcing a software company to insert malicious code in its auto- update process that makes it easier for the government to conduct court-ordered surveillance.

Of course, that third example is essentially what the government is doing. While the current case deals applies to an iPhone 5C owned by the San Bernardino shooter, the FBI has made at least a dozen other similar requests. As Apple and other security experts have explained time and time again, it’s impossible to create a back door for a single device. If forced to build the software, Apple would make every iPhone vulnerable to government intrusion.

http://gizmodo.com/the-craziest-line-in-apples-motion-to-throw-out-the-iph-1761338542