Author Topic: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino  (Read 1318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15694
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino
« Reply #70 on: March 29, 2016, 02:54:39 PM »
I don't know for sure how they got into the phone, but I don't think the method they used really compromises the security the way a back door like how the FBI wanted.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino
« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2016, 02:57:44 PM »

Do you honestly think that the FBI believed it couldn't get into the phone without Apple's help?

This is the real question, isn't it? 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino
« Reply #72 on: March 29, 2016, 03:26:39 PM »

Do you honestly think that the FBI believed it couldn't get into the phone without Apple's help?

This is the real question, isn't it? 
It's not much of one, honestly. Both security experts and former intelligence experts are pretty up front that the phone was crackable outside of Apple.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino
« Reply #73 on: March 29, 2016, 03:29:12 PM »
As far as wanting to set a precedent, wouldn't that path have been compromised if Apple simply agreed to help?  It would have been agreed to and not forced by a standing court decision.

Don't you think the government wants to go about this quietly and not become a national news story?  That's how they normally do it.  And for obvious reasons.  Seems like a bit of a conspiratorial assumption that this was a backdoor way to a backdoor way.

I've never really understood the argument that "the terrorists will just find another encryption process."  Isn't that just an all or nothing argument so frequently scoffed at here?  Will they?  Yes.  Will it be a big disrupting event like having to change out every single computer in an international company from one OS or hardware platform to another?  Yes.  Worse, you will have to get the word out to make the change via compromised encryption.

As far as how it protects *us*, the living US citizen.  So in the case of a drug bust, there has already been some precedent set that compels you to co-operate.  Kind of like a warrant to search your *premises*.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/can-government-force-you-to-unlock-your-phone-fifth-amendment

So the only people that it is really protecting would be groups, not individuals.  In other words, a court order against you where you are the only one facing punishment will only be compounded upon you for not unlocking your phone if so ordered.  But you might be willing to take the extra hit if you knew it would lead to arrests or compromise others part of the group that you either "fight for with your life" (terrorists) or want to protect out of fear or in hopes of future help (cartels, mob).

And of course, every time I hear this story I think Imitation Game.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino
« Reply #74 on: March 29, 2016, 03:49:09 PM »
As far as wanting to set a precedent, wouldn't that path have been compromised if Apple simply agreed to help?  It would have been agreed to and not forced by a standing court decision.
It would be setting a different precedent that Apple can and will roll over. I'm not sure Apple ever admitted that it actually could do what the FBI was asking (and we don't know if Cellebrite used the technique outlined, either).


Quote
Don't you think the government wants to go about this quietly and not become a national news story?  That's how they normally do it.  And for obvious reasons.  Seems like a bit of a conspiratorial assumption that this was a backdoor way to a backdoor way.
No. The FBI is already taking the quiet approach in a different case in New York. I think it wanted this case as loud and public as possible. It was the perfect case to try and press for its precedent since it involved terrorists (rather than dope peddlers like in New York). I really think the FBI expected more public support than it got.


Quote
As far as how it protects *us*, the living US citizen.  So in the case of a drug bust, there has already been some precedent set that compels you to co-operate.  Kind of like a warrant to search your *premises*.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/can-government-force-you-to-unlock-your-phone-fifth-amendment
Whether or not a person can be compelled to fork over a password has never been decided. Before it gets properly adjudicated the government suddenly cracks the device in question and drops the matter. All I know is that I damn sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

But this isn't about the individual anyway. It's about a 3rd party being forced to undermine its own product.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Fiery Winds

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2834
  • Gender: Male
Re: Apple, Encryption and San Bernardino
« Reply #75 on: March 29, 2016, 07:19:24 PM »
The Government had already used the FISA court about 70 times up to this point to gain access to an iPhone. It wasn't Apple that made this case public to begin with, and I believe the FBI went public this time around for efficiency's sake in the future.
This thread has been burned.