Backdoor Sluts Six was by far the best in the series.
There is much bullshit in this post - The FBI wants to circumvent security protocols on a users phone - the only way to do this is thru a ‘backdoor’ of some sort.
If you think for one minute that this would be a ‘one time use’ only thing - you’re out of your freaking mind - if for no other reason then it would set a precedent that it CAN be done - which would open the flood gates from other GVT sources - to the point that it would end up being part of the general OS, etc and so on - now - I know thats a worst case slippery slope - but its a believable (and possible) one .
You are the one that does not understand computer terms and how this stuff really works - your posts are my cite - every singel one of them belays that you are ignorant of how computer security (and therefore smart phone security) work.
Lastly - the idea that it would only apply to a single phone also shows your ignorance of the subject at hand - sure, the scope of the current order may be limited to one phone - but thats not the way software works.
that software doesn’t exist - and the FBI is not asking to install "surveliance software’ - the FBI is asking for a way to circumvent the security model of the phone. THis is beyond just a piece of spyware.
Quotes from an article behind the NYTimes paywall:
Apples’ Stance Highlights a More Confrontational Tech Industry
[QUOTE=NYTimes]
Yet underlying all of this is a simple dynamic: Apple, Google, Facebook and other companies hold most of the cards in this confrontation. They have our data, and their businesses depend on the global public’s collective belief that they will do everything they can to protect that data.
Any crack in that front could be fatal for tech companies that must operate worldwide. If Apple is forced to open up an iPhone for an American law enforcement investigation, what’s to prevent it from doing so for a request from the Chinese or the Iranians? If Apple is forced to write code that lets the F.B.I. get into the Phone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, the male attacker in the San Bernardino attack, who would be responsible if some hacker got hold of that code and broke into its other devices?
[/QUOTE]
The conclusion of this article offers this thinking from a tech standpoint, and then ties it to the main point:
[QUOTE=NYTimes]
One relatively simple fix, Mr. Zdziarski said, would be for Apple to modify future versions of the iPhone to require a user to enter a passcode before the phone will accept the sort of modified operating system that the F.B.I. wants Apple to create. That way, Apple could not unilaterally introduce a code that weakens the iPhone — a user would have to consent to it.
“Nothing is 100 percent hacker-proof,” Mr. Zdziarski said, but he pointed out that the judge’s order in this case required Apple to provide “reasonable security assistance” to unlock Mr. Farook’s phone. If Apple alters the security model of future iPhones so that even its own engineers’ “reasonable assistance” will not be able to crack a given device when compelled by the government, a precedent set in this case might lose its lasting force.
In other words, even if the F.B.I. wins this case, in the long run, it loses.
[/QUOTE]
There is more ignorance packed into this sentence than I thought possible. Well done.
On NPR, listening to an interview with a fella (Matt something) who was former head of Obama’s counter-terrorism center.
The phrase he invoked was “Reasonable Insistence” - i.e., can this phone’s data be accessed in a specific way, along with the fact the owner of the phone, San Bernadino County, supports access. The ruling on this seems like it would require confronting the universality of the proposed solution.
If the universality of the exploit is confirmed, it will greatly strengthen Apple’s case, per the NYTimes article above. Otherwise, if it can be proven to be specific, reasonable insistence would certainly be upheld.
The above post is incorrect. IMO it is you that does not understand.
See, in addition to the basic privacy problem, I have another problem with this. The judge’s order is essentially compelling labor without compensation from Apple, and we outlawed slavery a while ago. We’re not talking about the trivial flipping of a switch or allowing a government tech access to something - they’re talking about the development of an alternate version of an entire operating system, which could takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Is there any precedent for compelling labor without compensation from someone not convicted of a crime?
The order says “Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of providing this service.” I take that to mean that Apple will be paid for the work.
Admittedly I’m not an IT expert but how does that change things? With Farook (the user) dead aren’t they right back to where they are now? How does that allow them to defeat the existing initial security password requirement?
Define reasonable - the hit to apple’s stock and reputation should mean something as well - beyond just the technical man-hours.
It’s part of the conundrum – while there are ways to push updates to phones that are ‘locked’ - I think most of them still require user interaction to ‘accept’ them - (depending on user preferences as set by the user). I know last time I had an update to an iPad - I put it off for months before finally accepting it.
The FBIs request sounds ‘reasonable’ to lay people - isn’t likely ‘impossible’ from a technical standpoint - but opens a can of worms once done that can’t be undone - not the least of which is a less secure OS in the marketplace.
Those are both just opionions of other people - admittedly not lay peopel - but they do not know (or have access to) the iOS innards - so its just one more opinion on the subject.
This post shows that you really don’t have any idea of what is actually going on.
Even if the FBI got this code they can’t guarantee hackers will not get it. Last year over 20 million people got their identities hacked from government computers. Earlier this year the FBI and DHS got hacked and almost 30,000 people got their IDs hacked.
And if hackers got it, they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it anyway. They wouldn’t be able to install it on a phone because they don’t have Apple’s authentication key. If they did somehow install it, it wouldn’t work, because that phone wouldn’t be Syed Farook’s phone. They wouldn’t be able to rewrite the app to let it run on other phones, because they don’t have the source code. And if they somehow bypassed all of those obstacles, they’d still have to figure out your password.
yeah - pretty much.
your ignorance is astounding - you’re assuming the way the court/FBI requested it is how it ‘actually’ works - this isn’t neccisiarliy the case - or the way it would end up being accomplished…
Secondly - the whole point of the FBI request is to get past ‘all those obstacles’.
Please go post about something you actually understand - somewhere else - because, you simply don’t get it.
I presume thats the point of this warrant, what the gov’t wants is problematic, as even if Apple submits and creates the desired application, or dusts it off, it still may not be of any use, depending if the guy went with a straight numeric or an alpha numeric or blended password.
The overall push on this is to create a condition whereby all device manufacturers have a means by which the govt can access what it wants, when it wants. This is the test case that gives the govt the morale highground.
Declan