What do you think of Apple being forced to hack an iPhone?

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/magistrate-orders-apple-to-help-fbi-hack-phone-of-san-bernardino-shooter/

Is this judicial over-reach? The Republicans are already all up-in-arms about Apple refusing. Apparently civil liberties are disposable, in their view.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. But I do know that WIRED can go screw themselves. I was unable to finish reading the article: I have an ad blocker installed and WIRED won't let me read the article unless I remove the ad blocking or pay them to read it. So fuck WIRED! I just read the article on a different web site.

As to the Apple case and the protection of civil  liberties: Does there come a time when one loses the right to some civil liberties because of a prior action - like shooting people? It's worth considering.

One may also question whether a dead person has any civil rights.

_Howard wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

Nor do I.

But consider:
1. They don't KNOW what they're looking for. They just want to examine the shooter's phone to see if there's any evidence there: contacts, messages, recent calls. This kind of fishing expedition is, I believe, explicitly forbidden by the warrant process.

2. Anybody connected to the shooter would presumably still be alive, and would therefore have civil rights.

3. The FBI has apparently been trying to crack the cellphone for two months, without success. Therefore the password must be pretty secure (aren't they just four characters? I wonder if there's other encryption here they're dying to crack?). They wouldn't have gone public with this unless they're trying to shame Apple into breaking their own sacred bond with their customers.

4. If Apple caves, what hope will there be for any citizen of the USA of protection from "unreasonable search & seizure"?

NoCoPilot wrote:

The FBI has apparently been trying to crack the cellphone for two months, without success.

You can set the password to be a longer alphanumeric string. If you desire, the phone has a setting so that after ten incorrect tries to enter the password, the phone will lock up and cannot be recovered. If you want to use the phone again, it has to be completely erased. The feds have not been trying to crack the password because they don't know if the phone has that setting. All they want Apple to do is to disable that function, if they can.

NoCoPilot wrote:

...they're trying to shame Apple into breaking their own sacred bond with their customers.

Apple has a trivial business relationship with their customers, not a "scared bond."

NoCoPilot wrote:

Anybody connected to the shooter would presumably still be alive, and would therefore have civil rights.

That's true. But how would examining the dead guy's phone records deny these people their civil rights? If the phone was not locked and the FBI looked through it, would you think that the other people's civil rights were being infringed? What if there were letters (snail mail) in the guy's apartment? Would reading those letters infringe the civil rights of the senders?

NoCoPilot wrote:

If Apple caves, what hope will there be for any citizen of the USA of protection from "unreasonable search & seizure"?

That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? We're talking about one unusual situation, not throwing open everyone's communications. And I'm only referring to this one situation.

You're as bad as Trump, promoting water boarding ("or worse") because it works.

_Howard wrote:

But how would examining the dead guy's phone records deny these people their civil rights? If the phone was not locked and the FBI looked through it, would you think that the other people's civil rights were being infringed? What if there were letters (snail mail) in the guy's apartment? Would reading those letters infringe the civil rights of the senders?

Are those legal, without a warrant? Without having to show "probable cause"?

I don't think so. But I could be wrong.

I think that a warrant would be required. I also think, that in this case, there was plenty of probable cause.

I well understand the technical issues and strongly oppose the provision of a back door to law enforcement or anyone else.

I hope you can recall all the way back to a few posts ago when I said I wasn't sure how I felt about this issue (hardly Trump-like). I'm not taking the position of the FBI, or of Apple. I'm looking at just this one case, not extrapolating to a George Orwell world.

Is it necessary that Apple actually provide the FBI with a permanent means of breaking into everyone's phones, or can Apple just unlock that one phone without disclosing the manner in which it was accomplished?

Read the article I linked above.

I read the fucking thing. Is there some specific point in it that you want to make?

The back door the FBI wants Apple to program and install would be available to any hacker.

The specifics of what the FBI wants have not been made clear enough to know whether or not that is true. And I specifically stated that I am opposed to such a thing.

On the other hand, if all the FBI wants is for Apple to disable the password limit function - ON THIS ONE PHONE - without giving the FBI the capability of doing it themselves, then I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or not. In this one specific case, it may be alright with me. But there has not been enough specific technical information published for me to make that decision. I will NOT make a knee-jerk response to support Apple's position, not will I do the converse.

Here's a pretty good article explaining exactly what the FBI wants from Apple.

Quote :

They obtained data backed up to iCloud a month before the shootings, but none closer to the date of the shooting, when they say he is most likely to have used the phone to coordinate the attack.

The fucking government doesn't have a fucking clue what they're fishing for.

As with a warrant, they should have to show probable cause.

What they are "fishing" for is connections between the loonies and those with similar inclinations.
I think that in this case, the loonies provided all the probable cause the feds require.

I find the possible precedent setting troublesome, but I have no problem with Apple providing what the feds want - IN THIS ONE CASE.

On another point:

NoCoPilot wrote:

...they're trying to shame Apple into breaking their own sacred bond with their customers.

This article illustrated Apple's "sacred bond" with its customers.
(I had posted this in another thread. Oops. My bad.)

_Howard wrote:

This article illustrated Apple's "sacred bond" with its customers.

Quote :

At the time Apple said that Error 53 was a security feature to protect customers. It said: “This security measure is necessary to protect your device and prevent a fraudulent Touch ID sensor from being used. If a customer encounters Error 53, we encourage them to contact Apple Support.”

Solving Error 53 does not re-enable Touch ID, as a third-party replacement of the home button could potentially allow unauthorised access to a locked phone by modifying the fingerprint sensor.

It seems to me, since the fingerprint sensor on the Home button can be used as the only security device, bypassing all other passwords, that unauthorized replacement of that button would be a pretty darn good reason to permanently lock the phone.

Go ahead, sue Schlage. If somebody removes the lock on your front door they can get into your home unencumbered. That's a security breach!

Even worse, if they install a new lock you can't get into your own home! The outrage!!!

Worst analogy ever.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Go ahead, sue Schlage.  If somebody removes the lock on your front door they can get into your home unencumbered.  That's a security breach!

Even worse, if they install a new lock you can't get into your own home!  The outrage!!!

What if I remove the Schlage lock on my front door because it has quit working? Then, after I buy a Baldwin lock and install it, Schlage comes down and throws me out of my house and won't let me back in?

What if you have a Schlage Security System, with monitoring based on the status of the front door lock. You pull out the Schlage lock and install a Baldwin. Should Schlage be required to cover your home anyway?

I don't see the connection.

The fingerprint ID is not a "security system." It's a gadget that enters your password for you.

Yeah, I was stretching.

Apple has already apologized -- the auto-shutdown was a dick move.

Certainly a dick move, but very much in keeping with Apple's history of dick moves.

Until a few years ago, if you wanted to modify your phone's OS so that you could use programs not approved by (meaning "sold by") Apple, the phone would be turned into a brick by Apple if they detected it, and a great many phones were "bricked." Apple never apologized for that practice. They only stopped because the courts said it was legal to do such modifications and Apple could not disable the phones because of it.

I agree. You know why they did it of course -- Apple IOS upgrades all have to work with legacy software, and all approved software has to play nice with each other, not grabbing IRQs that other programs need, etc.

Of course, if you modify a Buick to run on ethanol it voids the warranty.  If you modify a blender to run on 220 it voids the warranty.  If you Hack Windows to provide the old Start menu it voids the warranty.  Wait, does Windows have a warranty?  Anyway, you know what I mean.