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

NoCoPilot wrote:

Well maybe Apple just hates you then, for always badmouthing them.

You may be right. I clicked on the latest popup asking me if I wanted to install (the already uploaded) update. After about one second, it said there was an error and the update couldn't run. Of course, it was still on the device, so I deleted that and started the download of the update. With my lousy internet service, it will take at least an hour.
When did Apple start hiring laid-off Microsoft programmers?

The internet was nice to me today and the update downloaded quickly.
But then it took it so long to install the update that I was looking on the internet for what to do when an update hangs. About 40 minutes later it was done. Then I went through the "welcome to your fucking Apple" routine - a needless irritation. I don't know what qualifications the people have who wrote this shit, but they are sure as hell not competent software designers.

Unless one of the Apple devices we have develops a serious problem that is specifically addressed by an update, this is the last time I will update any of them. This is worse - far worse - than updating a Windows machine.

Not so fast. It looks like it was important to apply that update, but that you will need at least one more.

Apple promises iOS fix “soon” for crashes in Safari and other apps

I downloaded 9.3.1 last night, although Ive had no problems with freezing up.

This is usually the way it is with me -- other people have problems, so I keep up with the latest version just in case.

9.3 was a major change (though I have no idea what changed from 9.2 or why) -- it required a complete reboot afterward. 9.3.1 was just a bug fix, took a couple of minutes and no reboot. 9.3 took maybe ten minutes to download and another ten to install. I'm guessing, because on both iPads I just initiated the upgrade and went back to working on my big computer. Came back later and verified.

Oddly, neither my iPhone nor the iMac had upgrades available.

NoCoPilot wrote:

9.3.1 was just a bug fix, took a couple of minutes and no reboot.

That's what I installed on the iPad yesterday. It had 9.3 already. Maybe my problems occurred because it's a four-year-old iPad and Apple is  punishing me for not buying new stuff every year.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Oddly, neither my iPhone nor the iMac had upgrades available.

I  wonder why your iPhone had no upgrade.

9.3.1 was uploaded to my iPhone yesterday while it was plugged in to recharge.

The FBI has gotten into the iPhone without Apple's assistance.

Do you think Apple will - or should - plug the hole when they find out what it is?

_Howard wrote:

I  wonder why your iPhone had no upgrade.

Showed up this morning. Maybe they're staggering them to avoid overloading the servers?

_Howard wrote:

Do you think Apple will - or should - plug the hole when they find out what it is?

Yes and yes.

Assuming it *is* a hole and not just brute force with some foreknowledge of the bomber (which seems more likely to me).

NoCoPilot wrote:

Showed up this morning.  Maybe they're staggering them to avoid overloading the servers?

That's exactly what they do. Can't send them all at once.
The update on the phone took a bit over thirty minutes, with a reboot and a setup. Seems excessive.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Assuming it *is* a hole and not just brute force with some foreknowledge of the bomber (which seems more likely to me).

If the phone had the security setting that would kill the phone after ten incorrect password attempts, then brute force couldn't be used. One of the primary things that the FBI was after was a method to disable that security function if it was enabled, so that they could use brute force.

It's possible that the agency the guy was working for, and who owned the phone, had the password, but I'm sure they would have given it up immediately.

I'm very interested in finding out who did the cracking.

_Howard wrote:

The update on the phone took a bit over thirty minutes, with a reboot and a setup.

I started it at 11:47 when I typed the above. I just checked back at 12:12 and it was all done, reboot and everything if it needed it.

Of course your internet connection is shit.

_Howard wrote:

I'm very interested in finding out who did the cracking.

I'd be very interested in finding out what --if anything -- the FBI gleaned from this phone.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Of course your internet connection is shit.

I only gave the installation time after the update was present on the phone. Same as on the iPad. Very long time for a small patch, it seems to me. That's about the amount of time it took to upgrade the computer from Windows 7 to 10. And more than twice as long as it took to roll the computer back from Windows 10 to 7.

Even allowing for the phone's slower processor and memory, thirty minutes is a long time to install a 200 MB patch.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I'd be very interested in finding out what --if anything -- the FBI gleaned from this phone.

I doubt there's anything of value on it. He had at least one other phone, which he destroyed. And this was his work phone.

Yep. The FBI blew a lot of capital goodwill for doodoo. Hope somebody loses their job over such a bone-headed and frankly fascistic move.

The real issue in this case is not the guy's phone. It is whether a federal, or other, agency can compel a business to take a specific action in furtherance of some judicial matter. The FBI wanted a legal precedent to enable law enforcement throughout the country to gain access to password protected phones.

The technological changes of the recent past require that the government create a set of constitutionally-legitimate laws covering this and similar situations.

It is a prickly matter under the law. If you start with the question of whether law enforcement has a legal right to the information in the phone (and I believe they do in this specific case), then it becomes a question of the limits on law enforcement and the responsibility of business to aid law enforcement. This type of aid is provided daily by the telephone companies and internet service providers, which they are compelled to do under current law. Is there a quantitative difference between what these businesses provide and what Apple was asked to do? Not an easy question to answer.

I'd like to see some lawyer approach this as a First Amendment case.

"Prior Restraint" due to knowing that all electronic devices are insecure, that encryption comes with a federal master key. If communication really is free of prior restraint then it must be privileged, and privacy must be respected.

Seems like a good angle to me anyway.

I don't see any place for a First Amendment argument in this matter. It's a Fourth Amendment matter. I don't know how you can assert any prior restraint argument.

The question is one of whether government agencies have a legal right to the information on phones. If not, then security preventing access of information on the phone doesn't matter; the cops can't look at your unlocked phone. If they do have a legal right, then they have the right to take all legal means to acquire the information. The one question that leaves is whether they can force business to do their work for them in assisting in getting the information.

I'm not taking a position on this, just pointing out the complexity of what should be a simple issue.

Well no the Fourth is the obvious one, the reason federal agencies are supposed to have to get a search warrant, to prevent "unreasonable search & seizure" -- and we both know how well THAT is being applied.

I'd prefer to see a "freedom of speech" argument because unlike the 4th, the First Amendment is not limited. Freedom of speech is supposed to be absolute, and that includes sedition and and hate speech. There is no exclusion for terrorist plotting. Nor should there be.

I think the prior restraint argument is a novel approach, making the argument that insecure communications is inherently unconstitutional. That protected speech includes things which are inherently against the well-being of the State, and that "thoughtcrime" must not be codified. The law must concern itself with ACTIONS, not thoughts or privileged communications.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Slander and libel are obvious examples of speech which may get you into legal trouble. "Fighting words" are also not protected and may result in prosecution for assault or breach of the peace. There are, in fact, broadly-defined exceptions that would include terrorist plotting.

Basically, speech must have social value and/or be an expression of ideas (broadly defined) in order to be protected under the first amendment. Conversation which is the planning of a criminal act may or may not be protected; that one is a bit tricky.

Prior restraint applies to actions, not speech. That's the way the concept is defined. The government must tell you specifically in advance of some action - and that action may, in fact, be a public speech - that you are not allowed to take that action.

There is no such thing as absolutely secure communication over any telephone. Wire tapping is a common practice at all levels of law enforcement. And it has been held to be legal numerous times.

No speech is prohibited. You can say whatever you want, to whomever you want. But if that speech is intended to result in a criminal action, then you can get nailed for it: it may be considered part and parcel of the crime.

I don't think that Apple or any other company should be forced into acting as a branch of law enforcement, which is how I define the FBI's demands of them. And I don't think that agents should be able to examine unlocked cell phones without a warrant, even if the phone is in plain sight at the time of an arrest.

"I don't think that agents should be able to examine unlocked cell phones without a warrant, even if the phone is in plain sight at the time of an arrest." I think that contradicts settled caselaw.

I wasn't defining settled case law in that statement, As noted, that's what I think.
If an agent goes into a house without a search warrant, and he sees a gun on the table, he can examine it, or even take it as possible evidence. But he cannot open drawers or closet doors, for example. If he sees a cell phone, he should take note of it, and maybe take it into his possession, but I think he should have to get a warrant to "open" the phone, just as he would need a warrant to open drawers. The information in the phone is not in plain sight. But that's just my opinion.

Hmm.

U.S. To Keep Fighting For Apple To Unlock iPhone In New York Drug Case