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

There is only one reason that Apple was opposed to anyone having the ability to acquire software for the iPhone or iPad without buying it from Apple: Money. In the court case against their bricking of modified phones, they stated that their business model was based on people only being able to buy from Apple.

It had nothing to do with any warranty matters.

And does anyone else find it a little odd that Apple is fighting against providing information to the feds, blubbering about the apocalypse that will fall on us if they create a "back door" for the FBI. There already is a back door. One which Apple created years ago and which Apple uses. That's how they are able to disable iPhones at will.

If the FBI is really serious about getting into that phone, they should get in touch with the people who write the jailbreak code for the damn things. Hell, there may already be one posted on the internet which they can get free.

NoCoPilot wrote:

If you Hack Windows to provide the old Start menu it voids the warranty.  Wait, does Windows have a warranty?

Windows has exactly the same warranty as Apple operating systems: none.

_Howard wrote:

There already is a back door. One which Apple created years ago and which Apple uses. That's how they are able to disable iPhones at will.

Errr, probably not.

It's probably more of a hard-coded grenade that goes off under certain circumstances.  Apple doesn't have a team of engineers hacking into every jailbreaked iPhone.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Errr, probably not.

Errr. Probably yes. If there was no "back door" then Apple would not be able to install new software on your device without user approval. That's what "back door" means, for christ's sake.

Good article here:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fbi-order-apple-san-bernardino-encryption-hacking-backdoor-technical-explainer?trk_source=popular

_Howard wrote:

If there was no "back door" then Apple would not be able to install new software on your device without user approval.

When does Apple install software on your device without user approval? First I've heard of that.

Quote :

“‘Give us your dev key’ is probably on firmer ground legally than ‘write custom code for us’ but arguably way, way scarier,” the CATO Institute’s Julian Sanchez wrote on Twitter.

"Give an FBI a key and he can fish for a day, but teach an FBI how to replace firmware and he can SPY FOREVER."

Note: The CATO Institute, the Koch brother's right-wing libertarian think tank, thinks government overreach is in play here.

Talk about strange bedfellows!

That is a good article, as well as the article about the Writs Act it links to.

As I have noted before, the emphasis should be on the precedent this sets if Apple has to write the code requested. If Apple is allowed to retain the code and use it to unlock the device for the FBI, then it may not be a big deal. But if Apple has to give the code to the feds to use in perpetuity, then that's a major problem.

_Howard wrote:

That is a good article, as well as the article about the Writs Act it links to.

As I have noted before, the emphasis should be on the precedent this sets if Apple has to write the code requested. If Apple is allowed to retain the code and use it to unlock the device for the FBI, then it may not be a big deal. But if Apple has to give the code to the feds to use in perpetuity, then that's a major problem.

The problem, as Edward Snowden has chimed in, is that the government does not want any security in the world that it cannot bypass.

If that's a good idea somebody will have to explain why.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The problem, as Edward Snowden has chimed in, is that the government does not want any security in the world that it cannot bypass.

I think we were all aware of that even without Snowden's input.

NoCoPilot wrote:

If that's a good idea somebody will have to explain why.

You'll have to keep looking, because I don't know anyone who thinks that's a good idea.[/quote]

NoCoPilot wrote:

Talk about strange bedfellows!

Edward Snowden and the CATO Institute on one side, Donald Trump on the other.

I thought Trump was your boy.

Trump?  He's a moron.

He's entertaining but he's a moron.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Trump?  He's a moron

NoCoPilot on Trump:

Quote :

I like Trump, or rather I like what he represents.

Quote :

Honest. A proven record of success

Quote :

he's a breath of fresh air.

Make up your mind.

No inconsistency.

He's an entertaining breath-of-fresh-air moron who speaks his mind.

It's just empty is all.

I love the picture! Wonderful!

All is forgiven.

And now back to our regular scheduled program: What about Apple and the FBI?
BTW: the article's use of FBiOS cracked me up.

The FBI confirmed it screwed up and reset the San Bernardino shooter's iCloud password
... which adds some more finger-pointing, but also illustrates that data stored in the cloud isn't secure.

Tim Cook's letter is interesting reading.

Quote :

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

While I don't believe that Apple should be forced into assisting the FBI in breaking into the phone, I also think that Apple - and Tim Cook - are being dishonest with their assertion that their big concern is about creating a back door. "They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone." Tim Cook said. The back door is already there and will remain there as long as Apple wants to continue with their current business practices. If they would quit playing the prince on a white horse, I would be more supportive of the company's position.

Tim Cook wrote:

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

I believe you are incorrect, Howard, in your assertion that Apple maintains a back door into their products. I've never seen nor heard about one.

If they can interrogate your phone to find out if you have modified it in a manner of which they disapprove and they can disable the phone, then they have a back door into your phone. If they can install software on your phone without your intervention, then they have a back door into your phone.

How would you define back door?

I have never seen any evidence that either one of those is true.

I posted a link to an article about Error 53. The bricking of phones when the home button has been replaced by someone other than Apple. If you haven't been asleep for many years, you remember their bricking of phones with modified OS - "jailbreaking."

Do you think that I just dreamed those things happened? Do you deny that they ever happened and the reporting of them was a plot out of Redmond?

NoCoPilot wrote:

It's probably more of a hard-coded grenade that goes off under certain circumstances.

I seriously doubt that.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Apple doesn't have a team of engineers hacking into every jailbreaked iPhone.

You're undoubtedly right about that. Especially since the courts told them to stop it.

But a back door is a back door.no matter who uses it and for what purpose. It needn't even be used, but it's still a back door.