Tim Cook stands up to Apple user rights and says no to the U.S and FBI who want them to create a bac - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49759900]Couldn't you simply find the specific iPhone you want, encrypt everything on that user's phone with one key (theirs), and then encrypt it again with a second key (yours), such that you and the user can both access his or her data? Or do you mean that apple can't just target a single iPhone for an update?[/QUOTE] It is literally impossible for Apple to deploy an iOS update to only one device unless they're running on some beta build programme but that would require you to have both the phone unlocked and authorised to on iTunes They would need to totally revamp the update centre on both iOS and Mac OS X for them to deploy singular device updates but that leads them open to potential targets

[QUOTE=redBadger;49759854]Thank you for explaining, I was under the impression they could cut off and limit this for one phone. Though it should be possible if they code a version specifically made for that phone. They can install it through hard wire and not OTA so nobody else gets it.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how the iPhone works compared to other systems, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government has already tried that and failed. The situation is complicated by the fact that the iPhone has very sophisticated encryption and defensive features that could permanently erase the phone's data.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49759939]It is literally impossible for Apple to deploy an iOS update to only one device unless they're running on some beta build programme but that would require you to have both the phone unlocked and authorised to on iTunes They would need to totally revamp the update centre on both iOS and Mac OS X for them to deploy singular device updates but that leads them open to potential targets[/QUOTE] That's really surprising to me. That seems like a pretty basic thing to be able to do

Also, Didn't Apple openly admit a while back that they can do this but they won't?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49759979]That's really surprising to me. That seems like a pretty basic thing to be able to do[/QUOTE] Unlike Android, iOS is closed to the bone when it comes to update deployment. If the guy had an Android phone the FBI would have already gotten through simply because Androids aren't hard to get through, iOS is built like a brick house compared to them Apple's always been about protecting user data to the core, even if that means that after 10 failed passcode attempts (this isn't on by default but can be switched), your iPhone/iPad will erase all data permanently

That's nice and all, but those little things called National Security letters can compel them to do whatever is asked of them, and it would be EXTREMELY unwise for anyone, even a huge corporation like Apple, to refuse. So they can claim to champion user rights to privacy but at the end of the day, I think we all know how this is going to end.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;49760789]That's nice and all, but those little things called National Security letters can compel them to do whatever is asked of them, and it would be EXTREMELY unwise for anyone, even a huge corporation like Apple, to refuse. So they can claim to champion user rights to privacy but at the end of the day, I think we all know how this is going to end.[/QUOTE] It would also be suicidal to employ weak encryption. Apple would, without a doubt, challenge any threats presented to them. I don't like Apple, but they have a strong record on privacy and security.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49760029]Unlike Android, iOS is closed to the bone when it comes to update deployment. If the guy had an Android phone the FBI would have already gotten through simply because Androids aren't hard to get through, iOS is built like a brick house compared to them Apple's always been about protecting user data to the core, even if that means that after 10 failed passcode attempts (this isn't on by default but can be switched), your iPhone/iPad will erase all data permanently[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate on any facts supporting your argument?

Apple wouldn't move due to a government demand, which this is not. its very much not impossible for Apple to single out a phone for an update as they control the update servers, whether or not they'd do it or go through the effort is another story.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;49761059]Care to elaborate on any facts supporting your argument?[/QUOTE] This is less about user privacy and protection and more about securing the platform/walled garden. They really do not want people jailbreaking phones, a side effect of making them more secure against exploits that allow anything in the phone to be accessed is making the user's personal data stored within more secure. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] Obviously google cares about security, but people are reflashing their devices constantly. That ability also opens them up to more exploits.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49758820]I work at the DEA and we tried this loads of times. It is simply not feasible.[/QUOTE] prove it cabron

[QUOTE=redBadger;49759854]Thank you for explaining, I was under the impression they could cut off and limit this for one phone. Though it should be possible if they code a version specifically made for that phone. They can install it through hard wire and not OTA so nobody else gets it.[/QUOTE] what are you talking about the only way they can break encryption here is with a master key of some sort, or the original key the user set the setting for the security wiping is obviously encrypted too [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ElderRanger;49760019]Also, Didn't Apple openly admit a while back that they can do this but they won't?[/QUOTE] Of course they [I]can[/I] do it, they programmed it in the first place. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] and by the way, updating as an entire feature is locked until you decrypt user data!! there's no way they can 'single out' a phone, or update it without having it unlocked to do that in the first place. all of those files pertaining to how data is encrypted and how the file system works, are not wide open. that would be the single biggest flaw in any encrypted operating system ever.

[QUOTE=Overwatch 7;49759114]While I am in full support of Cook, the situation can make for some interesting arguments. Let's say, hypothetically, that the authorities were aware of an attack that would soon take place in a city, but they do not know who is attacking, how they are attacking, when, and which city. However, they have an encrypted phone that, if unlocked, could provide the full details; but it won't do them any good if they can't open it quickly. A backdoor into the device could save countless lives, but could mean the end to privacy in the future. What is the right thing to do?[/QUOTE] What if we installed cameras with microphones literally everywhere in the world that the government could only access with a warrant? After all those terrorists you're talking about could easily just have a conversation in private between themselves. It would be a [I]massive[/I] privacy concern for your average citizen, no? There would be concerns over whether it would be abused as well as security concerns unrelated to the government itself but hackers and such. It's the same basic idea with your example.

lol, that's very cute marketing speak Apple. Back to the real world though.. [IMG]http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2013/06/NSA-slides-explain-the-PRISM-data-collection-program-The-Washington-Post-600x450.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=redBadger;49759664]I don't quite understand why FP agrees with this. I understand people have the right to have their shit hidden, but when you are gathering evidence for an investigation of a murderer he suddenly then should have the same security rights as every other innocent person?[/QUOTE] Sure? Someone doesn't deserve to have their privacy invaded simply on the basis of [I]suspicion[/I] that they did something wrong. If you have proof that they did something wrong and just want additional information then apprehend them and if they refuse to show the police the encrypted data, charge them for obstruction of justice or something.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49761820]Sure? Someone doesn't deserve to have their privacy invaded simply on the basis of [I]suspicion[/I] that they did something wrong. If you have proof that they did something wrong and just want additional information then apprehend them and if they refuse to show the police the encrypted data, charge them for obstruction of justice or something.[/QUOTE] The US government has a history of overstepping their bounds when given tools like this. If Apple does this for them one time, then that build of IOS exists. Who's to say the FBI wont try to then try to crack that phone to gain a copy of the custom version of IOS and in the future spoof the update into other phones? Apple doesn't want this version to exist because once it exists, they can't get rid of it. Also, if they give in to this they know they'll have a much harder time getting out of it in the future. I don't think the issue most people have with this is whether or not they should have the data, the issue is the means of obtaining the data.

Apple wants to denounce US gov possibly because some agreement has changed between them and Apple does not like it. Hell, maybe that's some political influence over here.

[QUOTE=SharpTeeth;49758815]The problem is, in order to satisfy those extreme cases, you'd have to create a massive security hole that can then be used against you. A vault is only secure as it's door.[/QUOTE] yes but silicon valley can just magik stuff up remember? all we gotta do is have a frank and ernest conversation where we all sit down and the government threatens them all with aiding terrorism charges

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49758799]You can't make a specific single-iPhone-only encyrption-breaking update. If you do, a backdoor is created for every iPhone on the planet.[/QUOTE] How do you even make something like that?

[QUOTE=Pw0nageXD;49762073]The US government has a history of overstepping their bounds when given tools like this. If Apple does this for them one time, then that build of IOS exists. Who's to say the FBI wont try to then try to crack that phone to gain a copy of the custom version of IOS and in the future spoof the update into other phones? Apple doesn't want this version to exist because once it exists, they can't get rid of it. Also, if they give in to this they know they'll have a much harder time getting out of it in the future. I don't think the issue most people have with this is whether or not they should have the data, the issue is the means of obtaining the data.[/QUOTE] all governments in the world have a history of overstepping their bounds; welcome to the world

[QUOTE=srobins;49761800]lol, that's very cute marketing speak Apple. Back to the real world though.. [IMG]http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2013/06/NSA-slides-explain-the-PRISM-data-collection-program-The-Washington-Post-600x450.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Notice how apple was the last company to be added with PRISM? Compared with Microsoft as soon as the NSA's programme was launched and Google+Facebook a little over 2 years after? Apple went for 5 years telling the NSA to fuck off until they had no choice but to sign on with the programme, I would also assume they weren't very co-operative with the NSA and delayed a lot of their request until it was illegal to

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49763783]Notice how apple was the last company to be added with PRISM? Compared with Microsoft as soon as the NSA's programme was launched and Google+Facebook a little over 2 years after? Apple went for 5 years telling the NSA to fuck off until they had no choice but to sign on with the programme, I would also assume they weren't very co-operative with the NSA and delayed a lot of their request until it was illegal to[/QUOTE] uhm. sure we'll go with that

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49763783]Notice how apple was the last company to be added with PRISM? Compared with Microsoft as soon as the NSA's programme was launched and Google+Facebook a little over 2 years after? Apple went for 5 years telling the NSA to fuck off until they had no choice but to sign on with the programme, I would also assume they weren't very co-operative with the NSA and delayed a lot of their request until it was illegal to[/QUOTE] The point of the matter is that what Apple is saying is largely lip service. The NSA already has them under their thumb, along with probably every other major US-based tech company of import. Whether or not they jumped on from the start or fought it out until they were legally compelled to is irrelevant, because the NSA has had an open door to their info. It's the other alphabet agencies that have to play by the rules so to speak and whine endlessly until Apple caves. NSA just tells Apple what they want and that they better get it or else. The entire point behind PRISM is that it 'encourages' companies to willingly allow the NSA to stick that mile long bendy straw into their data instead of them having to be served a NSL or just having their shit plain broken into behind their backs. It only benefits the NSA in any meaningful way, the only 'benefit' to companies targetted by this program is that they are spared the illusion of due process.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49763783]Notice how apple was the last company to be added with PRISM? Compared with Microsoft as soon as the NSA's programme was launched and Google+Facebook a little over 2 years after? Apple went for 5 years telling the NSA to fuck off until they had no choice but to sign on with the programme, I would also assume they weren't very co-operative with the NSA and delayed a lot of their request until it was illegal to[/QUOTE] You also have to realise Microsoft has a bigger userbase than apple on desktop PCs, and in 2007 no one used smartphones, so it makes sense they would pressure them more.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49759275]I'm glad Apple's got a backbone here. I mean, they always have; Steve wasn't a huge fan of government meddling, or meddling in general. He put up one of the first Canary pages of any major tech company. Yes, it would help in the investigation if the FBI could crack the phone. But, at the same time, the deed has been done and the terrorists are dead. I'm not sure there's much to gain by cracking the phones of the dead, but we've got quite a lot to lose.[/QUOTE] Try telling the FBI that because they'll bitch till no end. What happens now that they're denying this order? Do people start going to jail at Apple or are their deep pockets enough to keep them out of harms way for denying this order? Or maybe they're hoping that this creates public awareness and outcry. Then the government will back the fuck off? I'm kinda confused by what this all means.

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;49759186]Encryption is nothing new. Criminals can already do what you describe.[B] After all, you would have to prohibit math, which is impossible.[/B][/QUOTE] Unless you're ISIS. They actually did

[QUOTE=apierce1289;49764288]Try telling the FBI that because they'll bitch till no end. What happens now that they're denying this order? Do people start going to jail at Apple or are their deep pockets enough to keep them out of harms way for denying this order? Or maybe they're hoping that this creates public awareness and outcry. Then the government will back the fuck off? I'm kinda confused by what this all means.[/QUOTE] They were ordered to go through with it by a court but that doesn't mean they have to absolutely go through with it. They can fight it by taking it up the chain to the Supreme Court if they have to. It's only if the Supreme Court rules against them that they'd have no choice but to do what the FBI is requesting. (Except the part where it's not actually really possible in this exact case.)

[QUOTE=srobins;49761800]lol, that's very cute marketing speak Apple. Back to the real world though.. [IMG]http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2013/06/NSA-slides-explain-the-PRISM-data-collection-program-The-Washington-Post-600x450.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I mean, this whole stance Apple is taking is obviously them trying to pivot themselves into the market of privacy/security-consious folks. Post Snowden, lots of large tech companies were accused of spying on their users. Establishing your company as caring about their customer's privacy/security and willing to fight for it is a great move to attract that market. [editline]18th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=apierce1289;49764288]Try telling the FBI that because they'll bitch till no end. What happens now that they're denying this order? Do people start going to jail at Apple or are their deep pockets enough to keep them out of harms way for denying this order? Or maybe they're hoping that this creates public awareness and outcry. Then the government will back the fuck off? I'm kinda confused by what this all means.[/QUOTE] They claim that they do not have the technical ability to unlock the phone. Why would anyone get arrested?

John McAfee offered to decrypt the phone for free so Apple doesn't have to install any backdoors. [quote]So here is my offer to the FBI. I will, free of charge, decrypt the information on the San Bernardino phone, with my team. We will primarily use social engineering, and it will take us three weeks. If you accept my offer, then you will not need to ask Apple to place a back door in its product, which will be the beginning of the end of America. If you doubt my credentials, Google "cybersecurity legend" and see whose name is the only name that appears in the first 10 results out of more than a quarter of a million.[/quote] [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2[/url]

[QUOTE=SashaWolf;49765612]I mean, this whole stance Apple is taking is obviously them trying to pivot themselves into the market of privacy/security-consious folks. Post Snowden, lots of large tech companies were accused of spying on their users. Establishing your company as caring about their customer's privacy/security and willing to fight for it is a great move to attract that market. [editline]18th February 2016[/editline] They claim that they do not have the technical ability to unlock the phone. Why would anyone get arrested?[/QUOTE] Exactly, which is what I find so disingenuous. Marketing yourself as privacy-focused when you're in compliance with the NSA PRISM program is complete nonsense. Good on them for resisting this specific case, but I can't help but see this letter from Cook as being two-faced marketing now that it's become trendy to pretend you care about your customers. [editline]18th February 2016[/editline] Maybe I'm being harsh; It's definitely a good thing that Apple is taking a stand against this ridiculous backdoor nonsense. For whatever reason I just feel there's something wrong with a PRISM participant being hailed as a torch bearer for security. What Apple is doing is a good thing, but it's pathetic that we're in such a state that we see not planting backdoors in millions of devices as being a revolutionary idea. It should be the default. It's like when someone comes out as being pro-gay marriage, sure they're in the right, but it's sad that we consider it as something special rather than just the norm.