Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Apple refusing to unlock phone for FBI

13

Comments

  • #62
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,118 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Tim Cook has come out and said that Apple are working on encryption that even Apple can not access.
    So in the future Apple can simply say 'We are unable to access the phone', while making it's customers know their phones are secure.

    great news for the privacy conscious consumer

    Also great news for all those involved in illegal activities on all levels, from petty fraud to international terrorism


  • #63
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,036 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    The greatest irony of all this is that the U.S Govt was considering allowing the use of iPhones by the President and other members of State as their business phones, but have decided to stick with Blackberry OS as they are also virtually unbreakable once encrypted.


  • #64
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,463 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which is why I said one-off solution

    FBI gives the phone to Apple, they modify the program, they crack it, they don't reveal how, they give information to the FBI

    What's the alternative?

    The problem is that that's not what the FBI is looking for. They want to be given the modified phone and left alone with it.

    This is akin to changing the lock, and then giving it, the new key, and the new mould to the FBI.

    The notion that they would only use it once is ridiculous, if the whole NSA/Snowden scenario taught us anything.


  • #65
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    Also great news for all those involved in illegal activities on all levels, from petty fraud to international terrorism

    You could say that about just about anything:

    Cars
    Pencils
    Oxygen
    Trousers
    Whatever

    Just because something can be used by terrorists, it does not mean that it should be banned.


  • #66
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    The Verdict is in.



    Apple do not have to help the FBI.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    The_Valeyard wrote: »
    Apple do not have to help the FBI.

    But they are very happy to live and make billions in a country protected - as best it can be - by the fbi against many forces from around the world who would like to destroy it.

    If unlocking a phone of one of the 9/11 suicide bombers could have saved a few thousand people, would apple have helped then?


  • #68
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    You could say that about just about anything:

    Cars
    Pencils
    Oxygen
    Trousers
    Whatever

    Just because something can be used by terrorists, it does not mean that it should be banned.

    most ridiculous statement today


  • #69
    Cossax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    maryishere wrote: »
    But they are very happy to live and make billions in a country protected - as best it can be - by the fbi against many forces from around the world who would like to destroy it.

    If unlocking a phone of one of the 9/11 suicide bombers could have saved a few thousand people, would apple have helped then?

    The FBI are an internal security agency, not an external one.

    Your second paragraph is a nonsense argument on quite a few levels and doesn't make sense at all given the context of this case.


  • #70
    BunkMoreland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 820 ✭✭✭BunkMoreland


    Apple support and harbour terrorists.


  • #71
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    To anyone who disagrees with Apple here - would you be willing to let the Gards, Interpol, FBI etc into your gaf without any notice, whether you were there or not, and at any time or frequency of their own choosing? And that level of free access to every house in the world.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    Billy86 wrote: »
    To anyone who disagrees with Apple here - would you be willing to let the Gards, Interpol, FBI etc into your gaf without any notice, whether you were there or not, and at any time or frequency of their own choosing? And that level of free access to every house in the world.

    Why would the FBI want to be in my house and interpol dont have their own police officers, they are a liason agency.

    I fully expect the Gardai to be able to access a suspects home, yes I do and if that means I am a suspect then again, yes I expect them to be able to gain access.

    Your arguement is that the FBI will decide to just access everyones phones is paranoia. THey are asking for access t set phones, regardless of the hype, they are asking for access to set phones via warrant.


  • #73
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    It's only the one phone that the FBI want to access. Well, apart from this other phone that they'd also like a look at:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35692931

    Apple have not yet won the case that this thread was about, but they have won an identical one elsewhere.


  • #74
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    esforum wrote: »
    Why would the FBI want to be in my house and interpol dont have their own police officers, they are a liason agency.

    I fully expect the Gardai to be able to access a suspects home, yes I do and if that means I am a suspect then again, yes I expect them to be able to gain access.

    Your arguement is that the FBI will decide to just access everyones phones is paranoia. THey are asking for access t set phones, regardless of the hype, they are asking for access to set phones via warrant.

    If the FBI went along to a safe manufacturer where the lock on the front was impossible to break, but asked could they create a new way in through the back of the safe so the FBI could access the contents then the safe manufacturer would be well within their rights to tell them to get stuffed and for the FBI to use their own sledge hammer to make the hole in the back of the safe. Why should the safe company waste their time and resources on making a new hole in the back of the safe for the FBI?

    If the FBI want to get in then they can do it themselves. If they can't get in then that is tough, but that was the whole point of the safe in the first place.


  • #75
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    esforum wrote: »
    Your arguement is that the FBI will decide to just access everyones phones is paranoia. THey are asking for access t set phones, regardless of the hype, they are asking for access to set phones via warrant.

    So, if the FBI have the key to everyone's iPhone, do you think that they won't use it? Or pass it on to the NSA or CIA to use?

    You'd want to be very naive to believe that this technology wouldn't be used on other devices not related to this case.

    And for the record, the judge isn't quite telling Apple to open this phone because Apple don't have the technology to do it. He is telling Apple to toddle off and get their programmers to develop a hack tool to access the phone. This hack tool would then be able to open all iPhones.

    So now you have a Judge telling a company what products to make.


  • #76
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    So I there are a couple of points that people are missing in all this. Firstly there is the argument that Apple shouldn't create a backdoor into their OS. But the fact of the matter is that this backdoor actually already exists, its just that Apple hold the only key. And even if they comply with the warrant, they can continue to be the only ones with a key. The question is if they should allow their door to be used by the FBI when there is a warrant.

    More technically what I mean is that iPhones have a recovery mode is meant to be used to flash firmware if the phone somehow gets stuck in a boot loop and importantly according to apples website this won't wipe your data off your phone. That's the backdoor, admittedly Apple could change it so that it does wipe your data when the door is opened, and perhaps they should, but the fact of the matter is that in this case Apple have already built the door.

    Next there is the idea that if they open the door once, then anyone will be able to walk through it whenever they want. If people mean that this will set a precedent, that Apple will comply with warrants, then sure, that leads us back to the first question. If people mean that once opened the FBI will be able to use that backdoor without a warrant, then I don't think this is the case. The firmware could be programmed to interrogate the phones hardware and only boot on that specific phone, and the firmware can be signed so that that it couldn't be changed and then flashed to another phone. That's not to say that this is perfectly secure, but if the FBI was willing/able to go to the lengths needed to overcome this, then they actually wouldn't have needed Apples help to begin with. Any in any case, the point is kinda moot, when Apple have opened phones in the past, they took custody of them, so there is no reason why that couldn't continue.

    Honestly I think this is more a marketing campaign for Apple, though I commend them for taking a stand for their customers privacy. But I don't think the FBI are asking for an unreasonable level of access, and therefore Apple should comply with the warrant.


  • #77
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    So, if the FBI have the key to everyone's iPhone, do you think that they won't use it? Or pass it on to the NSA or CIA to use?.

    but thats not whats being asked at all, not one bit. Its a completely incorrect view of the situation. The FBI are obtaining a warrant that orders Apple to give access to a single phone, Apple at no stage are compelled to show the FBI how to access iphones.
    robinph wrote: »
    If the FBI went along to a safe manufacturer where the lock on the front was impossible to break, but asked could they create a new way in through the back of the safe so the FBI could access the contents then the safe manufacturer would be well within their rights to tell them to get stuffed and for the FBI to use their own sledge hammer to make the hole in the back of the safe. Why should the safe company waste their time and resources on making a new hole in the back of the safe for the FBI?

    Again incorrect, the fbi arent asking for a hole in all safes, they are asking (using a warrant) for the safe company to open one set safe using their master password / code.
    robinph wrote: »
    If the FBI want to get in then they can do it themselves. If they can't get in then that is tough, but that was the whole point of the safe in the first place.

    I dont know where to go with that comment, I would expect that comment from a sociopath or plain aul criminal.

    Let me ask a set question here, if the iphone in question contained information on a kidnapped child or if the phone belonged to a child pornography producer and accessing it could result 'possible' in the safe finding and rescuing of children that are being abused, would you still agree with Apples stand?


  • #78
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    Apple can't currently open it. It isn't up to private companies to compensate the FBIs failures.


  • #79
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    esforum wrote: »
    Why would the FBI want to be in my house and interpol dont have their own police officers, they are a liason agency.
    Because you could be a terrorist. And if the FBI and other such agencies don't have full, round-the-clock access whenever they want to all of your house, how do they know you're not plotting something in there?
    I fully expect the Gardai to be able to access a suspects home, yes I do and if that means I am a suspect then again, yes I expect them to be able to gain access.
    That's not the case here though, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions. Breaking the encryption means ALL or NONE, there is no middle ground on the access they would have. There is no 'just this one phone' option.
    Your arguement is that the FBI will decide to just access everyones phones is paranoia. THey are asking for access t set phones, regardless of the hype, they are asking for access to set phones via warrant.
    Yep, as paranoid as Edward Snowden.

    There is a contract of trust between a government and it's people, and in the US that contract has been long since ripped up, sh@t upon, and set alight. If there were more trust, I'm guessing this would not be such a big issue.


  • #80
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Billy86 wrote: »
    That's not the case here though, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions. Breaking the encryption means ALL or NONE, there is no middle ground on the access they would have. There is no 'just this one phone' option.

    I don't think that is correct. In this case are they not looking for an update to the ios to be uploaded to this one particular phone alone?


  • #81
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I don't think that is correct. In this case are they not looking for an update to the ios to be uploaded to this one particular phone alone?

    That is correct, but the broader argument is that if one device can be accessed, all devices can be accessed which nullifies the need for security.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    That is correct, but the broader argument is that if one device can be accessed, all devices can be accessed which nullifies the need for security.

    how does it nullify the need for security?


  • #83
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    how does it nullify the need for security?

    Once it has been seen that it can be done for one phone, it can be done for all.

    Put it this way, say for example your PIN for your ATM card. If you found out that the PIN can be decrypted, would you trust your card and PIN knowing that it is possible for that PIN to be known?


  • #84
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    Once it has been seen that it can be done for one phone, it can be done for all.

    Put it this way, say for example your PIN for your ATM card. If you found out that the PIN can be decrypted, would you trust your card and PIN knowing that it is possible for that PIN to be known?

    If it was found that the PIN could be decrypted by my bank when placed in a machine in my bank then I don't think I would be too bothered. On the other hand, I still lock my front door every night even though lock picking is a relatively easy skill for people to take up.


  • #85
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    If it was found that the PIN could be decrypted by my bank when placed in a machine in my bank then I don't think I would be too bothered. On the other hand, I still lock my front door every night even though lock picking is a relatively easy skill for people to take up.
    Apple don't want the lock picking to be a possibility, which from a brand perspective is essential in thier view.


  • #86
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    Apple don't want the lock picking to be a possibility, which from a brand perspective is essential in thier view.

    And I'm sure Nike wishes the concept of a minimum wage would disappear. Doesn't mean it should.


  • #87
    Oldenboard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66 ✭✭Oldenboard


    Sunnyisland wrote: »
    It seems a nobrainer the FBI should be allowed access, but but what will they do with people's phones in the future and will it compromise the publics private and personal phone messages and phone calls.

    It is not a nobrainer, as the powers to break into phones need to be limited. This case may seem obvious, other cases less so. Where do you draw the limits?


  • #88
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Oldenboard wrote: »
    It is not a nobrainer, as the powers to break into phones need to be limited. This case may seem obvious, other cases less so. Where do you draw the limits?

    That's the purpose of a legal system. This technology should not be limited by capability but by law. If you don't trust the legal system or the government then the solution is to change them, not limit technology. That's the whole purpose of a democracy.


  • #89
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    That's the purpose of a legal system. This technology should not be limited by capability but by law. If you don't trust the legal system or the government then the solution is to change them, not limit technology. That's the whole purpose of a democracy.

    The problem in the US for this is, though: vote one way, and you're voting not to change... vote the other, and you're also voting not to change.

    Even with our current situation the last few days I am so, so grateful we don't have a two party system like they do (even if we do have two historically overwhelmingly larger parties than the others).


  • #90
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    Once it has been seen that it can be done for one phone, it can be done for all.

    and again it has to be pointed out, they have already done it on other phones. There is no magic wand to give the FBI, Apple will still posess the ability to open phones, an ability they already posess but have decided to stop using for law enforcement.

    I asked a question thats conveniently being ignored I notice


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    mass_debater
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭mass_debater


    esforum wrote: »
    and again it has to be pointed out, they have already done it on other phones. There is no magic wand to give the FBI, Apple will still posess the ability to open phones, an ability they already posess but have decided to stop using for law enforcement.

    I asked a question thats conveniently being ignored I notice

    There is a difference to what Apple have done before, Apple have access to iPhone backups which is what was used in other cases, this is different as there is no backup and the information must be taken from the phone


Advertisement