Fedgov vs Apple : In re Iphone "backdoor"

[xband]

Jesus, I have found a back door in Microsoft by randomly typing with my fingers that was security protected at the high tech bakery. There is always a back door to defeat the programing without rewiring bootstrap memory.. A computer can never be smarter than a man because it is a man made computer.

 

[FA_Q2]

Jesus, I have found a back door in Microsoft by randomly typing with my fingers that was security protected at the high tech bakery. There is always a back door to defeat the programing. A computer can never be smarter than a man because it is a man made the computer.

The issue is that the phone wipes itself after to many failed attempts.

I guarantee that they are capable of hacking the phone though - the better question is weather or not they are willing to expend the considerable resources that might actually take let alone the time required. I think the real point here is that the government wants to address the growing concern that they have in rearguards to digital security measures finally getting to a point where the information is no longer easy for them to get.

The government wants all information available at all times without any real expenditure of resources to get it. Basically, power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Go apple !

This makes for a GOP candidate quandary . They are so pro patriot aft and cry "terror" at every turn .

Do they go the terror route or privacy/freedom?

In case you haven't noticed it was a democratic administration that asked Apple to put in a back door

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jesus, I have found a back door in Microsoft by randomly typing with my fingers that was security protected at the high tech bakery. There is always a back door to defeat the programing. A computer can never be smarter than a man because it is a man made the computer.

The issue is that the phone wipes itself after to many failed attempts.

I guarantee that they are capable of hacking the phone though - the better question is weather or not they are willing to expend the considerable resources that might actually take let alone the time required. I think the real point here is that the government wants to address the growing concern that they have in rearguards to digital security measures finally getting to a point where the information is no longer easy for them to get.

The government wants all information available at all times without any real expenditure of resources to get it. Basically, power.

Maybe the FBI can make a deal with Apple: The FBI agrees they will back of on Apple getting into this phone, and in exchange, Apple develops the same system to protect our government computers that get hacked all the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jesus, I have found a back door in Microsoft by randomly typing with my fingers that was security protected at the high tech bakery. There is always a back door to defeat the programing without rewiring bootstrap memory.. A computer can never be smarter than a man because it is a man made computer.

That's Microsoft. This is Apple--the better computer company.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The San Bernadino shooter lived in a house.
That house had locks on the doors.
The locks were made by Acme Lock Co.

Why should Acme Lock Co. be required to pick the lock to the front door?

It's all fine and dandy for the authorities to want to conduct a search to look for evidence of further terrorist activity. If the government wants to find a way to enter the house to conduct that search, good on them. But there is no justification for demanding that the lock company get involved and be forced to become an agent of government activity.

This conversation really should have ended right here. I don't see how you can get so far astray of the actual issue as Valerie has - this has nothing to do with legal search and warrant laws. This has everything to do with the government suddenly deciding that it can and will COMPEL third parties to be its strong arm to pursue those search warrants.

Why shouldn't they? This is what happens when you allow government the power to FORCE people to buy healthcare insurance. The power of force just grows from there.

 

[Rustic]

While I agree with Apple here I think they should help get the phone open for the FBI but they shouldn't be FORCED to do it. What's sadder is the combined forces of the fed gov can't crack the damn phone...I mean really? Has diversity destroyed the fed gov that much!?

They have been trying for three months. Apple is so good that even the feds can't bypass their encryption security.

That is not saying much, the federal government can't do anything right. Due to their incompetence...

 

[Valerie]

apple sucks... they're feeding into international anti-American rhetoric AS IF it is just way too dangerous for the US Government to have access to crucial info... i call bullshit on Apple and their simple minded supporters...

deep thinking American glibertarians are being seduced into this dangerous mind-set of paranoia, it's gone all the way through the looking glass... amazing they think they're so friggin' smart but they just can't see... the REAL danger is in setting these legal precedents, giving corporations the power to encrypt communications in this manner.

you all need to check yourselves and your various confirmation biases, dig deep and THINK.




Last month, some of President Obama’s top intelligence advisers met in Silicon Valley with Apple’s chief, Timothy D. Cook, and other technology leaders in what seemed to be a public rapprochement in their long-running dispute over the encryption safeguards built into their devices.

But behind the scenes, relations were tense, as lawyers for the Obama administration and Apple held closely guarded discussions for over two months about one particularly urgent case: The F.B.I. wanted Apple to help “unlock” an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December, but Apple was resisting.

When the talks collapsed, a federal magistrate judge, at the Justice Department’s request, ordered Apple to bypass security functions on the phone. The order set off a furious public battle on Wednesday between the Obama administration and one of the world’s most valuable companies in a dispute with far-reaching legal implications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0

 

[Valerie]

This is not the first time a technology company has been ordered to effectively decrypt its own product. But industry experts say it is the most significant because of Apple’s global profile, the invasive steps it says are being demanded and the brutality of the San Bernardino attacks.

Law enforcement officials who support the F.B.I.’s position said that the impasse with Apple provided an ideal test case to move from an abstract debate over the balance between national security and privacy to a concrete one.

The F.B.I. has been unable to get into the phone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who was killed by the police along with his wife after they attacked Mr. Farook’s co-workers at a holiday gathering. Reynaldo Tariche, an F.B.I. agent on Long Island, said, “The worst-case scenario has come true.”

Mr. Tariche, who is president of the agents’ association, added, “As more of these devices come to market, this touches all aspects of the cases that we’re working on.”

Fedgov vs Apple : In re Iphone "backdoor"

 

[Valerie]

“The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe,” Mr. Cook said.

BULLSHIT ^


Apple argues that the software the F.B.I. wants it to create does not exist. But technologists say the company can do it.


Mr. Cook’s angry tone reflected the tense discussions, conducted mostly on the telephone, between his company and the government’s lawyers over the San Bernardino case. Apple executives had hoped to resolve the impasse without having to rewrite their own encryption software. They were frustrated that the Justice Department had aired its demand in public, according to an industry executive with knowledge of the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal discussions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0

 

[Rustic]

In short - never trust the federal government...

 

[Valerie]

Earlier today, a federal judge ordered Apple to comply with the FBI’s request for technical assistance in the recovery of the San Bernadino gunmen’s iPhone 5C. Since then, many have argued whether these requests from the FBI are technically feasible given the support for strong encryption on iOS devices. Based on my initial reading of the request and my knowledge of the iOS platform, I believe all of the FBI’s requests are technically feasible.

Apple can comply with the FBI court order

 

[Valerie]

In plain English, the FBI wants to ensure that it can make an unlimited number of PIN guesses, that it can make them as fast as the hardware will allow, and that they won’t have to pay an intern to hunch over the phone and type PIN codes one at a time for the next 20 years — they want to guess passcodes from an external device like a laptop or other peripheral.


As a remedy, the FBI has asked for Apple to perform the following actions on their behalf:


[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.


Again in plain English, the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of iOS that only works on the one iPhone they have recovered. This customized version of iOS (*ahem* FBiOS) will ignore passcode entry delays, will not erase the device after any number of incorrect attempts, and will allow the FBI to hook up an external device to facilitate guessing the passcode. The FBI will send Apple the recovered iPhone so that this customized version of iOS never physically leaves the Apple campus.

Apple can comply with the FBI court order

Apple vs. the FBI: An Explanation of the Legal Issues

 

[g5000]

This is the camel's nose in the tent. The FBI has a lot of phones which they need hacked. They've had them for a while.

They picked the most emotionally charged case they could find to drive a wedge into our privacy rights.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is just about one terrorist's phone.

 

[Contumacious]

In plain English, the FBI wants to ensure that it can make an unlimited number of PIN guesses, that it can make them as fast as the hardware will allow, and that they won’t have to pay an intern to hunch over the phone and type PIN codes one at a time for the next 20 years — they want to guess passcodes from an external device like a laptop or other peripheral.


As a remedy, the FBI has asked for Apple to perform the following actions on their behalf:


[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.


Again in plain English, the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of iOS that only works on the one iPhone they have recovered. This customized version of iOS (*ahem* FBiOS) will ignore passcode entry delays, will not erase the device after any number of incorrect attempts, and will allow the FBI to hook up an external device to facilitate guessing the passcode. The FBI will send Apple the recovered iPhone so that this customized version of iOS never physically leaves the Apple campus.

Apple can comply with the FBI court order

Apple vs. the FBI: An Explanation of the Legal Issues

In plain English , the government does not have a case

The U.S. vs. Apple: Does the FBI Have a Case?

What About the Constitution?

No matter what the All Writs Act means, the Justice Department will not be able to make Apple comply if doing so would violate the Constitution. This opens another can of worms.

First, there is the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure rules. While the FBI obtained a valid warrant, it must still execute the search in a reasonable manner—and forcing Apple to break encryption might not qualify. According to Abdo of the ACLU, Apple has a claim based on the Fifth Amendment too: it could argue that the process would deprive it of liberty without due process of law.

Finally, law professor Ryan Calo of the UW School of Lawsuggested on Twitter that the FBI’s proposed order violates free speech rights. The reason is that forcing Apple to write new software may amount to “compelled speech” that contravenes the First Amendment.

_____________

The Constitution (1787) is of course irrelevant.

But the government "judges" make reference to it in order to perpetrate the fraud that its still relevant.

 

[Contumacious]

apple sucks... they're feeding into international anti-American rhetoric AS IF it is just way too dangerous for the US Government to have access to crucial info... i call bullshit on Apple and their simple minded supporters...

deep thinking American glibertarians are being seduced into this dangerous mind-set of paranoia, it's gone all the way through the looking glass... amazing they think they're so friggin' smart but they just can't see... the REAL danger is in setting these legal precedents, giving corporations the power to encrypt communications in this manner.

you all need to check yourselves and your various confirmation biases, dig deep and THINK.




Last month, some of President Obama’s top intelligence advisers met in Silicon Valley with Apple’s chief, Timothy D. Cook, and other technology leaders in what seemed to be a public rapprochement in their long-running dispute over the encryption safeguards built into their devices.

But behind the scenes, relations were tense, as lawyers for the Obama administration and Apple held closely guarded discussions for over two months about one particularly urgent case: The F.B.I. wanted Apple to help “unlock” an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December, but Apple was resisting.

When the talks collapsed, a federal magistrate judge, at the Justice Department’s request, ordered Apple to bypass security functions on the phone. The order set off a furious public battle on Wednesday between the Obama administration and one of the world’s most valuable companies in a dispute with far-reaching legal implications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0

Valerie sucks


I have asked her on numerous occasions to produce evidence in the form of videos showing that the San Bernardino Jihad is real not a false flag operation.

Even though this event occurred in a government building with lots of police cruisers around not one single security video has been produced.

But here she is blindly chastising Apple because she is an ignorant government supremacist.

Nor has she disputed the fact that the ONLY solution to this matter if for the motherfuckers inside the DC beltway to cease and desist intervening in the internal affairs of other nations.

 

[HenryBHough]

If government can force a private entity to build something it doesn't want to build then it can force you to build, at your expense, an extra bedroom on your house and allow it to be used for free by a Muslim jihadist.

Oh shit. There I go giving O'Bozo ideas again......

 

[Valerie]

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”



The text of the Fourth Amendment bars unwarranted searches of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." But, as Scalia told the audience, "conversations are quite different" from all four of those things.

Scalia Comes To Brooklyn, Drops Huge Hint About NSA Surveillance And The Supreme Court

Enigma
Stealing secrets

Arthur Scherbius, a German engineer, developed his 'Enigma' machine, capable of transcribing coded information, in the hope of interesting commercial companies in secure communications. In 1923 he set up his Chiffriermaschinen Aktiengesellschaft (Cipher Machines Corporation) in Berlin to manufacture his product. Within three years the German navy was producing its own version, followed by the army in 1928 and the air force in 1933.

Enigma allowed an operator to type in a message, then scramble it by using three to five notched wheels, or rotors, which displayed different letters of the alphabet. The receiver needed to know the exact settings of these rotors in order to reconstitute the coded text. Over the years the basic machine became more complicated as German code experts added plugs with electronic circuits.

Britain and her allies first understood the problems posed by this machine in 1931, when Hans Thilo Schmidt, a German spy, allowed his French spymasters to photograph stolen Enigma operating manuals. Initially, however, neither French nor British cryptanalysts could make headway in breaking the Enigma cipher.

It was only after they had handed over details to the Polish Cipher Bureau that progress was made. Helped by its closer links to the German engineering industry, the Poles managed to reconstruct an Enigma machine, complete with internal wiring, to read the German forces’ messages between 1933 and 1938.

Ultra intelligence

With German invasion imminent in 1939, the Poles opted to share their secrets with the British, and Britain's Government Code and Cipher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire, became the centre for Allied efforts to keep up with dramatic war-induced changes in Enigma output.

Top mathematicians and general problem-solvers were recruited and a bank of early computers, known as 'bombes', was built to work out the Enigma’s vast number of settings.

The Germans were convinced that Enigma output could not be broken, so they used the machine for all sorts of communications on the battlefield, at sea, in the sky and, significantly, within its secret services. The British described any intelligence gained from Enigma as 'Ultra', and considered it top secret.

Only a select few commanders were made aware of the full significance of Ultra, and used it sparingly to prevent the Germans realising their ciphers had been broken.

BBC - History - Enigma (pictures, video, facts & news)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If government can force a private entity to build something it doesn't want to build then it can force you to build, at your expense, an extra bedroom on your house and allow it to be used for free by a Muslim jihadist.

Oh shit. There I go giving O'Bozo ideas again......

"YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT, but now you have to build it."

 

[Valerie]

"The Supreme Court doesn't know diddly about the nature and extent of the threat," Scalia said. Later on, he added, "It's truly stupid that my court is going to be the last word on it."



The text of the Fourth Amendment bars unwarranted searches of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." But, as Scalia told the audience, "conversations are quite different" from all four of those things.

Scalia Comes To Brooklyn, Drops Huge Hint About NSA Surveillance And The Supreme Court