Government wants Apple Corp to hack San Bernardino shooters cell phone

[Utah Bob #35998]

Hit & Run fatal. Only part of vehicle that left the scene was the letter, "C" that I found. I knew it was from a Mercury, but which one. Crime lab would be stuck on this one for a while, so I went to a Mercury dealer parts department. I told the guy what I had and that a person was killed. He took one look at the "C" and knew it was from a 64-66 Mercury Park Lane. 24 hours later we caught the murderer just as he was about the chop up the car and sent it to another state. In 30 hours that vehicle would have been gone. Time was of the essence in that case. Who knows what info is in that known terrorist phone which time is of the essence. Thankfully I did not have to obtain a warrant to obtain info on the letter "C".

I'm with the law enforcement side on this one. Apple can have the phone and they stop the deluding of the info so the cops can open it up. Code does not have go to the cops, they just want to stop the phone from deleting the info so they can crack it.

But....if you give Apple the phone so they can do their secret unlockng thing, there is now a chain of custody problem. And can you ensure that while they were in the process of secretly unlocking the phone that they didn't do something else.....like delete or add texts etc?

It's a can of worms.

Personally, I vacillate daily on siding with the investigators and upholding the Constitution.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Truly a can of worms.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Truly a can of worms.

Encrypted worms. The worst kind.

[Blastmaster]

There are already news reports from various LE agencies across the country that the only evidence they have is a cell phone that is locked. They too would like the coded cell phone data revealed to assist in their investigation. So how far down the investigation food chain does society deem necessary without invasion of privacy?

 

Oh, sorry, we did not find any evidence on the crime we were investigating, but we found other stuff of interest.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Well, there is still the old idea, that "IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO PRY, SHUT UP!"

 

But with some folks that would never fly.

[Frio Kid, SASS #31915]

Do you really believe Apple does not have the ability to open this phone?? I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale - cheap. Apple could easily open this phone in the presence of law enforcement and transfer the data to them.

[Blastmaster]

Can Apple decode? Don't know.

 

If you were a CEO, would you authorize expenditures for R&D to do such? Why? Unless you were also in the business of creating virus's so you could sell more anti-virus software.

 

Can some one put back a shattered crystal vase? Don't know.

[Shootin' Shu]

Do you really believe Apple does not have the ability to open this phone?? I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale - cheap. Apple could easily open this phone in the presence of law enforcement and transfer the data to them.

 

Agreed, anyone who thinks Apple doesn't have key is fooling themselves.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Well, I do not know for certain that Apple does not have the "key", but writing a program

with no back door is contrary to all of the previous knowledge.

 

And anything that is conceived can be circumvented with diligence.

Comes back to the old adage of NOTHING IS CERTAIN EXCEPT

DEATH AND TAXES.

[ShadowCatcher]

Do you really believe Apple does not have the ability to open this phone?? I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale - cheap. Apple could easily open this phone in the presence of law enforcement and transfer the data to them.

Must be nice to have inside technical knowledge.

 

In my 35+ years developing software for military applications, I have not built any encryption software, hardware or hybrids,

but I am somewhat familiar with the technologies that are used, both in DoD applications and in commercial uses.

 

There are fairly well established technologies to build various levels of encryption at both the software and hardware

and hybrid levels.

 

It is also fairly well established that one can build encryption that one cannot break into with out significant technology

and time involved. No bullet can't be stop, no wall can't be breached.

 

Apple appears to have implemented a level of technology that is difficult to break, although the Gov't has access to means

that should be able to handle this, but at some time and cost of effort. That is more likely the real sticking point for them.

 

The Gov't is trying to publically compel Apple to invent a technique to bypass their own products built in security and give

that to them for their use (in this case, and in who knows how many other cases).

 

There are two fundamental issues with this (in my mind at least). The first is that the Gov't is trying to compel a private

individual (or company) to create something that will significantly decrease the material worth of it's product line, as

the security functions are a significant attraction, and one needed to enable a lot of forth coming e-business. There is no

way the Gov't can compel foreign phone makers to do this, nor ban sales of all foreign phones. This puts Apple at a serious

competitive disadvantage, assuming they can actually invent this on demand.

 

A second issue is that there are many free forms of encryption available, and a few that cost money but are even better.

Any individual can go to simple steps to encrypt their phone communications (e-mail, texts, etc.) without relying on

Apples built in tech, it's just more convenient to trust Apple for many. Thus the root problem is not being dealt with, only one

example of a whole class of threats.

 

This is an emotionally charged issue, because it involves terrorists, but it's important to understand that the Gov't

has already acknowledged the ability to observe and monitor your activities through the cameras and microphones

on your cell phones and computers, turned on or not, and whether you are doing anything wrong or not. I have a lot of

respect to our LEO folks in the Gov't, but there are just as many in the Gov't that I wouldn't trust with a burnt match, so if I have

to take a position it would be to protect both free enterprise and personal privacy.

 

Just my $0.02

 

Shadow Catcher

[Rye Miles #13621]

Yes. Again folks, this is not about legally searching the phone. They have a legal warrant. It is about forcing a private company to essentially become an agent of the government by making them assist in the search. It is a big issue in my opinion.

I still don't understand what the difference is when they take someone's computer and dig into it's content. I am by no means "smart" on this digital stuff but it seems the same to me!

[Utah Bob #35998]

I still don't understand what the difference is when they take someone's computer and dig into it's content. I am by no means "smart" on this digital stuff but it seems the same to me!

Because they do not compel a third party private citizen or company to show them how to get into the computer. That is the issue here.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Do you really believe Apple does not have the ability to open this phone?? I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale - cheap. Apple could easily open this phone in the presence of law enforcement and transfer the data to them.

 

Maybe they could. That's not the issue. Can the government force them to do it? That is the big issue.

[Utah Bob #35998]

It just kind of amazes me that the government, with all their high tech crypto experts and systems, has not been able to get this done on their own.

It would appear that Apple is better at this stuff than the FBI, DOD, etc.

That's kinda scary.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Thinking back to the old days of the crank phone hanging on the wall, and everybody on the party

line could listen in. Lesson then was SHUT UP. Lesson now, MAKE AN ISSUE OUT OF IT.

 

Some world!

[ShadowCatcher]

It just kind of amazes me that the government, with all their high tech crypto experts and systems, has not been able to get this done on their own.

It would appear that Apple is better at this stuff than the FBI, DOD, etc.

That's kinda scary.

They're not - it's a cost/time issue. Whilst the Gov't does work with industry, the products and equipment is expensive and

not always up to date. Things always evolve, and then the race is on. Further, if the Gov't compels Apple to do this, then

they needn't expose whether they actually have this tech or not.

 

From a security aspect the Gov't needn't rush. The bad guys are dead, there doesn't appear to be an imminent threat

on a grand scale, so they could let the process play out and not reveal what they have. Not saying this is the case,

just that if I was making the assessment as to whether or not trying to compel Apple to do this publicly or revealing that

the Gov't already has this capability now, I'd go with the former. In fact I'd crack the phone, use the intell, and still press the case

in public.

 

Wouldn't be the first time we make a sacrifice to keep a bigger secret.

 

Okay - no tin foil hats here - just idle thoughts over mid-morning coffee

 

SC

[Noz]

That is what I was led to believe, Rye.

 

I think that trying to find out if somebody wants to delete you in real life is much more important than

being concerned with school girl emails. If Apple does decode the phone, who really needs to know

but the decoder, and the Feds. The decoder already knows, the Feds probably will not publish

it in the NYT. I am pretty certain of that.

Yup! And they will not burn a compound in Waco or shoot an innocent woman on Ruby Ridge. I really do trust my government.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

This is from an article appearing on the ABC news web site:

 

"...The government isn't asking Apple to help break the iPhone's encryption directly, but by disabling other security measures that prevent attempts to guess the phone's passcode. Cook (Apple) argues that once such a tool is available, "the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices" — even as law enforcement insists that safeguards could be employed to limit its use to that particular phone..."

 

Also mentioned in the article is that other countries may also request the procedures including China, which is Apple's largest market after the U.S. The privacy issue is of great importance to Apple since it has used that issue as a selling point for its products.

 

To look at it from another point of view, would it be acceptable to provide the technique to a government which has a known history of human rights violations, if that government might use the technology to root out dissidents?

[Rye Miles #13621]

Because they do not compel a third party private citizen or company to show them how to get into the computer. That is the issue here.

True that involving a 3rd party is what would happen, but can't Apple just open this one phone and be done with it?

[Utah Bob #35998]

True that involving a 3rd party is what would happen, but can't Apple just open this one phone and be done with it?

Apple IS the 3rd party here. Suspects, Government and Apple.

Look at it this way. If the govenment came to you and asked if you had a key to your neighbors house because they had a search warrant, and you did have a key, could you be compelled to give it to them?

[Smoken D]

But....if you give Apple the phone so they can do their secret unlockng thing, there is now a chain of custody problem. And can you ensure that while they were in the process of secretly unlocking the phone that they didn't do something else.....like delete or add texts etc?

It's a can of worms.

Personally, I vacillate daily on siding with the investigators and upholding the Constitution.

 

Like an autopsy, L.E. Detective is present. L.E. would be bring the phone and stay with it. As the autopsy, I had no idea or just how to do it, but I witnessed the procedure. You just hope the M.E. is honest and will testify on the findings. In this case the I.T. would be subpoenaed to testify what he did and the findings. That is where Apple has its problems and objections. I do find it interresting that with a search warrant why employees are not being put in jail for refusal to comply. They would go straight to jail, no bond, and then before the issuing judge to explain why they will not comply. Then held in contemp, back to jail, till the case is resolved. I had that happen to me for a blood draw where everyone refused to do the draw. Judge told me to arrest the hospital CEO, bring her in to him, and in hand cuffs. It was cool doing that to a very big CEO.

[Utah Bob #35998]

 

Like an autopsy, L.E. Detective is present. L.E. would be bring the phone and stay with it. As the autopsy, I had no idea or just how to do it, but I witnessed the procedure. You just hope the M.E. is honest and will testify on the findings. In this case the I.T. would be subpoenaed to testify what he did and the findings. That is where Apple has its problems and objections. I do find it interresting that with a search warrant why employees are not being put in jail for refusal to comply. They would go straight to jail, no bond, and then before the issuing judge to explain why they will not comply. Then held in contemp, back to jail, till the case is resolved. I had that happen to me for a blood draw where everyone refused to do the draw. Judge told me to arrest the hospital CEO, bring her in to him, and in hand cuffs. It was cool doing that to a very big CEO.

Aple does not have the phone. The phone is not their property. Therefore the search warrant doesn't really apply to them as I see it. Tricky situation.

[Rye Miles #13621]

It just kind of amazes me that the government, with all their high tech crypto experts and systems, has not been able to get this done on their own.

It would appear that Apple is better at this stuff than the FBI, DOD, etc.

That's kinda scary.

+ 10000

[Boon Doggle]

As I understand it, iPhones have a security system in which you have to enter a four digit code to access the phone. You have nine tries to enter the correct code or all the information on the phone is erased. The Government wants Apple to write a "Backdoor" so that they (Govt.) can make as many tries as necessary to access the phone without it erasing all the data. At least that's my understanding of how the system works. The Fed's do not want Apple to access they data, they want Apple to provide a way in which they (The Fed's) can.

 

Two thoughts come to mind.

1. Just how many US Agency computer systems have already been hacked by foreign governments.

2. "When you trade freedom for security, you end up with neither"

[Clay Mosby]

!0-15 years ago I don't believe I was any where near as suspicious of my government as I am now. That being said, I no more trust the government to use this key only once, or keep it secure, than I would trust a lit match not to burn me if I held it by the burning end.

 

When we start giving up rights and freedoms to be "safe", we will lose both.

[J-BAR #18287]

Let's say Apple loses and has to create a key or backdoor or whatever you want to call it to get into this phone.

 

The Apple employees who actually do this work will have a bullseye on their backs for the rest of their lives. They would have to enter the witness protection program to protect their identities, or live in fear of being kidnapped and forced to provide the information to someone else.

 

I hope Apple compensates them well for the risk.

[Blastmaster]

Let's say Apple loses and has to create a key or backdoor or whatever you want to call it to get into this phone.

 

The Apple employees who actually do this work will have a bullseye on their backs for the rest of their lives. They would have to enter the witness protection program to protect their identities, or live in fear of being kidnapped and forced to provide the information to someone else.

 

I hope Apple compensates them well for the risk.

As with any employment, doing what is directed to you is part of your job description and pay grade.

[Tennessee Trapper Tom]

Listening to Fox news today. They reported that Apple does have a way in and have performed the service for the government on other cases. So the question was, what makes this case different.

[Rye Miles #13621]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

 

 

Apple has done this before, according to this article!

[Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674]

Listening to Fox news today. They reported that Apple does have a way in and have performed the service for the government on other cases. So the question was, what makes this case different.

I believe the difference is that the government doesn't want Apple to open the phone, instead the government wants Apple to give the government the means to open the phone.

[ShadowCatcher]

Listening to Fox news today. They reported that Apple does have a way in and have performed the service for the government on other cases. So the question was, what makes this case different.

Need to listen to the article carefully. Apple did this some 70 times for an older operating system - NOT THIS ONE.

 

There is no search warrant that the Apple company is failing to obey; it isn't their property or in their possession.

 

The problem here is Apple is being told to INVENT a way to defeat their own product, give that solution to the Gov't

and then trust that they'll never misuse it, all based on some judges orders.

 

It's real hard to hold people in jail on contempt is they fail to invent a cybernetic breakthrough by Tuesday at 2:00 p.m.,

just because some judge orders it. I'm not sure if any court can FORCE you to INVENT a new technology, and punish

you if you don't.

 

There are a million things that can go wrong if the Gov't forces Apple to do this, I see very few good outcomes in

giving this power to the Gov't. I'm not prepared to sacrifice this amount of freedom for a little possible safety.

 

YMMV,

 

SC

[Shootin' Shu]

Exactly the situation..they don't need help decrypting the data or breaking the 4 digit code but if they don't break the password in 9 tries they are screwed as the data will be gone.

 

As I understand it, iPhones have a security system in which you have to enter a four digit code to access the phone. You have nine tries to enter the correct code or all the information on the phone is erased. The Government wants Apple to write a "Backdoor" so that they (Govt.) can make as many tries as necessary to access the phone without it erasing all the data. At least that's my understanding of how the system works. The Fed's do not want Apple to access they data, they want Apple to provide a way in which they (The Fed's) can.

 

Two thoughts come to mind.

1. Just how many US Agency computer systems have already been hacked by foreign governments.

2. "When you trade freedom for security, you end up with neither"

[Yul Lose]

Once that genies out of the bottle there is no putting it back in. Does anyone really believe that technology won't be misused by our government and worse yet if the Chinese or others get ahold of it.

[Tyrel Cody]

Exactly the situation..they don't need help decrypting the data or breaking they 4 digit code but if they break the password in 9 tries they are screws as the data will be gone.

 

 

 

Not necessarily gone. I worked in the electronic discovery business for about 6 years. It really depends on if Apple truly wipes the phone or just deletes everything on it. Several of the folks I worked with told me that it takes several deletes and overwrites to really wipe a device.

 

 

Still don't think Apple should cooperate.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Nine times before self destruct is an option I did not even know I had. It is not enabled on my phone.

 

As I understand it "chain of custody" is an issue where law enforcement must have physical control of the item at all times. I think that if you let someone's computer program access the phone you have lost chain of custody of the data. You really don't know what that program will do to it other than what the originator tells you. He may certify the program to be correct but has he had complete and exclusive access to it. Has some one else added a Blackfoot to the program somewhere in the process?

 

In this case the suspects are dead. They will not be prosecuted. But evidence gathered from the phone can be questioned. Once such phone cracker programs exist, the chances of them having hacks, worms, back doors inserted are enormous and having LEO say "I watched it the whole time" is meaningless.