• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Should Apple Help the FBI Unlock a Phone with a Court Order

I've been thinking about this topic a lot and while thinking about it I am thinking about OUR discussion here in The Lounge since I was busy with other things and didn't get to check back in until this morning.

QUOTE from unforgiven:
"So, credit to our members for thus far having heated yet civil discussion on the topic. I think that is well within the site rules and welcomed in our community. I hope that adds a little clarification as to both the location and staff participation in the thread.:)"

It surprised me that this thread didn't have more comments. Does this topic appear in Politics and Current Affairs started by someone else and worded a little differently?

I posted my two cents on Monday. On Tuesday while driving to an appointment and listening to talk radio this subject came up again as a one hour show specific to Apple vs FBI. But I noticed that it seeped into other topics and discussions all day long and it still seems to pop up in other discussions on TV, on the radio, and in personal discussions with friends, family, and strangers. It seems to be on the mind of a broad spectrum of people in the USA as well as in other counties.

It seems to be reduced to ( what I think is an over simplified choice between " privacy " vs " security ". ) It certainly can be reduced to those two subjects but by doing that is it not possible that the argument is flawed? It certainly becomes limited.

In listening to the discussions on talk radio, here, and wherever it pops up it occurs to me that it's near impossible to find
" a correct answer " what we are reduced to are our opinions. As it is, it get's discussed the way it is discussed ; leaving out other possibilities on how to approach and dissect the issue looking at it thru different lens's, using different tools, taking out or adding measurements and parameters of definition, so not to be limited by what we know and only what we know.

There is this very old parable about 3 Blind men touching different parts of an elephant in order to definitively say what animal is beneath their hands. One man is touching the tusks, one the ear, and one the tail ( it really doesn't matter what part of the elephant one uses when telling the story. The BIG picture is clear: how can anyone know for sure what is so when touching only one part of a subject so massive?

There has been a number of a interesting and related examples and subjects that have popped up since sharing my thoughts here: One of the comments I heard on one of those talk radio shows: " People are known to change their minds on a hot topic if something in THEIR life makes the issue more personal. " That night, while watching the TV show American Crime, there was one of those moments of synchronicity as the Coach of the basketball team came down hard on the principal accusing her of handling the matter ( at the root of the show ) to serve her own interests and suggested that she resign. Moments later the camera finds him in his home still deeply troubled by this horror that has hit his school and his team and just went from an accusation of rape to a murder at the school. It was known that the student who had the gun
was actually waiting for over an hour to shoot the principal. When she didn't show up the kid walked out and was immediately and angrily confronted by one of the basketball players just outside the doors to the school. The kid had already been set up for a beat down and was afraid it was going to happen again. So he pulled out the gun and shot the BB player who died.

This is when the BB coach confronted the principal and also angrily yelled at her to resign because she only had her own self interests at heart.

So while sitting there in his house his daughter walks in very upset and tells her father ( the coach ) that she sold the student with the gun drugs from her mothers medicine cabinet an hour or so before he killed one of her fathers players.
The coach, BTW, in an attempt to support his players suggested that they stick together and " to do whatever it takes" to protect their team. How that was interpreted is left up to the audience to speculate on IMHO.

This was such a perfect example of a person changing their mind and position the instant new data was introduced into the topic of concern. To protect his daughter he became that exact person he accused the principal of being. Breaking her phone, drilling her about who knew, screaming at the mother when she walked in blaming everyone and now doing his best to hide the truth...the new information that he did not have before.
You can all watch the whole series on demand if you want to see if you too see any connections with our discussion here.

It made me think how easily it is for most of us to take a stance on a subject, finding arguments to defend our position, thinking that our opinion is based on laws and ethics but the moment one little part changes we are quickly willing to do whatever it takes to protect our own interests or needs.

What part of the elephant in the room are you feeling?

Is there truly only one answer?, one "TRUTH", one way to see the whole picture, to feel the whole animal in the room....geeze, even in that example it depends on who is talking on what animal they introduce into " the room ". Some say " elephant " some say "gorilla". Does it matter if it is an elephant or a gorilla? Maybe to some it does.

I don't have an answer except to say I see that it is much more complicated than " privacy vs security " of course if your opinion are slanted because you hate all things Apple or because you strongly feel that the government is too big and in our business way more than they need to be; then look at that as well and ask yourself how might your opinion be different if the companies were different or the circumstances more related to you and your family. Would any of THAT lead to your being like The Coach?

Just wondering......
 
wow @kryptonyt , your post popped up when I added my post...

you are a deep thinker, it took me a while just to wade thru your thoughts on the above post, just prior to mine.....

I am guilty of changing my initial decisions when new info is available... I have worked in the world of 'ones' and 'zeros' most of my life.... and trying to accommodate all of the 'what if's" is a challenging regimen.

kudos for a good post.
 
Oh boy.
France could fine Apple €1m unless it hacks smartphones
On Monday, French Socialist MP Yann Galut proposed an amendment to French law that - if passed - would see the US companies punished if they didn't give French officials backdoor access to terrorists' phones.
...
He stressed that his proposed amendment would not affect the privacy of the common public, only those who are under investigation.
Click to expand...

That's not how backdoors work.
 
I heard something interesting WRT this topic, and the application to a single phone. Apple is concerned that developing this would make them a target for people trying to obtain the tool to enable this back door. So even if it isn't let out of Apple's lab, in the age of hacking and / or leaks it would get out anyway. Just an interesting observation.
 
Unforgiven said:
I heard something interesting WRT this topic, and the application to a single phone. Apple is concerned that developing this would make them a target for people trying to obtain the tool to enable this back door. So even if it isn't let out of Apple's lab, in the age of hacking and / or leaks it would get out anyway. Just an interesting observation.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Such a tool would be a huge target for hackers - and unlike a physical tool, this one would multiply quickly if it did get out. And once that happened, the strongest encryption would be essentially useless.

It does, at least, sound like Apple could effectively close that backdoor by changing iOS so that it requires user consent before being able to install new firmware. Make it so that a user has to enter their unlock code in order to perform an update in place, and require a full wipe prior to installing the update if the user can't provide their consent.
 
I saw a related article last night:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29...inst-fbi-in-a-case-similar-to-san-bernardino/

I can't access it at work, apparently, or else I'd do some copy-pasta for you guys. The short of it is that a Magistrate Judge in New York has ruled in favor of Apple in a very similar instance of the government requesting a backdoor into a locked iOS device. His ruling hit on a lot of the same issues and concerns that I hold, including a worry over the government's increasing-liberal application of the All Writs Act.

While a decision by a court at that level is not binding on any other court, it at least shows an informed legal opinion of what's going down.
 
codesplice said:
sharing this for lulz, and so I can watch later:
Click to expand...
I had intended to revisit this after watching, but I was too busy laughing. What a guy!

I'm glad someone else was diligent enough to rip it apart.
McAfee's own words say more than any paraphrase could hope to do, so here in full is how he plans to crack the iPhone:

Now I'll probably lose my admission to the world hackers' community, however, I'm gonna tell you. You need a hardware engineer and a software engineer. The hardware engineer takes the phone apart and it [sic] copies the instruction set, which is the iOS and applications [sic] and your memory, and then you run a piece, a program called a disassembler which takes all the ones and zeroes and gives you readable instructions. Then, the coder sits down and he reads through, and what he's looking for is the first access to the keypad, because that's the first thing you're doing when you input your pad. It'll take half an hour. When you see that, then you reads the instruction for where in memory this secret code is stored. It is that trivial. A half an hour.

Moreover, he says that this technique will work against "any computer," and that if the FBI has any part of the process that they don't understand then they should call him.

Given the simplicity of this approach one might well wonder why the FBI hasn't done this already. The answer turns out to be straightforward: as some of our more astute readers may have noticed, it's a load of drivel. What he's proposing isn't just wrong; it's not even in the same zip code as the truth.

The core claim, the part on which everything else hinges, is that there is a location on the iPhone's flash storage (or perhaps RAM; he uses "memory" pretty interchangeably for both) that contains a plaintext, readable copy of the device's PIN, and that iOS compares the PIN typed in to this stored value. It's true that Apple could have designed the iPhone this way, if Apple was staffed exclusively by idiots. But Apple did not design the iPhone this way, and John McAfee should know that Apple did not design the iPhone this way. Apple has a rather good document that describes major parts of the iPhone's security systems—I wish every operating system vendor had comparable documentation—and in particular, it describes how the system's PIN or passcode is used to derive the encryption key for the filesystem. The PIN is combined with a unique hardware ID to generate the keys for the phone's encrypted filesystem.

The iPhone PIN is not stored on the flash storage at all, because there's really no need. If the wrong PIN is entered then the encryption key that gets generated by combining the PIN with the hardware ID won't work. It won't unlock the encrypted files. That's how the iPhone can verify that the PIN is correct (or not); a correct PIN will generate the right encryption key. An incorrect PIN will not. The software proves the PIN is correct by trying to use it, not by comparing it to an unencrypted version.
Click to expand...

Granted, this is McAfee's fallback plan. His original plan was to use primarily social engineering. You know, so that he could trick the guy with the PIN into giving it to him. The guy who is dead, and has been for several months now.

Otherwise that totally would have worked.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they absolutely should!

Having worked in mental health and supported people in one of the largest UK deprivation areas I fully understand the necessity for confidentiality and peoples right to privacy..... however.....

All of that drops dead if I believe that my service user or patient is in danger of harming themselves or others OR where there is a police investigation and evidence is sought. I would then be selective about the information given.

If a crime has been committed or it's strongly believed that information pertinent to the safety of others is contained on a phone then I think it is necessary for Apple to unlock a phone.

I think that Apple and the other providers should take control of this and decide, under what circumstances this could be done.
As long as a phone has a mobile connection, the unlock could be done remotely by standard support staff but Apple should create policy....not the other way around.
 
ALISDAIR said:
Yes, they absolutely should!

Having worked in mental health and supported people in one of the largest UK deprivation areas I fully understand the necessity for confidentiality and peoples right to privacy..... however.....

All of that drops dead if I believe that my service user or patient is in danger of harming themselves or others OR where there is a police investigation and evidence is sought. I would then be selective about the information given.

If a crime has been committed or it's strongly believed that information pertinent to the safety of others is contained on a phone then I think it is necessary for Apple to unlock a phone.

I think that Apple and the other providers should take control of this and decide, under what circumstances this could be done.
As long as a phone has a mobile connection, the unlock could be done remotely by standard support staff but Apple should create policy....not the other way around.
Click to expand...

This is interesting actually, because if Apple is eventually forced to unlock the iPhone by brute-force attack and modified iOS AFAIK, whether it eventually goes to the Supreme Court or Congress or President. No doubt other governments and law enforcement agencies will want the same thing of Apple, Samsung etc, such as London, Beijing, Moscow, Cairo, Baghdad, etc.
 
Precisely...... I don't understand why anyone would not instantly destroy a cellphone if there was incriminating evidence on it....

but, we cannot ever, allow a backdoor to encryption.... there is just simply no way to prevent it from leaking to hackers, and being used w/o a warrant willy nilly..... too many rogue LEOs out there who don't give a damn about HIPPA laws. To them, the end result fits their needs and on they go.

I am reading a book on this very subject right now.... and it is scary what will happen if any LEO/gov agency ever gets access to a 'backdoor' to any phone.
 
ALISDAIR said:
Yes, they absolutely should!

Having worked in mental health and supported people in one of the largest UK deprivation areas I fully understand the necessity for confidentiality and peoples right to privacy..... however.....

All of that drops dead if I believe that my service user or patient is in danger of harming themselves or others OR where there is a police investigation and evidence is sought. I would then be selective about the information given.

If a crime has been committed or it's strongly believed that information pertinent to the safety of others is contained on a phone then I think it is necessary for Apple to unlock a phone.

I think that Apple and the other providers should take control of this and decide, under what circumstances this could be done.
As long as a phone has a mobile connection, the unlock could be done remotely by standard support staff but Apple should create policy....not the other way around.
Click to expand...

We can't have Apple or any other private entity creating law enforcement policy. I also don't think having court orders on a case by case basis is the way to go because then cases will be shopped around for favorable judges. Congress needs to do their job for a change and write the law spelling out in great detail when this will be allowed and when it will not.
 
I'm not suggesting that companies create law...simply that they write their own internal company policy to address the issue before it's taken out of their hands.

My feelings is that they will play out the situation until people are asking for it. Based on the idea that if people have nothing to hide then they don't mind.

It does erode our freedoms and so, I'd much rather Apple deal with this than law be made to force it to happen.

It's easier for a company to change its policy when a threat is over than for a country to change its laws...
 
codesplice said:
I had intended to revisit this after watching, but I was too busy laughing. What a guy!

I'm glad someone else was diligent enough to rip it apart.


Granted, this is McAfee's fallback plan. His original plan was to use primarily social engineering. You know, so that he could trick the guy with the PIN into giving it to him. The guy who is dead, and has been for several months now.

Otherwise that totally would have worked.
Click to expand...

So it turns out that John McAfee is deceitful, not stupid.[citation needed]

via DailyDot:
McAfee said he bent the truth in order to push back against the official narrative.

“By doing so, I knew that I would get a shitload of public attention, which I did,” McAfee said. “That video, on my YouTube account, it has 700,000 views. My point is to bring to the American public the problem that the FBI is trying to [fool] the American public. How am I going to do that, by just going off and saying it? No one is going to listen to that crap.

“So I come up with something sensational,” he continued. “Now, what I did not lie about was my ability to crack the iPhone. I can do it. It’s a piece of friggin’ cake. You could probably do it.”
Click to expand...

I can't wait to hear about his Plan C.
 
I can't believe people are still discussing weather or not the government can cse the information in a phone. Of course they can. In pre-digital times a search warrant let police tear a place apart looking for an incriminating slip of paper. Many times already, it has been upheld that digital files on phone are like notes stuffed in a drawer and therefore covered by search warrants. I think this is settled law in the US.

Second, does iOS have or should have a backdoor?
Does anyone seriously believe a Total Control Freak company like Apple would leave no way in?. Naaaah. Should they open the phone? Absolutely!

That only leaves the question of can the government force Apple to open a phone? I say of course they can, same as a locked car or bank safety deposit box full of papers.

But we're not required to make the papers in that box readable, or the files on our phones. Mine are encrypted. That's the next battle - will encryption as we know if stay legal?
 
Last edited:
Crashdamage said:
Lcan't believe people are still discussions weather or not the government can cse the information in a phone. Of course they can. In pre-digital times a search warrant let police tear a place apqrt looking for an incriminating slip of paper. Many times already, it has been upheld that digital files on phone are like notes stuffed in a drawer and therefore covered by search warrants. I think this is settled law in the US. I'll

Second, does iOS have or should have a backdoor?
Does anyone seriously believe a total Control freak company like Apple would leave no way in?. Naaaah. Should they open the phone? Absolutely!

That only leaves the question of can the government force Apple to open a phone? I say of course they can, same as a locked car or bank safety deposit box full of papers.

But we're not required to make the papers in that box readable, or the files on our phones, Mine are encrypted. That's the next battle - will encryption as we know if stay legal?
Click to expand...

Nor is the manufacturer of a safe required to defeat their security features, which is analogous to this situation.
 
krokus said:
Nor is the manufacturer of a safe required to defeat their security features, which is analogous to this situation.
Click to expand...

Australian_Made_CMI_H2D_Home_Safe.JPG


There is a difference, these things aren't usually booby trapped to destroy their contents, an exception might be the money vault on an ATM, and nor do they scramble their contents either, which is basically what iOS devices do. And safe and vault manufacturers might actually be cooperative to law enforcement(with a warrant) as to the best way to force or break it open, should the need arise, but it doesn't weaken the security of all their products though.

As I understand it, the FBI are requesting Apple remove the booby trap data destruction and time-out features from this one device, so they can keep on trying all the combinations until they hit the right one, and is something they might try to crack a safe. Which I bet they can do already by modifying the iOS source code, I'm sure that already exists at Apple HQ.
 
Last edited:
mikedt said:
View attachment 102303

There is a difference, these things aren't usually booby trapped to destroy their contents, an exception might be the money vault on an ATM, and nor do they scramble their contents either, which is basically what iOS devices do. And safe and vault manufacturers might actually be cooperative to law enforcement(with a warrant) as to the best way to force or break it open, should the need arise, but it doesn't weaken the security of all their products though.

As I understand it, the FBI are requesting Apple remove the booby trap data destruction and time-out features from this one device, so they can keep on trying all the combinations until they hit the right one, and is something they might try to crack a safe. Which I bet they can do already by modifying the iOS source code, I'm sure that already exists at Apple HQ.
Click to expand...
This DEFINITELY goes waaayy beyond that "one device", guaranteed. [emoji43]
 
bcrichster said:
This DEFINITELY goes waaayy beyond that "one device", guaranteed. [emoji43]
Click to expand...

Ok to carry on the analogy of secure electronic devices to physical safes and vaults. Say there was a safe, that had some device in it that could destroy or incinerate the contents if the combination was entered wrongly ten times. Which is what iOS devices do AFAIK. Could the FBI or other TLA(with a warrant, citing like national security or terrorism), go to the manufacturer, like Chubb or Liberty, and get them or force them disable the destruct device. Money safes in ATMs often do, usually an indelible dye is discharged that makes the money useless, destroying it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom