How is it possible that the federal government, NSA, and FBI can't crack an iPhone, but they think Apple can?
Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) gets a visit from 2008's Hillary Clinton (Amy Poehler) and Sarah Palin (Tina Fey). Subscribe to the SNL channel for more clip...
Having said that, if that phone is locked with just a numeric code that's limited to what, 4-6 numbers (I've never used an iphone, so I'm not sure how it works for them), then that severely limits the number of possible iterations, and the NSA or FBI could definitely crack that -- you could with your own computer. BUT...you only get 10 shots and then it wipes. That's the problem. 3.
and install it using their secret certificate. The firmware will disable the 10 try rule, allow passcode to be input remotely and circumvent the 80ms delay after inputting the passcode incorrectly. The question will be who will control it? What will prevent authoritarian governments from compelling Apple to give them the code? This will not be limited to Apple, next will be Google. It's always more complicated
They are the ones who can navigate USAjobs.
And that doesn't mean that they possess the technical expertise to crack an iPhone.
The way the CURRENT Operating System (OS) is designed is that after X (10) failed login attempts, the device (phone) wipes all of its on-board memory. This protects your data.
The "Proposal" is that Apple "develop" the ability to UPGRADE/REVERT the OS on a devise to a state where an "unlimited number of attempts" is allowed, which would bypass the protection of the data.
This requirement would require a "backdoor" (misnomer, but let's use it for simplicity) that allows the upgrading or reversion to a specific OS version without using the pass-code. Apple is capable of making this. This is actually fairly "simple" for them, however it violates the purpose of their encryption (locks), and creates larger concerns in the future.
As an example, let's use TSA approved Luggage Locks. Only you have the key! Except the TSA has "master keys" which they have promised to safeguard. You can't buy that key. Except when someone at the TSA allowed their key to be photographed, and someone with a 3d printer made a set, and distributed the plans for them.
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-luggage-keys-leaked-photos/
This is a parallel for why this is a "bad deal." The government cannot be Trusted with "backdoors" because they are frankly "Incompetent" and have a track-record for abuse of Power.
Lockpickers 3-D Print TSA Master Luggage Keys From Leaked Photos
Another lesson in why you should never show pictures of sensitive keys on the Internet.
In the case of the Government (et al), and Civil Rights, the number of violations is "too many" to give them an "inch of rope" (to hang us with).
In 2014 Mr.Comey publicly stated that the level of Encryption available to the Citizen would potential hinder DoJ efforts. In 2015-2016 he is asking for the exact thing he proposed in 2014... Call me a cynic, but when someone says they don't want the Private Citizen to have phone Encryption in 2014, and then ORDERS Apple to create a backdoor into said phone Encryption in 2016... I'm going to assume they don't have my best interests at heart but are working on a "2 year campaign" for malicious reasons.
1) The very existence of the capability creates Privacy Concerns. Apple built the current OS to prevent exactly what the FBI is requesting. Having a door with the best lock in the world is useless if everyone can just bypass it.
2) The "compelled" nature of the order to build a capability that does not currently exist. Should the Government be able to demand that you make something, not just take something that already exists. Especially if it is counter to your business model? Apple sells Security. The FBI is mandating that Apple make "Anti-Security" items which will be USED AGAINST Apple's customers.
Having a Warrant is great. But it's not a magic wand to make a citizen do something that is counter to their own self-interest. It just allows an item in your possession to be searched legally.
With 12 Other Active Cases, The FBI Can’t Claim That It’s Just About OneiPhone
The FBI and the Department of Justice have used a strong narrative to defend their case in the dispute between the FBI and Apple. The FBI wants Apple to..
It did occur to me however that it might be possible to remove the memory chip and install it in a different iPhone to read it. The forensic scientists have done wonders reading supposedly destroyed hard drives when the information was important enough - like damaged black box recorders.
BTW on this particular phone, there is no privacy issue. Owned by the county and used in a crime. Either alone negates privacy. OK to have the discussion about law abiding and privacy in general though.
Privacy wasn't an issue in this case anyway, since the FBI would easily be able to get a warrant, if they haven't already.
It was the only way to get your satellite into space.
Not anymore.
It was the only way to get permitting for broadcast frequencies.
Still sort of true.
They had the ability to approve or delay patents.
Still true.
The USG would love to maintain it's historical leverage, but finds it slipping away. Tech companies had always chafed at this, and I see this as a stiff-arm to keep the USG at bay.
The iphone and its market saturation changed that.
My guess is that NSA is quite adept at cracking encryption, and short of one-time keys coming into vogue, always will. It is just a matter of pointing that monstrous power on a specific target to get specific information that remains elusive.
If it were my phone and the feds were after me, I doubt my encryption would make it to the next sundown.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/us/politics/fbi-director-in-policy-speech-calls-dark-devices-hindrance-to-crime-solving.html?emc=edit_th_20141017&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=30254405&_r=2
This is "historical" however it sets the "tone" for the discussion we are having now. The San Bernadino issue is merely an event which "justifies" this historical statement.
CC: Capt Richard I P. MSgt Kurt Woodward MAJ (Join to see)
James Comey, F.B.I. Director, Hints at Action as Cellphone Data Is Locked
Mr. Comey said on Thursday that the “post-Snowden pendulum” that has driven Apple and Google to offer fully encrypted cellphones had “gone too far.”
However:
1) We're in a agreement (Search Warrant).
2) Apple has already been assisting the DoJ (et al) regarding unlocking "individual" devices, and even this particular device (Which can be done from a hardware standpoint). Ordering them to use a specific method is where I have a disagreement with, especially since it opens them and the People up to other issues. (See article).
3) Please check the article. It provides context from Oct 2014 where the FBI Director said that "software access" was his goal.
4) Putting in "backdoors" is counter to the point of "security." WE are paying them to NOT have those design flaws.
5) Freedom from illegal search & seizure is protected, however nothing says we have to make it easy for the Government to violate Privacy. Just like you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, why should you be compelled to turn over (potential) evidence in your possession, in what is arguably a "fishing expedition?"
If I have things on my phone/computer/safe/etc and the Government demands to search them, my instant response is going to be to Pound Sand whether they have a warrant or not. They can figure out how to get in on their own. I am under no obligation to assist the prosecution in helping to hang me.