Posted on Feb 22, 2016
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
13.8K
154
96
10
10
0
63cb219c
A federal court has ordered Apple to create a "back door" in order to access the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone. Apparently, iPhones have a feature where 10 unsuccessful password attempts zeroizes the device, and the feds "can't" figure it out. If true, this portends a dangerous weakness in capabilities. If not, the feds are attempting to force cooperation from a private company at their cost.
Avatar feed
Responses: 20
SSG Diane R.
1
1
0
Hint, they can.
(1)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
Yup.
I think so too.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC(P) Professor
1
1
0
Give it to a teenager...they'll have it unlocked and a "how-to" video on YouTube in a few days.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SP5 Joel O'Brien
1
1
0
Methinks that the FBI should 'recruit' a hacker from the dark side to do what they cannot.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG William Rhodes
1
1
0
I am stunned that the FBI, a federal court, bill gates ,51% of our nation citizens and even a draft dodger Trump are all criticizing Apple for their resistance to oblige. Now I know this case is a little different but how come these steps weren't taken with Hillary's Hardrive?. I am all about doing everything possible and necessary to capture or destroy terrorist cells here and abroad but to order a private company to compromise the privacy of IOS iPhone users by creating a back door is outrageous specially when a Secretary of State who did not comply with proper security of classified information and apparently we don't even have a clue how much of it was compromised.
Until this day I am a big supporter of the Patriit Act and if our representatives in congress and senate would of taken the necessary steps to ensure the NSA was utilizing this tool properly instead of spying on our allies or using it at their own will maybe just maybe this great tool would still be in effect, our government wouldn't have to bully Apple around. By the way thank you Senator Rand Paul for your pathetic stand you pull to get rid of the Patiot Act.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Battalion Commander
1
1
0
That’s because ownership of the OS code allows the ability to bypass the security of the device or system. What, you don’t think Microsoft and Apple are “NOT” looking into your privet life on a regular basis?
(1)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
8 y
Of course they are. Where do you think those pop up ads come from?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1
1
0
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/us-markets/TDJNDN_ [login to see] 036/justice-department-seeks-to-force-apple-to-extract-data-from-about-12-other-iphones.html
(1)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
8 y
Just a one-time deal, huh? This is only the tip of the iceberg.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
8 y
1SG (Join to see) As someone much funnier than me said "The FBI asking for the ability to hack this phone is like a guy asking for 'just the tip'"
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
A1C Small Business Owner
1
1
0
All I can say is I have an android because I always forget my code and it would piss me off to lose everything. I will also say all that is in my phone is numbers and emails address. I don't trust them to do more.
(1)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
8 y
I am distrustful of the notion that stuff in the "cloud" is secure. Remember all of those celebrity nude selfies that got put out a while back. They were hacked from the cloud.
(1)
Reply
(0)
A1C Small Business Owner
A1C (Join to see)
8 y
1SG (Join to see) - I once meet a hacker who was a contractor for hire to test and give recommendations for your security. He once hacked a bank from the lobby using their computer jack while talking to the executives. They told him they would let him know regarding hiring them and then he turned his laptop around and said OK, but I now have access to your computers. Hired him on the spot.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Glenn Boucher
1
1
0
I think it boils down to legal issues and the legal gathering of evidence, if any, on that device.
If the FBI breaks the encryption on that device without Apples help it could get sticky because now you have illegally hacked into that device and any information obtained would be inadmissible.
In my opinion I think that Apple has the capability to create a single use algorithm to break into this device and allow the FBI to see what is on that phone. I don't buy that excuse that resetting the password on the iCloud caused the information to be lost, I have reset my password on my iCloud without any loss of data that I had in the Cloud.
I can also understand Apples point because once created it can be adapted to other devices and I would worry that some Apple employee looking to get a good payday could sell that algorithm to the right person.
I think that the FBI, because of the constraints of evidence gathering and handling, is in a tough position because if they knowing violate the law anything they get is useless legally.
(1)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
8 y
I don't think an evidence issue is at play. Surely the FBI would get a warrant, and in any case the iphone in question is owned by a government agency, not a citizen.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
8 y
"Dead men have no Rights." Breaking into the phone isn't an issue. The FBI has a warrant for its contents. They are allowed to access through "whatever means necessary." (1st order effect).

The problem is that when a Federal Judge "compels" Apple to open it (again no argument because that is well within the Intent of the 4a & 5a), but they demand that new Technology be developed to do so. That NEW Tech & new Capability is counter to Apple's benefit (2nd order effect), as well as opening up huge Privacy concerns for users of their Encryption Products (3rd order effect).

This argument isn't about "this 1 phone." It's never been about "1 dead terrorist & his phone." It's about the FBI & Intelligence Communities' (et al) ability to expand their visibility of communication avenues.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Combat Engineer
1
1
0
I think rather than have Apple design a backdoor, just have Apple decode the phone's hard drive with a court order anytime an act like San Bernardino occurs. Saves time and citizens' privacy.
(1)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
8 y
SPC (Join to see) - Further, in answer to the comment posted by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I would say that the "tool" they want is not a technical one, but rather a legal one to use in perpetuity.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
8 y
1SG (Join to see) - That's exactly it. Technology is "obsolete" BEFORE it hits the market. However the second this tool, even obsolete is allowed, it exists "Legally" forever as a matter of Precedent. That's why this is such an important fight.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Contracting Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
8 y
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I disagree that this one particular phone cannot be unlocked without creating a method where the feds can unlock everyone's phone. It's really easy to upgrade the OS to a non-password protected phone, but only a digitally signed apple certificate can do that, very easy to install it on this one phone only and keep the access out of the Government's hands. I think Apple is just taking their extreme stance out of precedent and financial reasons rather than technical capabilities.
Keep the argument in context this is a dead terrorist and the court through due process of law ordered the search.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
8 y
MAJ (Join to see) - Apple absolutely should take this argument to the extreme due to Precedent. That's how our legal system operates. Let it slide once, and that becomes acceptable until it can get shot down. It's FAR easier to fight it now than afterwards.

Apple was already working with the FBI on the singular phone. But the FBI is not going to stop there. They've shown a willingness to demand "master keys" in the past, and get them. This is a perfectly reasonable fear.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Edward Clark
0
0
0
Just a point here if you all remember BlackBerry getting asked to set up a server in a country so that country's government could keep I eye on the data flowing through the Blackberries in their country. BlackBerry said no and no one raised a big stink about it what has change.
(0)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
8 y
That's just it. The federal government can ask a company for support. It can contract a company for support. I must've missed something in civics class when the government can compel a company to support them.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close