SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the unlock-iphones-with-this-one-weird-hack dept.
John McAfee offers to unlock killer's iPhone
McAfee says that he and his team can break into the phone within three weeks. McAfee states his motive for the offer is because "he didn't want Apple to be forced to implement a 'back door'".
Bill Gates Takes Middle Road in FBI iPhone Unlock Dispute
Bill Gates has apparently sided with the FBI in the dispute over the unlocking of a "specific" iPhone, breaking with other technology industry leaders:
Apple should comply with the FBI's request to unlock an iPhone as part of a terrorism case, Microsoft founder Bill Gates says, staking out a position that's markedly different from many of his peers in the tech industry, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The two titans aired their views on what's become a public debate over whether Apple should be compelled to unlock an iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook. "This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates told the Financial Times.
However, in a follow-up interview with Bloomberg, Gates said he was disappointed by reports (such as my original submission #2 below) that he had sided with the FBI in its legal dispute with Apple:
In an interview with Bloomberg, Bill Gates says he was "disappointed" by reports that he supported the FBI in its legal battle with Apple, saying "that doesn't state my view on this." Still, Gates took a more moderate stance than some of his counterparts in the tech industry, not fully backing either the FBI or Apple but calling for a broader "discussion" on the issues. "I do believe that with the right safeguards, there are cases where the government, on our behalf — like stopping terrorism, which could get worse in the future — that that is valuable." But he called for "striking [a] balance" between safeguards against government power and security.
[Continues.]
Apple versus FBI ... A simple proposal.
Since we keep talking about Apple versus the FBI, I thought I'd propose a simple solution to the problem, which as far as I can think would satisfy most parties...
The problem is getting access to a known terrorist's encrypted information. The question is whether Apple should threaten their own security, and the trust of their customers worldwide (as other states could demand the same for their "terrorists"), for what's likely to be an limited or insignificant chunk of data. Apple gets bad publicity regardless of the outcome.
Well, it turns out that we already pay some people to secretly do what Apple is being asked to do: our good old friends at the NSA. They're pretty good at cracking "Bad Guy" systems, and people know that. So my proposal is pretty simple:
1) Give the Terrorist's encrypted device to the NSA.
2) Let it be known that a Classified meeting happened at the NSA with Apple's security gurus.
3) The NSA "allocates proper resources to defend the country against a clear computer-based threat", performs its magic, and provides access to the phone for the FBI.
What's the point?
- Apple cannot reveal what the NSA requested to know to help open the phone. It's Classified, which is easily justified by Apple's security being important to the US.
- The NSA doesn't have to reveal whether they could have done it without Apple's help, and whether their solution is applicable to more than just that phone.
- Apple is not compelled to create software for the government just because a judge said so, and it also stops having to explain why it seemingly protects a terrorist's data.
- Apple can keep telling customers and other governments that it is not sure how to safely bypass the security. Should another government request similar information, they may get those details which are not protected by US regulations, and if that coincidentally isn't enough to also open a target's phone, it must have been that the NSA guys are really very very good.
- The FBI gets the data they requested (officially what they want) without further delays and lawyers.
Not only would both Apple and the FBI both get what they want despite the apparent incompatible goals, but the NSA would be the good guys for actually doing their job. Some people will argue that handing the secrets to the government is necessarily a bad thing. But the NSA doesn't share its recipes with other agencies, may already have those secrets anyway, and the security scheme on that phone was already superseded in newer device versions, limiting the potential for reuse.
What do Soylentils think?
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:10PM
I was certain FBI is asking Apple to open the phone in the privacy of Apple's own office, without detailing to FBI how it was done. Apple is not making a tool & handing it over, rather using their own proprietary technique and then return the phone to FBI. Seems to be a no-fuss issue. -> But then Cook's public announcement of the legal order described it differently, was he just snapping back because is twas a court order instead of a quiet request? Is he mitigating some sort of public image issue?
Back to original understanding, I was certain Apple is being asked to open phone and return it, with no tool or technique provided, (unless they leak it themselves). So what's the fuss? Thanks from an honest question.
(Score: 1) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:31PM
There are a couple of levels of fuss.
One, if Apple can do it, then someone can do it. If someone can do it, another sufficently motivated party can probably do it. It not being actually impossible is one level of fuss.
Two, if Apple does it, then the software exists. This means that there will a lower cost to do it next time, so this kind of request can be made again. It also establishes the legal precedent for such requests.
Three, some people are philosophically opposed to the government forcing you to take any positive action.
Four, there is a very real political question of what either refusal or acquiesce will do to the "is strong encryption going to be legal" debate.
My 2 cents. For 1: This device already 4 generations old and newer versions are more secure. For 2: Most people are worried about some slippery slope that is not likely to materialize. For 3: We live in a society, reasonable accommodations must be made. For 4: I don't think strong encryption is going away anytime soon, and the impact of this on society will be forgotten in weeks./p.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday February 24 2016, @05:50PM
Apple can do it because they can almost definitely push a custom firmware without the devices consent, signed by their private key.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 25 2016, @05:11AM
For 2: Most people are worried about some slippery slope that is not likely to materialize.
It already has materialized in the form of the NSA's mass surveillance. If the government can do something to violate the privacy of a greater number of people, then it will do so. Creating a tool that will allow it to do so will only cause them to seize that tool so they can make use of it as much as possible. This is a simple inevitability.
For 3: We live in a society, reasonable accommodations must be made.
Forcing a company or person to create something that does not currently exist to defeat the security scheme they designed is not an example of a reasonable accommodation. It is like indentured servitude. Seizing something that already exists is significantly different.
For 4: I don't think strong encryption is going away anytime soon, and the impact of this on society will be forgotten in weeks./p.
Bad precedent isn't so easily forgotten. Strong encryption will not go away, but this sort of precedent will be yet another tool in the government's oppression toolbox that they can make use of to harass businesses and individuals.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 24 2016, @06:27PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25 2016, @04:43AM
The next step isn't doing it 175 times, it's requesting it to be added to the OS as a default feature so no intervention is needed at all.