End to end encryption under threat

[scorza]

Once the precedent is set...

A one off win at massive cost isn't necessarily a good thing.

What's the massive cost?

 

[Fr0dders]

How about an unlock code that only lasts for say 24 hours before needing a new one from Apple (in this particular case)?

Because we're right back at the start of the debate, somebody at apple has a piece of software that can unlock any phone of your choice.

All it takes is somebody at apple to get access to that software unauthorized, or somebody authorized is forced to hand it over with his family at gun point, or somebody goes into apple specifically to get authorized and sell it to the highest bidder ...

Once its out, its too late. This is the key to apple's side of the debate that once its created, you cannot guarantee it won't fall into the wrong hands. They can try, but if the whole thing is never created in the first place, that guarantees it doesn't fall into the wrong hands for sure ...

What's the massive cost?

Losing the ideological argument that such a piece of software / device / method etc.. shouldn't be created.

 

[Mynight]

The register for a change have actually done a pretty poor write up.

If Apple sign such a update then there's little to prevent the "unique ID" from being changed to whatever phone they want in future.

"O you did it last time"

Anyone under the impression it's a one shot affair is unfortunately mistaken.

It's better to feign an inability to do so to prevent future requests.

Assuming we've all read Tim cooks open letter then the reasoning is there.

Going to be rather interesting to see who really has the power these days corporations vs governments I suspect the former.

( o and as for the bankruptcy post of mine in previous page. It's to do with personal data and various source code nothing dodgy by any means but would potentially land me with several lawsuits I couldn't afford to either fight(not that I could fight it) or pay up)

 

[scorza]

Because we're right back at the start of the debate, somebody at apple has a piece of software that can unlock any phone of your choice.

All it takes is somebody at apple to get access to that software unauthorized, or somebody authorized is forced to hand it over with his family at gun point, or somebody goes into apple specifically to get authorized and sell it to the highest bidder ...

Once its out, its too late. This is the key to apple's side of the debate that once its created, you cannot guarantee it won't fall into the wrong hands. They can try, but if the whole thing is never created in the first place, that guarantees it doesn't fall into the wrong hands for sure ...

As I pointed out before, that argument is completely illogical. IOS has been created, you can't guarantee that won't fall into the wrong hands. Once it does then they could make worse changes than Apple are legally required to do at the moment.

Losing the ideological argument that such a piece of software / device / method etc.. shouldn't be created.

Doesn't sound like a massive cost to me, especially against potentially saving many lives.

 

[Mynight]

Doesn't sound like a massive cost to me, especially against potentially saving many lives.

Unless they work out a way to pre install such an iOS fork on every device physically it's not going to prevent anything. It's a purely after the fact affair.

If it becomes known that Apple devices are easy to read then the people committing such atrocities will merely move to communications that are secure. The ones we probably should worry about are the ones who wouldn't even be using corporate controlled devices.

 

[scorza]

Unless they work out a way to pre install such an iOS fork on every device physically it's not going to prevent anything. It's a purely after the fact affair.

You don't think that knowing who Farook had been talking to could potentially yield some useful leads?

 

[Mynight]

You don't think that knowing who Farook had been talking to could potentially yield some useful leads?

It could but just as likely it will lead to the persecution of innocent people.

But this isn't just farok. If such a thing is created anyone and everyone can be targeted.

 

[meandu229]

As I pointed out before, that argument is completely illogical. IOS has been created, you can't guarantee that won't fall into the wrong hands. Once it does then they could make worse changes than Apple are legally required to do at the moment.

If IOS falls into say "Bills" hands and he makes loads of changes to allow for bad stuff. Nothing will happen as its just on "Bills" PC and "Bills" Iphone. Its only an issue if apple make the changes and roll them out to every previously secure iPhone.
Although I guess it would mean if "Bill" were the FBI then they would be able to unlock any IOS device they had hands on.

 

[leaskovski]

Unless they work out a way to pre install such an iOS fork on every device physically it's not going to prevent anything. It's a purely after the fact affair.

If it becomes known that Apple devices are easy to read then the people committing such atrocities will merely move to communications that are secure. The ones we probably should worry about are the ones who wouldn't even be using corporate controlled devices.

But that is already an attack vector. Who is to stop someone from getting hold of the iOS code and modifying it to add a backdoor and then building it and signing it, to then push it on to someones phone, whom they have to have physical access to it to be able to do that?

Thats all the FBI are asking to do at the moment. Something that is already a possibility is an Apple employee is subverted.

 

[V F]

I as a citizen, want the police to prevent crime, especially such as terrorism - but not at any cost. My liberty is also as important as my security. A balance must be struck.

I would have thought of all people you would have known there never ever has been a balance.

 

[scorza]

If IOS falls into say "Bills" hands and he makes loads of changes to allow for bad stuff. Nothing will happen as its just on "Bills" PC and "Bills" Iphone. Its only an issue if apple make the changes and roll them out to every previously secure iPhone.
Although I guess it would mean if "Bill" were the FBI then they would be able to unlock any IOS device they had hands on.

Apple firmware updates can only be deployed by Apple, the FBI can't do that. In any case, it'd only work on iPhone 5Cs.

 

[Fr0dders]

As I pointed out before, that argument is completely illogical. IOS has been created, you can't guarantee that won't fall into the wrong hands.

Just because we can't guarantee the iOS source code won't fall into criminal hands, doesn't mean that its fine to go about creating back doors into said OS when we shouldn't be doing it. This additional step increases the risk even further, And do we need to make that step of increasing the risk to meet this demand from the FBI?

That my friend, is the million dollar question and one that everybody is currently debating.

 

[scorza]

Just because we can't guarantee the iOS source code won't fall into criminal hands, doesn't mean that its fine to go about creating back doors into said OS when we shouldn't be doing it. This additional step increases the risk even further, And do we need to make that step of increasing the risk to meet this demand from the FBI?

That my friend, is the million dollar question and one that everybody is currently debating.

Well the law disagrees, and says it is fine to go about creating a so-called back door to aid FBI investigators. I believe in the rule of law. If the risk is too much for you, don't own an iPhone 5C.

 

[Rroff]

Well the law disagrees, and says it is fine to go about creating a so-called back door to aid FBI investigators. I believe in the rule of law. If the risk is too much for you, don't own an iPhone 5C.

You really think people would be so strongly opinionated against this if it was just about owning an iPhone 5 or not?

 

[Rimsy]

For me, it really is.

We've already indicated in this thread that many of us are suspicious about such a solution being handed over to law enforcement. We've said that security services have got form for using these types of techniques to snoop on innocent citizens who may be rightly or wrongly accused but un-convicted of a crime.

If we're saying that we can't trust law enforcement, why all of a sudden do we trust apple ? Lets say they set up a highly specialized conformance team, dedicated to dealing with these types of requests and any time the FBI wants a phone unlocked they send it to that team, how can you guarantee that nobody within that team would be corruptible ? how could you guarantee nobody would try and get into that team purely to obtain the code and release it to the dark net ? What happens if an honest individual gets outed and gets forced to hand over the tech with his family at gunpoint ?

Once its out, its too late. Everybody has the key. The only way to stop the anybody from mis using this method is simply not to create it. The FBI have argued that it could be destroyed. Which is fine, but it sets a precedent. When the US suffers another 9/11 style attack or another major terrorist attack they'll be back asking for it again, and we're right back at square one.

The only way to stop this is not to create it.

Or simply not have encryption on bloody smartphones in the first place?

Fully understand that society these days is all about "I've got rights" but as the modern world is showing us... we cannot have our cake and eat it.

 

[neil_g]

Or simply not have encryption on bloody smartphones in the first place?

Fully understand that society these days is all about "I've got rights" but as the modern world is showing us... we cannot have our cake and eat it.

wheres the line?

corporate devices may require encryption for access to email. vpn tunnels, encrypted. etc.

 

[scorza]

wheres the line?

corporate devices may require encryption for access to email. vpn tunnels, encrypted. etc.

I think the line is when the courts say that encryption must be broken, then that encryption must be broken. End-to-end encryption is a terrorist's wet dream and we know they're using it against us.

 

[FishFluff]

Or simply not have encryption on bloody smartphones in the first place?

Fully understand that society these days is all about "I've got rights" but as the modern world is showing us... we cannot have our cake and eat it.

Or how about I don't particularly want anyone who steals my phone to have access to all my personal data and financial information?

Anyone saying that Apple are in the wrong here needs to get a grip. Some people died because of a couple of nutcases. It's not a reason to suddenly decide that encryption is evil.

 

[Mynight]

I think the line is when the courts say that encryption must be broken, then that encryption must be broken. End-to-end encryption is a terrorist's wet dream and we know they're using it against us.

Do you think if we *******ize apples end to end encryption it will stop it from happening again?

 

[FishFluff]

I think the line is when the courts say that encryption must be broken, then that encryption must be broken. End-to-end encryption is a terrorist's wet dream and we know they're using it against us.

So how do you think that changing the legal status of encryption will stop terrorists using it. Genuinely curious as to why you think people plotting to murder other human beings will suddenly go 'Encryption is illegal now, better go back to sending our super secret messages using SMS instead of our ISIS provided custom encryption software!'