N. Carolina Senator Drafting Bill To Criminalize Apple's Refusal To Aid Decryption (arstechnica.com) 296
Ars Technica reports that North Carolina senator Richard Burr says he plans to introduce legislation "to criminalize a company's refusal to aid decryption efforts as part of a governmental investigation." In a USA Today op-ed, Burr, griping that "[t]he newest Apple operating systems allow device access only to users," even Apple itself can't get in," drags out the usual bugaboos: "Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks."
Updated Friday 12:40pm EST: The Wall Street Journal reports Senate Panel Chief Decides Against Plan to Criminalize Firms That Don't Decipher Encrypted Messages
Updated Friday 12:40pm EST: The Wall Street Journal reports Senate Panel Chief Decides Against Plan to Criminalize Firms That Don't Decipher Encrypted Messages
Dear Owners (Score:5, Funny)
Fix Unicode already.
Re:Dear Owners (Score:5, Informative)
It's 13 years old, but I still recommend as an introduction "The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)" : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/... [joelonsoftware.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, that's an interesting primer.
I jumped over some parts and plan to go back and reread, so forgive me if an answer was mentioned, but I have a question that has bugged me: Why can't we come up with a single text standard that works for everyone? Is it just the standard problem with standards [xkcd.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither. You make it a varchar so that the space it uses varies based on the actual size of the data, and then you don't worry about the length of a particular character.
Re: (Score:3)
Every software developer? Really? I'm fairly sure my development of finite difference modelling software won't be improved by knowledge of Unicode (I *have* encountered EBCDIC though, briefly, which is the one thing he claims would never happen).
Not meant as a comment about you, but the author of the piece, who seems to have a rather limited view of the range of software that's actually developed.
Re:Dear Owners (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it so hard to believe that /. has supported Unicode for ages now? (It was courtesy of a patch by Slashdot.jp). However, a bunch of posters realized that the finer points of Unicode could be used to abuse the site (and many sites are still ripe for the abuse) to fake titles and scoring?
It's a pity the Unicode filter is run again on old comments but use Google to search for the odd phrase "erocS" and even "5:erocS" With a bit of Unicode trickery in the subject, you could fake a scor
Except he already decided NOT to submit the bill (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Except he already decided NOT to submit the bil (Score:5, Funny)
I think the quote went something like this:
"I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The proposed legislation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way competent, and was motivated purely by ignorance, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and any other citizen and I hereby undertake not to submit any such nonsense at any time in the future."
Re: (Score:2)
What I heard was more like "Problem, Freedom?" [knowyourmeme.com]
When iphones are criminalized (Score:5, Interesting)
only senators and outlaws will have iphones.
Re: (Score:3)
but you repeat yourself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Tax rates (combined all government taxes/fees) exceeds 50%, I would suggest to you that we have indentured servitude. Just saying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Tax rates (combined all government taxes/fees) exceeds 50%, I would suggest to you that we have indentured servitude. Just saying
The effective tax rate of all taxes and fees is well below 50%, at least in the US. On the federal level, it is less than 30%, including Social Security/Medicare. Yes, there are local sales and income taxes, but, then, most people like to have police and fire protection, ambulance services, highways, etc.
In its simplest form, government is funded by taxes with the purpose of the government to be for the protection of people and property. If you take the high road and say one human live is as valuable as a
Re:Except he already decided NOT to submit the bil (Score:5, Insightful)
Like insurance, shouldn't you pay more for the protection of your property if you have more property to protect? As such, shouldn't the wealthy be paying a larger share of their income to taxes to protect their larger share of the benefit of government protection?
Your argument doesn't make sense. Of course the rich should pay more in taxes. But should they pay a higher percentage? Your "insurance" analogy does not support that. If I insure twice as much value, I pay twice as much, not three times as much.
Progressive taxation cannot be justified in terms of paying for services. It can only be justified if you believe that government should be an instrument of social justice.
Re:Except he already decided NOT to submit the bil (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a certain amount of income that's basically your core survival amount. For the sake of argument, let's say $15k (which may vary greatly). Taking money away here is going to seriously threaten your ability to just get by.
Then comes the next level, where you start to add in basic amenities, and minor luxuries like entertainment, saving money, the occasional vacation. Taking money from this amount doesn't threaten you, but it might lower the niceties that you can afford (maybe you only go out once a week to places like Chipotle rather than going out 2-3 times a week to a steakhouse). It's not the end of the world, but you notice.
Eventually, we get to the point where you're making so much money that the difference in amenities that more money will buy is approaching a ridiculous level, like a question of 187 diamonds encrusted on the steering wheel of your Yacht rather than 188. We're talking incomes into the millions of dollars here. At this point, you're not even going to notice an extra dollar, because it represents a tiny fraction of your income. And even if we start talking percentages of your income, the amount that you're foregoing may be staggeringly huge, but it has minimal real impact on your lifestyle. If I make $10 million a year, and I pay 10% more in taxes, that's a million more I pay - but I won't notice it the same way that someone making $50k notices losing an extra $5k. Moreover, at this level, I have lots of money I can afford to invest into making even more money.
So that's partly why progressive taxation can make sense, because of the marginal value of that income. But really, the core problem in many cases is that last sentence above, because the majority of wealth isn't in wage income. Really rich people make their money off investments, and capital gains is taxed far less than wage income, and it's definitely not indexed progressively (or at all).
Re:Except he already decided NOT to submit the bil (Score:5, Insightful)
Like insurance, shouldn't you pay more for the protection of your property if you have more property to protect? As such, shouldn't the wealthy be paying a larger share of their income to taxes to protect their larger share of the benefit of government protection?
Your argument doesn't make sense. Of course the rich should pay more in taxes. But should they pay a higher percentage? Your "insurance" analogy does not support that. If I insure twice as much value, I pay twice as much, not three times as much.
Progressive taxation cannot be justified in terms of paying for services. It can only be justified if you believe that government should be an instrument of social justice.
I'm not saying they should pay a higher percentage, but the reality is, according to the OMB the top 10% pay the lowest percentage of total income as taxes, while the lowest 20% pay the highest percentage of total income as taxes.
As for insurance, if you buy a car that cost three times as much as I do, you would expect to pay three times the insurance, assume the other factors being the same. And yet, with taxes, at least in the US, it does not work that way. Again, according to the government's own numbers, the more you earn, the percentage paid in taxes decreases. You often hear quoted that the top 10% pay 50% of the taxes and while that is true, that is talking about in dollars paid, not as a percentage of income. Since the OP was about the cumulative tax burden of local, state and federal, including sales taxes, the more you have, the less percentage of it you pay.
As for the government being an instrument of social justice or not, that has nothing to do with it. The US had it's best economic growth at the same time it had its highest income tax rates. What determines economic growth is the purchasing power of the middle class, not the poor or the wealthy. However, since the 1980s, the middle class has received the heaviest tax burden (as a percentage of income) and has dwindled. Contrast that with, say, Germany that has a strong middle class and a high tax burden. They have a robust economy, even with many social programs beyond what the US has.
Social spending isn't the drain, it is the accumulation of wealth by the very top few percentages that drains the economy. Money in the hands of the lower and middle classes is used predominately to purchase direct goods and services, therefore stimulating supply and demand. Everybody wins. However, in the hands of the wealthy, it tends to accumulate which means it is actually removed from the economy. In this way, it has the same effect as government borrowing and actually slows the economy.
If one million people go out and purchase a new refrigerator, that will create more jobs than one person buying a million dollar boat. In addition the wages paid for those jobs will further stimulate the purchase of goods and services upto seven times the original dollar amount.
Remember, prior to the 1980s, the United States had a progressive tax system and had it's greatest economic growth period. Since then, when the tax system was flattened, at the expense of the middle and lower classes, growth, outside of speculative ventures, has declined.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberal/progressives/socialists/etc know this but also know that giving amounts instead of percentages is an easy way to bring hate and anger and resentment to people.
One guy makes 10 thousand and his neighbor makes 100 thousand. Taxes get cut 5% across the board.
The guy thinks it's fair when he is told they both get to keep an extra 5% of their salary.
Alternatively
The first guy is told that he is being cheated by the rich. Instead of percentages, he is told that the rich guy gets a $500 tax cut and that
Re: (Score:2)
The effective tax rate of all taxes and fees is well below 50%, at least in the US.
I've had a marginal tax rate over 50%, in the US. You may not realize that beyond a certain income level (still well below the 1%) you start losing your deductions. With every dollar you earn, your deductions drop a few cents. This can become a10% or so effective marginal tax rate. The Obamacare tax adds another ~4% marginal tax rate. Add state taxes and your 28% nominal tax rate can pass 50%, without being in the 1%.
My solution was to move out of California. I make a bit less money, but it's not lik
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Envy is such an ugly color on you.
Re: (Score:3)
I call bullshit. Show me how to do this and I'll retract my statement and issue an apology.
Otherwise, tell me just exactly how would my wife and I could receive "$75,000 in benefits and credits". From who, from where, and how?
Re:Except he already decided NOT to submit the bil (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cato.org/publicatio... [cato.org]
Can't find anything to substantiate the $75K figure. . .
Re: (Score:2)
You know who else is covering their tracks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Prosecuted and pled guilty (Score:5, Informative)
But when someone intercepted, recorded and released an embarrassing conversation made by Newt Gringrich in Gainesville, FL after this law was passed, no one was prosecuted.
The people who taped the conversation were, in fact, prosecuted, and pled guilty to illegal wiretapping. see: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04... [nytimes.com]
Or, for more details: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jba... [yale.edu]
Timothy and the new owners (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Burr - re-read the Constitution fucktard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
The Constitution protects EVERYONE, not just "good people", but EVERYONE from unreasonable search and seizure.
It also allows EVERYONE to refuse to answer on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.
When Apple configured it's devices so that they could not decrypt the phones themselves, they were ENFORCING those rights that you would so gladly trample all over.
I cannot wait until you, your traitorous cronies and the rest of the Congressional, Executive and Judicial branches are held accountable for their Treason and Traitorous activities since 9/11. We can fix the deficit by selling tickets to your executions (the punishment for Treason during a time of war).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Constitution doesn't apply anymore. Just meandering case law, executive orders, and things like Open Letters from the ATF
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason
Not really. Either way this decision goes down, Apple is not engaging in acts to overthrow this country, or provide aid to an enemy. Farook is/was a US citizen and the FBI has shown no evidence* that he was working with any foreign nationals. So there's no treason demonstrated there either. Apple has no standing as a defendant in this case, so the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.
What Apple is protecting is the intangible value of the perception of security that their technology has. Should Apple demonstrate
Your legal argument falls flat (Score:5, Interesting)
A few lessons on the 4th and 5th amendments...
First, self incrimination, i.e. the 5th amendment, has absolutely no bearing on this case. If a police officer, prosecutor, congressional tribunal, what-have-you, asks you a question that may be used to incriminate you of a crime, you have the right to say, "I plead the 5th." But your constitutional protections end there; they have every right to look for evidence that may incriminate you outside of your own self. In this matter, we have a phone. It's not a person. It is an object that presents itself as evidence, ergo it may be used as such.
Second, and more difficult to accept, the 4th amendment has no bearing on this case either. The 4th amendment protects an individual's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It begins and ends with the individual. This phone was not unlawfully seized. It didn't even belong to the individual; it belonged to the company he worked for. And the company who owns the property surrendered it willingly to law enforcement. (Side tangent lesson: don't ever use a company phone EVER for anything other than business. It may be used against you for any crime.)
Third, I don't see how treason plays into any of this. Article III, section 3 defines treason as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The charges I believe Apple will be facing is Obstruction of Justice, as, from the perception of the government, they are interfering with an investigation. And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511 [cornell.edu], which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with a court order directing such assistance."
Apple is trying to set a new precedent, one I would consider a push-back for all the illegal surveillance the US Government has done over the last fifteen years. They are attempting to make digital-communication-evidence-gathering impossible if an individual so wills it. I don't know whether they'll be successful or not.
For the record, I am not a lawyer, but it's my country and my laws as much as the rest of yours, so I feel responsible to understand them.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511 [cornell.edu], which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide [stuff] to [law enforcement]" [...]
It literally says "they are permitted to hand over stuff, nevermind what other laws say", and most likely equals "they have to hand over all the stuff they can get their hands on". But I do not see a legal basis for anything more than that. There is a limit to what a court can force you to do to help with an investigation. A landlord cannot be compelled to demolish a whole block just because a LEO thinks there might be a weed pipe under a couch. And being asked to tear down the security mechanisms in your p
Apple merely needs to digitally sign a file (Score:2)
And being asked to tear down the security mechanisms in your proprietary operating system comes quite close in comparison.
Apple is being asked to do no such thing. All the FBI needs is a version of iOS that skips the passcode count limit and the delay between passcode entry attempts. Quite trivial modifications. The FBI could certainly make such changes. What is needed from Apple is to digitally sign that updated iOS so that the hardware will accept it and run it. Furthermore if Apple makes such changes they could add code to limit the modified iOS to only run on the device in question. The FBI would be unable to alter this ne
Re: (Score:3)
"At its core, the 18th-century catchall statute simply allows courts to issue a writ, or order, which compels a person or company to do something. In the past, feds have used this law to compel unnamed smartphone manufacturers to bypass security measures for phones involved in legal cases. The government has previously tried using this same legal justification against Apple as well." http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
So basically Apple needs to take thi
Treason seems "technically plausible" ... (Score:2)
Third, I don't see how treason plays into any of this. Article III, section 3 defines treason as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I'm playing devil's advocate here, not actually accusing Apple of anything, certainly not treason. That said, if the San Bernardino murderers declared loyalty to ISIS and the government suspects the phone contains unknown information related to ISIS (say a contact) then prohibiting access to that information could arguably be providing aid to ISIS. Additionally it could be argued that ISIS is by its own declaration at war with the USA and thereby be considered an enemy. I wouldn't be so sure that a charge o
Not treason and not about self incrimination (Score:2)
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
Spare us the histrionics. Treason is a very narrowly defined [wikipedia.org] crime in the US and it isn't remotely in play here on either side. I think Apple is completely justified to refuse this ridiculous court order but no one at Apple is in danger of being tried for treason or needs to protect themselves from such accusations.
You do realize that the actual law is considerably more nuanced than you are implying, right? Protections against self incrimination do not necessarily apply to evidence you generate including evidence left on computers. The accused doesn't have to help the government make their case against him but that doesn't mean the government can't take action to gather the evidence. What is at stake here is whether the government should be able to compel a company to take extraordinary action to defeat security measures against a third party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self incrimination. If the phone was unlocked and unecrypted then this isn't even a conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "backdoor" could *not* be re-used ... (Score:2)
Re:The "backdoor" could *not* be re-used ... (Score:4, Insightful)
**This** is the crux of the matter, ensuring it won't be used again or misused. As we've seen with the Patriot Act, the FBI misused those powers. So measure need to be taken to prevent misuse if Apple relents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Apple should do (Score:3)
LOL, OK Senator. (Score:2)
Land of the free (Score:2)
Enough said.
American, home of the not so free..or brave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This, this, so much this... it is so sad that people don't realize this. It's not even the fact that the Constitution is getting stomped on - it's the fact that people don't even know why that's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never. For these people a human lifetime is not enough to actually see reality and truth. And when they die we may raise a glass to then only good thing they ever did in their life (leaving it), but the next generation of the same type will already be well underway and I suspect that even the most stupid and vicious fuckups get reincarnated to mistreat their fellow human beings once more.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like we really honored the US Constitution since the so-called "patriot act" after 911. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." When will we learn?
That's cool, but I think we've seen that most people in the United States do not hold Franklin's ideals. They're more than willing to give up some stuff they don't really care about in order to make it more difficult for the Terries to come over and kill them and their families.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't even sacrificing liberty for temporary security. It's sacrificing definite security now (your device is encrypted) for a small amount of theoretical security in the future (maybe they use the decryption to catch a terrorist before he does something that might possible have impacted you). There is nothing that I've heard to justify this except people spouting "terrorism" as if that's society's root password.
A crime? (Score:2)
Aside from Policy... (Score:2)
Aside from the issue that this is a really stupid policy, can we please stop paying attention when so-and-so introduces legislation? ninety-nine times out of a hundred Introducing legislation is a cheap stunt used to run for election, knowing that the legislation will be referred to a subcommittee and will never again see the light of day. It might as well be a press release.
Forcing Services (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can they subpoena signing keys? Can they force Apple to sign a firmware used to bypass protections? That's really the question here.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a service... I am sure Apple engineers don't come cheap!
Re: (Score:2)
And now I'm picturing Tim Cook offering this service to the US Government...
Tim (while petting a white cat sitting on his lap): "We can do this for you, but it'll cost *pinky to mouth* One hundred TRILLION dollars."
And as part of the PATRIOT II act... (Score:2)
And as part of the PATRIOT II act we'll criminalize any Congress member who votes "no" because clearly they refuse to aid national security. I think Apple picked just the right time to make a stand and put the US in a lose-lose situation, either they back down (unlikely) or lose (lots of good PR) or win and Apple is forced to decrypt this one phone while most their market moves to phones with Secure Enclave, so by the time the case closes (expect appeals) they can rightfully say it's irrelevant now because
"Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers" (Score:2)
Ask Schlage, Master, Yale, Medeco, ASSA for this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that all kinds of people probably have the exact specific key to your home, and that thousands of people have the master key. Even the most expensive locks you can get at your typical Home Depot only have at most 100,000 different combinations (most brands have fewer).
Re: (Score:2)
typical Home Depot only have at most 100,000 different combinations (most brands have fewer).
only need one: Bolt-cutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming a thief was going to use a key to get in (as opposed to breaking a window or using a bolt cutter on the lock), they would need to carry 100,000 different keys. Even if they could try one every second, it would take them over 27 hours to try them all. Contrast this with a hypothetical "TSA-Approved Home Lock" which had a master key hole that was the same across all locks. A thief could walk up with one key, put it in the lock, and be assured that it would open.
So, no, the "100,000 different combi
Forgot one (Score:2)
Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks
Forgot one: Senators
Show Government Ineptitude (Score:5, Insightful)
The California government purchases an iPhone (hey it is designed in California!) for the terrorist they hired (notice how most news organizations and the president like to call him a mass shooter to further their agenda of gun control instead of a terrorist that they were?).
Being soooooo tech savvy, their IT department did not install away that allowed them (the gov) to access the phone that they owned and issued. It really seems that this whole encryption debate is design to mask the fact the the government is inept.
How may companies would issue a device they could not control?
Think of the innocent people first (Score:2)
For law-abiding citizens, good encryption is the first line of defense against criminals accessing our personal information and stealing our identities. With our philosophy of “innocent until proven guilty,” we should first protect the good people properly. Then within those constraints, we can find ways to deal with the criminals without violating people’s rights.
Provably conjecture (Score:2)
If they had covered their tracks, then nobody would know they were doing those things, and if they somehow do know, then they aren't using it to cover their tracks are they?
Re: (Score:2)
I would also say that the people in question were killed by the police represents a pretty maximal failure to "cover their tracks". But politicians do not deal in truth or honor. They deal in manipulation, lies and power.
Forgot something (Score:2)
"Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks."
As are Senators, Congressmen, and some presidential candidates. *cough*
Saber Rattling. (Score:2)
Legislation is unnecessary. If this is an order from a Judge, then failure to comply means they're in contempt of court, for which there isn't much legal recourse. The Judge can simply have corporate officers jailed until they comply.
Re: (Score:2)
And the corporation can simply take its business elsewhere. Than said judge would be responsible for an economic catastrophe. Hence that is not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely right. However, as long as their corporate leadership reside in the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the courts, they're subject to their court orders.
I think this would be something that Apple might take to crazy levels in its defense. Imagine if Apple has to stop selling products that have the type of encryption that's being perused here. Would they have to stop sell Mac's that have iMessage on them, as it too is encrypted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a judge can compel US citizens to do things that are within their purview. This is effectively a search warrant, which puts it in the judges power. However, the law it's based on, the All Writs Act, is what's in contest for Apple. Broadly interpreted, the judge does have the power to compel this assistance, in the same way that a judge can compel someone to give testimony even if they want to plead the 5th, because they are guaranteeing immunity from self-incrimination. Failure to comply, mean
Re: (Score:2)
Do judges have unlimited powers to issue orders? As another poster said, could a judge order a landlord to demolish all of his buildings because the police believed there were drugs hiding in one person's couch cushions? This judge is essentially ordering Apple to demolish their entire security apparatus "just for one phone." (In quotes because we all know it won't end at this one phone.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unlimited powers, but powers that are within their domain. For example a judge couldn't order Tim Cook to fire Ives, or require him to move the Apple HQ to Timbuktu. But, the judge can order the company to cooperate with a search warrant, which is within their rights under the All Writs Act, (when broadly read).
Just can fine Apple until it hurts (Score:2)
Legislation is unnecessary. If this is an order from a Judge, then failure to comply means they're in contempt of court, for which there isn't much legal recourse. The Judge can simply have corporate officers jailed until they comply.
Or levy a fine. Say a daily fine until compliance. The judge can choose a fine amount that hurts financially. In short, corporations can be compelled.
Why NOT? (Score:2)
Of course Apple can aid decryption -- they have a large number of computers that can assist in brute-forcing AES. Done.
Oh, you mean extraordinary aid to get it done before the heat death of the universe? Well, that may or may not be possible, depending on how the existing code and hardware work. A good look at the source code would settle the matter one way or the other. As for Court Orders, they can only be for things directly before the court. Otherwise, it's "legislating from the bench".
Forcing bac
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. They _are_ aiding the government already. The problem is that the court order compels them to do so _successfully_ in the face of a non-standard and potentially very difficult problem, and that is not compatible with fundamental legal principles. The word "reasonable" is the key here, and if Apple did the engineering right, nothing they may (or may not) be able to do passes that test.
If anything, this idiocy will just make very sure Apple will design future generations of their devices so that they
Ex Post Facto laws are unconstituional (Score:2)
Told you so! (Score:2)
This was the plan all along. John McAfee was the only really unexpected thing from the narrative. Taking him up on his offer clears Apple, gets the government what they want, and no legislation has to happen, but they're not going to McAfee up on his offer.
Nope, they're just going to stick to the original plan [slashdot.org] and push legislation. Now that justice Scalia is conveniently dead you don't have to worry about the supreme court blocking it.
I don't get it (Score:2)
So, my understanding is that Apple is refusing to create a version of iOS that would allow FBI to crack encryption on this one phone because then it can be used to do the same on other phones, right? I totally get it, privacy of everyone will be compromised and FBI can't be trusted. But in this particular case a (hopefully) independent judge reviewed the case and ordered Apple to help decrypt the phone. It changes everything, and I don't see why it wouldn't be ok to break encryption on a per case basis unde
Ex Post Facto Bill (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No mention of party... (Score:2, Troll)
Three birds with one stone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I keep wondering: what legal framework compels Apple to change their OS on demand? This seems fundamentally different than the age-old POTS phone tap, in which the government was allowed to tap someone's phone under certain legal auspices by "tapping" into an existing system.
Here's an alternative. The government could offer Apple a contract to provide a custom version of iOS that has the required features. (The contract could potentially be classified.) If Apple accepts the contract, that's
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about that single phone. Remember there is no "covering of tracks" involved here, the perps are dead. This is about abrading civil liberties and more power to the police. Just as is done in any budding police-state. The ultimate outcome is always the same: Full fascism, leading to a slow and terminal decline.
Re:Arrogance (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh but it IS unreasonable search and seizure.
To appreciate this you have to step out of the context of this specific case and look at the bigger picture.
Keep in mind, any and all of that data you presuppose Apple has just lying around is something the Gubmint can very likely already obtain through a variety of legal mechanisms if they don't already have it.
It all hinges on what the Feds are seeking. If they just went to Apple, handed them the phone, and said "decrypt please" things might be different. If they said "THOU SHALT DECRYPT" based on whatever authority, it might be different. No, what they're asking for is that Apple provide them an alternative iOS firmware to deactivate the functionality of wiping the phone after so many bad password attempts. Then with this, the Feds can themselves simply brute force it and eventually hit upon the right password.
There may be valid reasons for approaching it this way. This may, for example, increase the sense of validity of the data procured from the phone since the Feds could demonstrate the methodology on any phone. It may also prevent accusations that Apple didn't provide real decrypted data but instead colluded with the Feds to create stuff. Maybe the Feds don't want Apple seeing the data. I imagine there may be other reasions as well.
Nonetheless, this request to create and deliver an alternative iOS is new and unwarranted. It's probably essentially unconstitutional/illegal. Legalize it's "compelling speech". In vulgar terms, it's slavery. And it grants the Feds to ability to do this to any other phone anytime they want. Next, it essentially reverses and undermines the entire functionality of the device whereby you have some measure of security that if your phone is lost or stolen, the data won't fall into others hands. Once this new alternative iOS is out there, it WILL be leaked. So this suffers from the same problem as almost all backdoor or key-escrow proposals that giving the Feds the backdoor opens it up for thieves as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To suggest that it would be as you said is to suggest that laws can't ever be made that require companies or people to change what they may have formerly been doing. That is only true to the extent that they will generally not be expected to change things that are genuinely outside of their control, such as trying to change something that has already happened, or control property that may have formerly been theirs, but whose ownership has been lawfully transferred to somebody else. Whether a company coop
but justice Scalia is out of the court and the gop (Score:2)
but justice Scala is out of the court and the gop is pulling to be able to name there man to replace him.
Re: (Score:2)
Constitution - pish!
http://www.cnet.com/news/senat... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or Apple should create a help desk procedure for these phone hacking requests that looks like this:
1) Receive iPhone to be hacked
2) Take 10 guesses at the password
3) Let the iPhone get completely erased
4) Return the phone to FBI/CIA/NSA/DOJ/etc agency with a "Sorry, we tried to help!" type apology letter.
After "accidentally" destroying a few phones, let's see how many times the government comes back for help.
Re:If I were Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's assume they could push an update just to that phone that lets the FBI in. Let's also assume that they drop their objections and do just this. Do you really think it'll be "just this one phone"? Do you think that other governments won't demand Apple let them into people's phones? Do you think Apple's update won't fall into a hacker group's hands who will use it to find exploits to get into any iPhone?
There is no such thing as "we'll just do it this one time". That's just the lie the federal government is telling to make themselves look reasonable in front of the judge until the next "just this one time" and the one after that, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They can have my encryption when they outlaw all firearms.
What the hell does one have to do with another?
Until 1992, export of encryption from the United States (basically, any product or software using it had to be in-country only) was banned; classified on the US Munitions List as an "auxiliary military equipment." It wasn't just export, but there were regulatory hurdles regular products needed to go through. I remember using Netscape in the early 90s, and there was a "U.S. version" and an "international version," the latter of which included much weaker encryption, but getting the US version was such a pai
Re: (Score:3)
"It has not unlocked these iPhones — it has extracted data that was accessible while they were still locked. " http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/... [techcrunch.com]
Do some research before looking like an ass-hole.