Privacy vs Security Re: Apple
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Can you provide source on this? I'm not sure if Apple sells any such service. Also having such a service would mean that they already have a "master key".
Internet is not owned by any one entity. The government might regulate certain things on the Internet, but the Internet is a collection of multiple networks, each network potentially owned by different entities. Similarly, airwaves are regulated by the government (FCC) not owned by the government (in fact, by law the public owns the airwaves). This is exactly why Net Neutrality is such a big issue. The government nor corporations (read: ISPs) can decide which content can be accessed by someone.
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't have a master administrator for each organization, like Microsoft used to have back in the days of their old mobile OS. If they did, then SB would have had an administrator that could have easily unlocked the device. In this case, each device is tied to an Apple ID and the Apple ID is tied to a person, not an organization. So, SB might have "paid" for the device, but the device was "owned" by the person with the Apple ID and without access to the Apple ID the device cannot be unlocked.
As mentioned previously, we need to have an agreement and some way to access the device so that we can access any sensitive information, but without compromising the device or the OS.
Per your request, I went to google.com and clicked on "news". I then searched for "9 phones":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/t...s-apple-to-unlock-nine-more-iphones.html?_r=0
They paid a 3rd party company the fee, not Apple. Apple is not obligated to provide them with an unlock. As IR2 pointed out, providing a master key is much different than unlocking a single device.
Again, owning is very different than regulating. Saying that the government owns the internet or the airwaves, is similar to saying that the property manager that maintains and looks after a property owns the property. The property manager might take action if the tenants cause issues because they are responsible for it.
Apple did comply with the orders that they can do. They handed over all the information they could. Also, this happens to be a work phone, so it's less likely there's anything on it. It's pretty much a shot in the dark. The terrorists destroyed their personal phones.
Do you think Apple can feasibly do more?
Do you think Apple should be forced to develop a new operating system?
Do you think Apple can feasibly do more?
Do you think Apple should be forced to develop a new operating system?
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
Unfortunately, things like this don't work on a one-off basis, it would be great it if did. It usually sets a precedent and dangerous one at that. Every time someone could potentially be a suspect (terrorism or otherwise), the authorities can now ask Apple or other providers to give them a backdoor to get the information. This has potential to be abused, just like NSA having blanket access to information.
Also, most information that is on the phone can be accessed one way or the other. E.g. phone calls, and text messages can be obtained from the service provider, messages such as Whatsapp, WeChat etc can be gotten from the respective companies. The only information that might be inaccessible due to encryption would be iMessages used between the terrorist husband and wife and / or any other suspects that used an iPhone (unlikely because this is a work phone).
Also, most information that is on the phone can be accessed one way or the other. E.g. phone calls, and text messages can be obtained from the service provider, messages such as Whatsapp, WeChat etc can be gotten from the respective companies. The only information that might be inaccessible due to encryption would be iMessages used between the terrorist husband and wife and / or any other suspects that used an iPhone (unlikely because this is a work phone).
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
The problem is not about unlocking the phone or even ownership. The FBI is asking Apple to create a hack / backdoor so that the FBI can try multiple passcodes without erasing data. Once such a hack is created and is known to be available, other elements (read: criminals) can use similar techniques to gain access to any iPhone. This also means that Apple's operating system is not as secure as it is touted to be. Exactly the reason anytime a new jailbreak is out for iOS, Apple releases a patch to prevent the jailbreak. Bottom line, if there is any way around the encryption then the technology is essentially unusable and scientists / companies have to invent new technologies to provide better encryption.
Security issues are not to be taken lightly. This is exactly the reason Hillary hosting her own server to send emails is a BIG deal. A small vulnerability can be exploited by criminals or terrorists to gain access to information that is protected or considered secure.
This is a matter that needs to be discussed at length and there have to be benchmarks and safeguards on when information should be accessible and how. Most companies have no problem share information with the authorities whenever a legitimate request is made and prevents crime or helps solve a crime. This is not request for information, but request for a tool to hack an iPhone and potentially every iPhone.
Security issues are not to be taken lightly. This is exactly the reason Hillary hosting her own server to send emails is a BIG deal. A small vulnerability can be exploited by criminals or terrorists to gain access to information that is protected or considered secure.
This is a matter that needs to be discussed at length and there have to be benchmarks and safeguards on when information should be accessible and how. Most companies have no problem share information with the authorities whenever a legitimate request is made and prevents crime or helps solve a crime. This is not request for information, but request for a tool to hack an iPhone and potentially every iPhone.
iacrenter
Well-known member
HOI is right. The FBI says this is a one off request affecting only a single phone. That BS! Yes Apple can destroy the software exploit but the FBI can request Apple to recreate the software for another iPhone at anytime. It will also open the door for foreign governments to make the same requests.
sgip
Well-known member
Source on the additional 9? Would like to read more please.
Apple sells an unlock service that SB paid for but didnt install. Apple's refusal to unlock now seems a bit disingenuous. Correct me please if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple accused of unlocking phones at the PRC's behest?
Please don't misunderstand. I recognize and support the privacy concerns here. That said, from a meta perspective airwaves and the Internet are ultimately government owned. You own, or in some cases merely lease the device but not the delivery system. What's transmitted over the airwaves or on-line is another thing altogether from the rights derived from private ownership. Zero privacy of any kind should be expected by anyone using cell phones or the Internet.
Since the County of SB owns the phone, a single unlock is appropriate as the owner of the device has requested it. If it's more than that - as earlier noted by others - then, no. A "master key" that anyone can exploit at will is not acceptable. Bring the phone to Cupertino. Have an FBI agent in the room as the unlock is being done. Exit, stage right, is all that should be done IMHO.
My .02c
Apple sells an unlock service that SB paid for but didnt install. Apple's refusal to unlock now seems a bit disingenuous. Correct me please if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple accused of unlocking phones at the PRC's behest?
Please don't misunderstand. I recognize and support the privacy concerns here. That said, from a meta perspective airwaves and the Internet are ultimately government owned. You own, or in some cases merely lease the device but not the delivery system. What's transmitted over the airwaves or on-line is another thing altogether from the rights derived from private ownership. Zero privacy of any kind should be expected by anyone using cell phones or the Internet.
Since the County of SB owns the phone, a single unlock is appropriate as the owner of the device has requested it. If it's more than that - as earlier noted by others - then, no. A "master key" that anyone can exploit at will is not acceptable. Bring the phone to Cupertino. Have an FBI agent in the room as the unlock is being done. Exit, stage right, is all that should be done IMHO.
My .02c
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
Soylent Green Is People said:
Can you provide source on this? I'm not sure if Apple sells any such service. Also having such a service would mean that they already have a "master key".
Soylent Green Is People said:
Internet is not owned by any one entity. The government might regulate certain things on the Internet, but the Internet is a collection of multiple networks, each network potentially owned by different entities. Similarly, airwaves are regulated by the government (FCC) not owned by the government (in fact, by law the public owns the airwaves). This is exactly why Net Neutrality is such a big issue. The government nor corporations (read: ISPs) can decide which content can be accessed by someone.
Soylent Green Is People said:
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't have a master administrator for each organization, like Microsoft used to have back in the days of their old mobile OS. If they did, then SB would have had an administrator that could have easily unlocked the device. In this case, each device is tied to an Apple ID and the Apple ID is tied to a person, not an organization. So, SB might have "paid" for the device, but the device was "owned" by the person with the Apple ID and without access to the Apple ID the device cannot be unlocked.
As mentioned previously, we need to have an agreement and some way to access the device so that we can access any sensitive information, but without compromising the device or the OS.
http://www.techrepublic.com/article...and-need-for-strong-mobile-device-management/
Every company phone I've been given has an MDM app installed. The county screwed up by not doing this.
Also idk what they plan to find from this work phone. They already destroyed their personal phones. Clearly that's where the evidence was.
Every company phone I've been given has an MDM app installed. The county screwed up by not doing this.
Also idk what they plan to find from this work phone. They already destroyed their personal phones. Clearly that's where the evidence was.
sgip
Well-known member
Article on County of SB's misstep in not installing access program. They were paying $4.00 per month for the service, but like most bureaucracies, they forgot to follow through on the details: county-had-software-for-unlocking-san-bernardino-shooters-phone-but-didnt-install-it
We can split hairs on who owns the Internet, but if you do anything with, through, or on it, the decisions about what is done with that data falls first with the FCC, then all of the other alphabet soup government agencies that come afterwards. Doubt this? Type in a couple of keywords into your e-mails and some nice men & women in suits will be knocking on your door shortly thereafter with an urgent look on their faces. Doesn't make it right, but this is the world many havesurrendered to
My .02c
SGIP
We can split hairs on who owns the Internet, but if you do anything with, through, or on it, the decisions about what is done with that data falls first with the FCC, then all of the other alphabet soup government agencies that come afterwards. Doubt this? Type in a couple of keywords into your e-mails and some nice men & women in suits will be knocking on your door shortly thereafter with an urgent look on their faces. Doesn't make it right, but this is the world many have
My .02c
SGIP
I'm not sure where I heard it. But I can look.Soylent Green Is People said:
Per your request, I went to google.com and clicked on "news". I then searched for "9 phones":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/t...s-apple-to-unlock-nine-more-iphones.html?_r=0
sgip
Well-known member
Thanks for posting!
Yep. These additional requests are clearly going too far (now per ZH, it's 12 phones) I still stand by the original case here in that in SB's situation, it's a "corporate phone" rather than a "personal phone" and doubt the rest of these cases fit that category. If they unlock one, per individual court order, I'd doubt anyone would raise a stink. With a master key being demanded, that shouldn't happen.
Thankfully there's Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange still mixing things up on the privacy front. The country needs a bit of revolution as they're providing every so often, like a good smack alongside the head to snap us back on the right track.
My .02c
Yep. These additional requests are clearly going too far (now per ZH, it's 12 phones) I still stand by the original case here in that in SB's situation, it's a "corporate phone" rather than a "personal phone" and doubt the rest of these cases fit that category. If they unlock one, per individual court order, I'd doubt anyone would raise a stink. With a master key being demanded, that shouldn't happen.
Thankfully there's Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange still mixing things up on the privacy front. The country needs a bit of revolution as they're providing every so often, like a good smack alongside the head to snap us back on the right track.
My .02c
irvinerealtor
Well-known member
My favorite analogy so far on this subject:
"Imagine if you owned hundreds of rental homes. And imagine that one of your tenants in one of your homes committed a horrendous crime.
If the FBI got a search warrant for that house and asked you to open the door to investigate, you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?
Probably not.
But imagine they didn't do that. Imagine, instead, that they said:
"Hey, all these locks and doors and other security features you have on your rental properties are too difficult for us to get through when we need to search somebody's house....
....so we want you to give us the keys and alarm codes to ALL your rental properties, even though no one in those houses committed a crime."
That's a much different situation.
And that's what the argument between Apple and the FBI is about.
The FBI is not asking Apple to unlock a single phone.
They're trying to force Apple into give them the key to every iPhone in the world.
That's why this is important. And it's got the potential to turn into history's biggest battle over your right to privacy."
-Tony Rush
Personally, I doubt very much that people that WANT to get into a phone wouldn't be able to.
-IR2
"Imagine if you owned hundreds of rental homes. And imagine that one of your tenants in one of your homes committed a horrendous crime.
If the FBI got a search warrant for that house and asked you to open the door to investigate, you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?
Probably not.
But imagine they didn't do that. Imagine, instead, that they said:
"Hey, all these locks and doors and other security features you have on your rental properties are too difficult for us to get through when we need to search somebody's house....
....so we want you to give us the keys and alarm codes to ALL your rental properties, even though no one in those houses committed a crime."
That's a much different situation.
And that's what the argument between Apple and the FBI is about.
The FBI is not asking Apple to unlock a single phone.
They're trying to force Apple into give them the key to every iPhone in the world.
That's why this is important. And it's got the potential to turn into history's biggest battle over your right to privacy."
-Tony Rush
Personally, I doubt very much that people that WANT to get into a phone wouldn't be able to.
-IR2
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
Soylent Green Is People said:
They paid a 3rd party company the fee, not Apple. Apple is not obligated to provide them with an unlock. As IR2 pointed out, providing a master key is much different than unlocking a single device.
Soylent Green Is People said:
Again, owning is very different than regulating. Saying that the government owns the internet or the airwaves, is similar to saying that the property manager that maintains and looks after a property owns the property. The property manager might take action if the tenants cause issues because they are responsible for it.