Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Love the conversation Mark and Dave.

IMO - If a back door is there, it will be found by someone who wants it bad enough even if "all" precautions have been made to try to ensure that only a limited entity such as the government has the backdoor.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

My hunch is Apple already gave the NSA the information and they are playing charades to protect the integrity of their product.

I don't feel Apple should be mandated to hand this over, but out of their own conscious probably did under-the-covers. Better to hand it over in secret than the Govt pursue legal precedent.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Statements by Apple and the EFF indicate that the feds seem to want a way to break the security via a "special update". quite novel if auto updates are turned on for the phone. Problematic if the solution is that trivial.

There *may* be other ways to accomplish what the feds want, but having Apple do it may be the safe way to go. For example, they may be able to put in a different firmwear chip that bypasses some aspects of the security. I don't think that Apple would design a product to be susceptible to this since this would make certain governments (<cough>China<cough>) very happy. Still, the general technique called a teardown might be a productive route. Teardowns are destructive to the device, but a way around the security might be found.

Maybe IBM should get in to the smartphone business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_4758

I'm not sure why the FBI doesn't just clone the drive and break in to it via a virtual machine. The RCFLs (FBI regional computer forensic labs) have that ability. At least the one here in Portland does.

Full disclosure, I've done work in the area of computer forensics in the past. Not now though. http://psuvanguard.com/psu-profs-moo...th-detectives/

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Here's an interesting (at least to those of us not as well informed) article written by the one of the guys that was helping with the jailbreaking apps.

http://bgr.com/2016/02/18/apple-fbi-...afach-opinion/

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

It seems to me that Apple is being forced to create something that doesn't exist yet; something that will, metaphorically, slit their own throats in a business sense. That goes far beyond anything that the 4th Amendment allows. I say let the FBI do their own fuggin' work and not force someone else to do it for them.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

"A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority." TC

This is the part that gets me... Not the first time US government used it to compel Apple to comply. Oct 2014 https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...e-oakland.html

So maybe it's not unprecedented.....

Still love Apple and their products.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

I agree and no tech company should be compelled to create a back door on their products.

That being said, I'd just about bet the NSA already has the info and this is a rouse to pretend they don't have as much intel on the phone as they do.

I would expect/hope any legal challenge to compel manufacturers to have a back door in their products will shot down at every level of court.

I believe when Apple complied with the Govt in earlier cases, the back door was already built into their product, but supposedly is not in the current releases.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

This.
And what stops Apple from moving the rest of their operation to China?
Circumvention being the child of Necessity, this whole deal pretty much forces someone to play a hand.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Maybe Apple should do what the government does when they receive a Freedom of Information request: charge an outrageous amount of money in order to frustrate it; perhaps charge what is costs to develop the operating system itself and estimated loss in future sales. A few billion should cover it.

https://33.media.tumblr.com/875a3aba...52lfo2_500.gif

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

That might do it....

Pretty soon the bad guys are going to use the US Mail, at least they will know when their messages are being looked at.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

And now the comedians are weighing in...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/seth-meye...163012072.html

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Here's a good artice: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/0...le-iphone-case
Seems to me like this is all about getting a foot in the door...

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Seems the county screwed up at ...the FBI's request.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/20/tech...ing/index.html

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

As to Constitutional issues, it's important to remember that the Constitution was ratified by public plebiscite over the objection of sitting government. Therefore, it belongs to the People directly. It contains within it the limits to which the government is allowed to operate as well as the rights that the People retained for themselves; rights derived from John Locke's (and borrowed by Thomas Paine) "man in the state of nature". It is foolish to trust those who would be bound to by it to refrain from trying to circumvent it; that would be to ignore human nature. It is therefore imperative for "We the People" to protect it from encroachment, ourselves. Our whole Anglo-Saxon adversarial system of justice is based upon this very principle. This is what Tim Cooke is doing, regardless of his other perfectly justifiable business motives; personal and public interests are not mutually exclusive. If his business interests are also serving the public interest of preserving all of our rights, then that speaks to the justness of his (and our) cause. Others are also fighting this battle, even as we speak (figuratively).

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

Sorry for the typo, it should read: It is foolish to trust those who would be bound by it to refrain from trying to circumvent it; that would be to ignore human nature.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

This issue is exciting and refreshing because as everyone is using Facebook to make their lives an open book, along comes a discourse on the desire for privacy. Perhaps this is a public pendulum correction?

But with all of the enthusiastic discussions, hopefully there are some items to learn.

1. Those with Apple products, have you enabled the erase data setting on 10 failed passcode attempts?

http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/...ps9po5tytp.png

This would need to be done on iPads as well and it's in the same configuration area.

2. Are you using a passcode that is as long as allowable on the device? Older iPhone products you are stuck with 4 numerals but a long passcode option to go up to 6 numerals exists on later models. I have a 6s and its 6 numerals on my iPhone or a finger print but the numerals can always be entered and are higher in priority.

How many of you had the erase data feature enabled before this controversy? Interestingly enough, I had it enabled on my old phone but forgot to enable it when I upgraded so this controversy was useful in reminding me to check!! Funny how things work out sometimes.

Re: Apple addressing security concerns.
 

You bring up an interesting point, if fingerprint is enabled, it's been proven that with a "good" fingerprint (that has been lifted off of something), you can build up the fingerprint using various things and it's possible to unlock devices using that print, you would think the FBI has some real quality prints from this guy. Again that's only if the fingerprint security is enabled.