Apple is fighting the FBI
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Privacy and trust are features that people pay a lot for. They are key drivers for Apple sales. Take them away and will people keep buying Apple phones like they do?
Not sure the average iPhone purchaser has any idea what either of those things means in relation to their phone.
I'm guessing that people have a certain trust in Apple. Even if they don't understand the details of why.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Privacy and trust are features that people pay a lot for. They are key drivers for Apple sales. Take them away and will people keep buying Apple phones like they do?
Not sure the average iPhone purchaser has any idea what either of those things means in relation to their phone.
I'm guessing that people have a certain trust in Apple. Even if they don't understand the details of why.
People have trust is sales people - where they absolutely should have none - but they do. I don't know if people really trust Apple or just like the interface.
-
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
hell I heard on the radio that most American's are for forcing Apple to make the changes/software demand by the FBI for the San Bernadino guy's phone - of that's the radio.. so I don't trust it either.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Anyone want to drive up North for a bonfire the day that's declared? I'm sure iGasoline will be iProvided for the iFire.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Anyone want to drive up North for a bonfire the day that's declared? I'm sure iGasoline will be iProvided for the iFire.
Why would you need to go that far? Just because they put out a poorly secured one in China doesn't mean that it wouldn't stay secured in the US and other countries that currently allow it.
Hell, we have more harm currently coming from our own governments trying to outlaw our access to encryption than we have to worry about Apple specifically.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Your wording was:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Besides - if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If apple wants to fight for encryption they should do it for everyone and do some good in the world.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
Where is the breach though?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@MattSpeller said:
Your wording was:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Besides - if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If apple wants to fight for encryption they should do it for everyone and do some good in the world.
I missed the work if - I'm guessing that if Apple took privacy part away for non US...
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
Where is the breach though?
The breach is what we are talking about - Apple disabling the privacy system.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
Where is the breach though?
The breach is what we are talking about - Apple disabling the privacy system.
If it's done voluntarily, it's not a breach.
also I see now that I choose poor words to express my intent. It wasn't my intent to express that Apple could/would completely through privacy to the wind, but instead they that they would/could deploy software that didn't have the 10 wrong passcodes = deleted encryption key, plus the ability for someone in physical possession of the device to be able to brute force it as fast as the machine the phone was attached to could supply guesses.
The rest of the privacy guards would still be in place.
-
@Dashrender said:
The rest of the privacy guards would still be in place.
But the rest isn't very private.
-
@Dashrender said:
If it's done voluntarily, it's not a breach.
That's not completely true. If it is done under pressure that can be duress, extortion or social engineering. All considered breaches.
-
I can't recall where I read it now but the bottom line is device manufacturers need to make them difficult to break into as far as that's actually possible. Then there's no 'I can do this but I don't want to please don't make me" garbage.
-
@MattSpeller said:
I can't recall where I read it now but the bottom line is device manufacturers need to make them difficult to break into as far as that's actually possible. Then there's no 'I can do this but I don't want to please don't make me" garbage.
Sure, but laws can be passed that don't allow them to sell such devices. Those laws are being talked about right now in the US, and I'm sure other countries.
-
@Dashrender said:
Sure, but laws can be passed that don't allow them to sell such devices. Those laws are being talked about right now in the US, and I'm sure other countries.
But they make for REALLY strong barriers to laws. And open source can't be stopped by law. And freedom of speech trumps laws until they repeal the entire government.
-
Someone suggested to me yesterday that one facet of this case that appears unconstitutional is the government requiring a company to make something so the government can get their access. He didn't express how it was unconstitutional - only that it was.
Thoughts?
-
Having now heard about how Apple deploys updates to devices, and that simply having a version of iOS that has weakened security doesn't mean hackers or even the government can put this software onto a device:
quick break while I regurgitate my understanding of how it works.
Apple creates weakened version
Puts weakened version in Apple update repository assigned only to the Serial Number of the device in question.
The device makes a request to the update repository - sending both it's Serial Number and a NONCE. Apple signs the Serial Number and NONCE with it's own private key (the device presumably has a copy of the public key, or can get it from a trusted source)
The device downloads the assigned update and installs it
So, with that in mind, assuming the government has already found a way to download the software in an iphone, the government could create their own weakened version and get a court order for Apple to hand over their private key.
This already has precedence with the demand they made on LavaBit for their private key.
Discuss.
-
@Dashrender said:
Someone suggested to me yesterday that one facet of this case that appears unconstitutional is the government requiring a company to make something so the government can get their access. He didn't express how it was unconstitutional - only that it was.
Thoughts?
Seems unconstitutional in that the constitution gives no allowance of the government to require companies to build products on their behalf. Any power not given by the constitution is forbidden by it.
-
Since code is speech, forcing someone to code would violate free speech.
