Thread: A Message to Our Customers from Apple

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

now you are just arguing semantics just to argue.

Erasing data and encrypting it are two radically, and fundamentally different things. It's not semantics. And you don't understand it, as you've shown.

If the passcode had been input 10 times on this phone in order to encrypt the data, then this case would be about encryption. It's not. It's not about recovering erased data either. Those aren't just words, they have real, technical meaning.

Not what i said at all...... I am not saying they are not different things. But together they form better security for any type of data. Which is why i quoted that article. Like i said, you are arguing just to argue.Which is why i said this before even quoting the article.

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

The password program is apart of the security for the encrypted files, as well as being a program that defends the encrypted files.

Which is why i then quoted that article. And posted this.

This is where the passcode comes into play: When you turn the passcode lock on, a technology called Data Protection kicks in, causing a new encryption key to be generated; it’s used to encode certain files that have been marked as critically important by the operating system—like your Keychain—as well as by individual apps.

Crucially, the passcode itself is used as part of the encryption key, and then discarded when the device later locks. This way, iOS becomes physically unable to decrypt the data until the user re-inputs the passcode.

Again. You keep claiming i don't understand, I don't think you do.

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

I am not saying they are not different things. But together they form better security for any type of data. Which is why i quoted that article. Like i said, you are arguing just to argue.

If I'm arguing semantics, as you accused me of, then you are saying they are fundamentally the same thing. Interchangeable, and I'm simply using different words with essentially the same meaning.

That isn't the case.

You just don't want to admit that this case is not about encryption. The only way it would be is if the FBI did something dumb like put in 10 passcodes and locked the phone out.

I wonder why they didn't do that? Or do that and claim the terrorist had done it? Then they could have the encryption fight that you claim they are spoiling for. Maybe they do actually want to just do their jobs after all?

it is about encryption. its also about the government forcing private companies to write code for them. Its also about the numerous cases waiting for this. This is the entire debate. I know my side. I am fine with it.

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

it is about encryption. its also about the government forcing private companies to write code for them. Its also about the numerous cases waiting for this. This is the entire debate. I know my side. I am fine with it.

Ok, I give up. Despite the fact there is no attempt, court order, warrant or other request/legal document etc that requires apple to break any kind of encryption, this is somehow about encryption. You win through sheer stubborn, willful ignorance.

I guess the government can't force apple to write code that they ostensibly already possess. Score one for privacy.

Originally Posted by wayninja

Ok, I give up. Despite the fact there is no attempt, court order, warrant or other request/legal document etc that requires apple to break any kind of encryption, this is somehow about encryption. You win through sheer stubborn, willful ignorance.

I guess the government can't force apple to write code that they ostensibly already possess. Score one for privacy.

it's not about encryption!?!?!?!?!?!? Have you been reading/ listening on ANYTHING out there? It's ALLLLL about encryption!! christ.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

it's not about encryption!?!?!?!?!?!? Have you been reading/ listening on ANYTHING out there? It's ALLLLL about encryption!! christ.

Yes. I've been in this line of work for 20 years. I know what I'm talking about.

There is nothing in the court order that asks Apple to break or alter their encryption. Go read the court order and security whitepapers from apple yourself.

Everything you are reading/hearing is all about the NEXT step. What they opine is the next fight. Not this fight.

Originally Posted by wayninja

Yes. I've been in this line of work for 20 years. I know what I'm talking about.

There is nothing in the court order that asks Apple to break or alter their encryption. Go read the court order and security whitepapers from apple yourself.

Everything you are reading/hearing is all about the NEXT step. What they opine is the next fight. Not this fight.

Ninja.. I know you are well educated. But h ow do you separate the two when they are 1 and the same? It's not a 'next step' as if they will have to ask Apple to do ADDITIONAL work...its the SAME thing.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Ninja.. I know you are well educated. But h ow do you separate the two when they are 1 and the same? It's not a 'next step' as if they will have to ask Apple to do ADDITIONAL work...its the SAME thing.

How do I separate which two? What are one and the same?

The FBI cleverly made this not about encryption. At least this time. I fully expect Apple to cleverly "fix" their code so that the government can't request this "workaround" in the future.

It will be cat and mouse until it finally comes to a head and the precedent and legality will need to be clearly defined. This simply isn't that fight. That fight will happen though.

Personally, I feel like there should be more trust and cooperation between the government and technology providers. That's the right way to do this. I've rarely seen an extreme that is a good solution, and this is no exception. Unbreakable encryption that no one, not even those attempting to investigate imminently dangerous criminals and their associates at the will of the people, is not good. On the other hand, I'm not deaf to the other side of this argument. I get why any hole in the security at all is concerning.

There simply needs to be some give and take and middle ground here. I don't know if I have that answer exactly, but at least when it comes to digital information, I lean toward sacrificing some of my "privacy" for the sake of (hopefully competent and trustworthy) security. Ben Franklin said it best

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Ironically, this quote is thrown around to argue that ceding "liberty" to the government in order to "purchase" security is a devil's bargain that is doomed to failure. What Franklin was actually talking about though, if you look at the context, is the liberty of the government to provide security for it's own people, using it's mandated means. And not to cede that liberty of self-government to those that would seek individual safety from the means the government uses to ensure safety (taxation, conscription etc)

The two that are "one and the same' would be the hacking into this phone, the the "next" problem that involves. They aren't separate, they are the same. This can't be separate from the 'next'...as THIS is the Next. This causes the next. That being the case, there absolutely is no separation.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

The two that are "one and the same' would be the hacking into this phone, the the "next" problem that involves. They aren't separate, they are the same. This can't be separate from the 'next'...as THIS is the Next. This causes the next. That being the case, there absolutely is no separation.

By that logic, this fight happened long ago? Right?

Search and seizure warrants are long accepted.

Apple up until recently complied and helped the government unlock phones. Now they are not. How can they not be separate if they did before but now they are not?

Well, it's simple really. It's because they are not one and the same as you claim.

This fight is still about unlocking phones. Something Apple has been trying to get away from for a while. They changed their software in order to give them the ability to say "No" the next time the government asked thinking that they'd be able to hide behind the "well, we can't technically do this" shield that encryption provides.

The FBI found a way to make it not about encryption and back to unlocking a phone. The difference here being that it's a bit more difficult and challenging to help them (by Apples own doing, mind you).

Once apple finds a way to prevent that, then we may see the "next" thing which will be a much bigger showdown and likely involve encryption. But the technical facts remain that Apple CAN comply with this court order without breaking the encryption for any phone on the planet. Once the FBI asks for a TRUE backdoor/private/dev key for apple's encryption, then we will be in the fight you all seem to think this is.

But that simply hasn't happened yet.

The FBI has successfully hacked into the phone in question. I guess Apple's security isn't so great.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-unlo...389f3&mod=e2tw

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department filed court papers Monday saying it had cracked the iPhone of a San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist, seeking to drop its legal case toforce Apple Inc. to help them unlock it.The move signals a temporary retreat from a high-stakes fight between Washington and Silicon Valley over privacy and security in the digital age.
The filing short-circuits a pending legal showdown over whether the government can force technology companies to write software to aid in criminal investigations, but it is unlikely to avert the long-term conflict between federal agents and technology executives over how secure electronic communications should be, and what firms should have to do to help the government access their customers’ data.

Originally Posted by Davii

The FBI has successfully hacked into the phone in question. I guess Apple's security isn't so great.

The argument about creating a "cancer" has always been silly. The cancer that is the digital signing codes to the iOS firmware have always existed. For some reason, those codes are locked in an airtight vault which can never be stolen, and we should trust that unquestionably, but creating whatever the FBI just did behind the scenes was not only impossible, but would have been left on the counter in the apple break-room with a sign that said "Basura" on it, and/or mission impossible style spies were going to repel down their laser security vault to steal it. Whichever is more convenient to the narrative.

Like I said earlier. This is probably the worst possible outcome for Apple. Not only do they get to be the party that interfered with a terrorist investigation, but they also did a shitty job of it.

There is also no compulsion for the government to share what it actually did to crack the phone. Ironically making security weaker for everyone.