Apple and phone privacy etc

[LondonManc]

NickFitz posted lots of info about the story but the discussion never really went into detail about privacy rights.

Also it's bull saying the data can't be accessed. Most people automatically back their phones and tablets to cloud storage, so as long as this link exists then the data in the cloud can be retrieved.

In the case of the FBI they didn't listen to Apple's advice about getting the data back up so destroyed the link between the phone and cloud.

Yanks in shoot first, ask questions later shocker.

Not sure what would be worse, being captured by the Taliban or being rescued by the Americans.

[bobspud]

There are a few aspects to this mess.

First off like any decent service vendor Apple are damn right in setting a demarcation that ensures that the people on the admin/run side of the equation get absolutely NO chance of ever seeing data of those using their services. Anything short of that risks a storm of every nudy photo on iCloud/message leaking sooner or later.

Governments are so far behind the curve on security its not even funny so expecting them to

a) Understand it properly
b) Have better people than the professional hackers
c) Understand the true wider impact of third parties misusing their back doors or more likely being too arrogant in their own powers to think anyone would find them and exploit them.

I have worked in places that thought the best counter measure against sniffing for passwords was a SyOps statement preventing the use of said tools on the networks...

I doubt the court case had anything to do with that phone. Moreover I doubt Apple were ever under any true pressure to do anything about hacking that phone. It was a show that allowed apple to keep its clients happy and allowed the FBI to pretend it didn't have more powerful ways to solve this sort of crap.

[SueEllen]

Apple users think their phones can't be hacked, unlike those idiot Android users who are hacked 20 times a day. Clearly Apple had a lot to lose if they had done this.

Personally I think the pros of upholding the principles of freedom outweigh the cons.

I guess you never back up your data, have your phone/tablet/laptop switched on and never call/sms anyone?

As long as you do that and the intelligence agencies don't screw up then you have no privacy.

[LondonManc]

There are a few aspects to this mess.

First off like any decent service vendor Apple are damn right in setting a demarcation that ensures that the people on the admin/run side of the equation get absolutely NO chance of ever seeing data of those using their services. Anything short of that risks a storm of every nudy photo on iCloud/message leaking sooner or later.

Governments are so far behind the curve on security its not even funny so expecting them to

a) Understand it properly
b) Have better people than the professional hackers
c) Understand the true wider impact of third parties misusing their back doors or more likely being too arrogant in their own powers to think anyone would find them and exploit them.

I have worked in places that thought the best counter measure against sniffing for passwords was a SyOps statement preventing the use of said tools on the networks...

I doubt the court case had anything to do with that phone. Moreover I doubt Apple were ever under any true pressure to do anything about hacking that phone. It was a show that allowed apple to keep its clients happy and allowed the FBI to pretend it didn't have more powerful ways to solve this sort of crap.

All potentially a case of the FBI simply being too proud to hand it over to the NSA?

[northernladuk]

I must admit Im also divided on this one as well but one thing I'm sure of is that Apple should not get the information on how to fix the flaws. They dug their heels in wrongly or rightly so no way should the solution to fix it be handed over. They can't have their cake and eat it.

[FatLazyContractor]

I must admit Im also divided on this one as well but one thing I'm sure of is that Apple should not get the information on how to fix the flaws. They dug their heels in wrongly or rightly so no way should the solution to fix it be handed over. They can't have their cake and eat it.

+100

[DaveB]

The biggest point here from the privacy point of view is that the phone in question was not an up to date model. I was an iPhone 5c which was known to have a lower degree of protection that the current models 5s and upwards.

The privacy landscape hasn't really changed all that much, unless you own an older model of iPhone, in which case upgrading just got a bit more attractive.

The fact that a third party had to step in to help them is just more egg on the face of the FBI, who have demonstrated some remarkable technical ignorance from the start.

From a personal perspective I think Apple were right to refuse to help. The threat to everyone's civil liberties from a Government with the ability to find out anything it wants from you, potentially without even having to ask and without you having a say in it, in my view far out weighs the risk posed from terrorists. Just imagine if HMRC decided they wanted to look at your emails to and from your accountants and then decided you were a tax dodger as a result.

Terrorists and extremists eventually go away, violence gives way to dialogue which eventually leads to peaceful resolution. The apparatus of government doesn't go away, it doesn't fundamentally change and it is dangerous to assume it will always act in your best interest.

[NotAllThere]

The one thing that is very simple is that the murderer should have no human rights; by carrying out what he did, for me he surrendered them. His phone and more importantly the information on it is fair game for whoever can get at it. What strikes me as interesting is that the Israelis can get into his phone.

The reason why murderers have human rights is for our benefit, not for the murderer. Why stop at murderers? Why not include rapists, thieves, TV license fee dodgers, people who break the speed limit more than twice? Allow them all to be fair game for any kind of treatment because they're all criminals? If you'd engage brain for a small amount of time you might figure out that entire (as opposed to carefully defined and limited) abrogation of human rights for criminals is not a good thing.

Any way, if you think the Apple/FBI situtation is about the human rights of an individual then you clearly haven't a clue.

No-one (so far as I know) is arguing that the feds shouldn't access his phone if they can. The issue is whether Apple are obliged to create an insecure OS to allow the feds easy access to the phone. That access can be gained is pretty well established - it's just not cheap and has to be done on an individual phone basis.

What the FBI want is a way of easily hacking any iPhone, preferably en masse - using this case as emotional leverage. That's what Apple resisted, quite rightly. I also think it is right for the security services not to reveal their hacks to Apple.

[NickFitz]

Bear in mind that most discussion about the process the FBI were trying to force Apple to undertake, and the process by which this external third party gained access, is irrelevant to later models of iPhone.

And if you think that, having destroyed the two personal iPhones in his possession, the killer would have left incriminating evidence on this third one that was actually controlled by his employers (a state agency), then I have an Eiffel Tower to sell you

To answer admin's question: yes, Apple are right to "make a level of protection that even they could not break" - if they could break it, so could others. In fact, this case involving a phone that predates such a level of protection now serves as proof that they were right to enhance device security on later models to ensure that they can't do what the FBI was trying to force them to do.

For those curious about how iOS security is actually structured and operates, have a read of the iOS Security Guide (PDF)

[LondonManc]

The reason why murderers have human rights is for our benefit, not for the murderer. Why stop at murderers? Why not include rapists, thieves, TV license fee dodgers, people who break the speed limit more than twice? Allow them all to be fair game for any kind of treatment because they're all criminals? If you'd engage brain for a small amount of time you might figure out that entire (as opposed to carefully defined and limited) abrogation of human rights for criminals is not a good thing.

Any way, if you think the Apple/FBI situtation is about the human rights of an individual then you clearly haven't a clue.

No-one (so far as I know) is arguing that the feds shouldn't access his phone if they can. The issue is whether Apple are obliged to create an insecure OS to allow the feds easy access to the phone. That access can be gained is pretty well established - it's just not cheap and has to be done on an individual phone basis.

What the FBI want is a way of easily hacking any iPhone, preferably en masse - using this case as emotional leverage. That's what Apple resisted, quite rightly. I also think it is right for the security services not to reveal their hacks to Apple.

Wow, what a jumped-up, patronising prat you are. PG was right, no point arguing, you'll just use the ban stick.