vectorjohn

6 ms·

91.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
> It's a very bad idea to wait until after the precedent is set to try to ensure that this does not become routine. Well then why don't we start making this case about abortion rights precedent, for how applicable it is? This h
92.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
No, they could have made the device actually secure without losing any ability to take a cut from app distribution. Later iOS versions do it (although it seems to be unsettled weather a backdoor is still possible in those versions). The iOS
93.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The government already does compel companies to perform work. Every other thing Apple already did to comply with the order was work. You think it was free? There are myriad examples of companies being compelled to do work to help an investi
94.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The whole article is exceedingly disingenuous though. Which makes me not really believe their objections. For example, calling it a "creating a whole new OS" is basically a lie. Saying it would weaken all devices is basically a li
95.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
That's a lot of money to pay for a piece of software that only works on one phone that you don't even have access to.
96.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
But why would that be bad? It shouldn't require significant additional work, even in smaller cases. If the FBI is getting warrants to access things without actual probable cause, then we need to be outraged about that issue, not ho
97.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Well why don't we wait for that to be suggested to start getting outraged. In the case at hand, I don't believe Apple for a second that they would be decreasing the security for any other phone by complying with the FBI request. T
98.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The FBI or other agencies require things that cost money all the time. In this case, they offered to compensate Apple for they work. And it's disingenuous for Apple to say "create a whole new operating system". That's so
99.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Yes, I am trusting that. So are you. If they had the signing key they wouldn't need to ask Apple for anything.
100.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Not at all. If they had a real skeleton key, they wouldn't need to get a warrant. Rubber stamping is a separate issue. If that's what people were worried about, why would it be this case in particular getting everyones hackles rai
101.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
> They may not even have a way to limit firmware to specific devices They do. The new firmware may not be distributed, but it should be easy enough to make it such that if it was distributed, it wouldn't change security at all on ph
102.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Yep, exactly. If they did that, and the government was trying to somehow make that illegal, or demand a real backdoor, then it would be time to get up in arms. But that time is not yet.
103.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The government absolutely should not be trusted. That's why Apple shouldn't give them a skeleton key to get into any phone, just the legally compelled access for this specific phone. Apple can make that happen trivially. If the go
104.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The most important bit is that Apple can (and in fact, was asked to) make the change only work on a single phone. As in, there is no fear of it "falling into the wrong hands" as the FUD goes. If you believe in the security of cr
105.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
What are you talking about? Where did I say Apple has information about Farouk?
106.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
I don't misunderstand at all. I just have a different opinion than you do. However, a lot of misinformation is being spread. The FBI isn't asking for Apple to create a backdoor. End of story. They're compelling Apple to open
107.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The precedent is already set (the FBI can demand information about a person from a company). In the future, Apple could make a phone that is actually secure. For example, requiring the phone to be unlocked before updating firmware.
108.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
This simply isn't true. if (deviceUid = 12345) { openBackDoor() } Cryptographically sign code. Done. We know it's secure and will only work on devicd 12345 because we trust cryptography.
109.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
There is so much misinformation floating around. The FBI wouldn't get a backdoor to all phones. It would literally only work on this one phone. Or put another way, the backdoor is already there and Apple is being compelled to open it f
110.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Umm, this isn't an "I have nothing to hide" argument. It's a "the government has a warrant to search a house" argument. It would be pretty dumb to argue that the FBI can't search a house if they have a war
111.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The point, which you missed, is that the FBI already can look through your sock drawer with a warrant. And they already can get your private information from a company's server. If you want that not to be the case, it's an ent
112.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
How would that give them the ability to use it on any iPhone in the world? You think they put the same software on all phones in the world? Same hardware?
113.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
No, this would not reduce the net security of anyone at all. The FBI isn't asking for a master key to everything, or a backdoor to all iPhones. They're asking for the data on this one single device. In other words, if some other p
114.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Slow down there, you're moving the goal posts way too fast. If you have an argument, stick with it. If Apple doesn't want to look bad complying to FBI requests, they shouldn't have put a backdoor in their software.
115.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
I don't buy that. "By what argument would Apple fight that warrant?" By what argument can Apple use to fight this current demand? They clearly can break into the phone.
116.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Perfect. To fix your analogy and make it more accurate, it's more like the safe making company has the ability to make a device that can disable the self destruct capability for a single safe . If the safe company simply hadn't b
117.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Complying with any request for anything by the FBI costs money and time. There's no difference between that and making a trivial backdoor for one phone.
118.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
But we already know they'd lying if they said they can't "do that" now. That's why they aren't saying "we can't do that." The threat to privacy is no different weather Apple complies or not. No
119.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Do you really think it would be that hard to modify the iOS software to make a phone hackable (by brute force, like the FBI plans) without the source? It's definitely doable. If China had Apple's keys, they could trivially do it
120.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
But it exists already! The fact that Apple can write a backdoor means there already is a back door . Apple is just refusing to open it, which I'm not sure they have a legal standing to do. The fact that they would have to write some s

More ›