Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Mac News > White House argues FBI assistance limited to one case

White House argues FBI assistance limited to one case
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2016, 05:11 PM
 
Responding to a recent controversy over Apple's being ordered by a magistrate judge to help the FBI override the passcode on an iPhone formerly belonging to mass-shooter who attacked a county government office last December. Following a response from Apple CEO Tim Cook that Apple would not create a "backdoor" per the judge's order that would prevent an encrypted iPhone from erasing itself after a certain number of unsuccessful login attempts, the White House has weighed in with a dubious claim that the technique would be limited to use in this one particular case.

Still unclear is why the FBI, the magistrate judge, and now the White House want the data from the recovered iPhone. The shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured another 22 in an attack targeting the San Bernadino County Department of Public Health that has been described as a religiously-motivated "terrorist attack," even though the case bears more of a resemblance to sadly-typical workplace massacre shootings. Farook, who was born in the US and had worked at the health department, and his wife attacked the event in an attempted bombing along with the mass shooting. The couple were killed in a shootout with police four hours after the attack.

The agency has already declared that Farook and Malik were not members of any terrorist organization or "sleeper cell" agents, and had become "radicalized" on their own without working with any co-conspirators. Emails between the couple talking about the attack were already recovered from the wife's smartphone and social media accounts. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that the government is not asking for Apple to "create a new backdoor to its products," even though that is precisely what the FBI is in fact demanding, and exactly what the judge ordered Apple to make.

Apple itself would not be unlocking the recovered iPhone: it is instead being ordered to create software that would prevent the iPhone from erasing itself after a number of unsuccessful login attempts. With that restriction removed, the FBI could brute force the passcode, a relatively trivial task for the commonly-used four-digit passcode used by most users today (a six-digit passcode is now available in the latest versions of iOS 9). It is not yet clear if such software is even possible to create, since the auto-erase functionality is likely part of the iPhone's firmware.

In a response saying the company would challenge the judge's order, Apple CEO Tim Cook predicted that the government would make exactly this claim, that it wants this backdoor for this one particular (and particularly un-urgent) need -- but that the backdoor, once created, would be used again -- and exploited in an abusive fashion by hackers and criminals, the government, and others in instances outside the scope of this one specific case.

"In the wrong hands, this software -- which does not exist today -- would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession," Cook noted in his response. The FBI has been public in its opposition to the use of encryption by Apple and other tech companies to protect users' data, arguing that it makes recovering data from seized devices harder.

Apple has previously said it lacks the ability to decrypt the encryption used on its iPhones, since it does not possess a key to decrypt the material. However, it can and has provided general metadata and other information when lawfully requested by authorities, such as the time or recipients of emails or iMessages sent using its iCloud service (but not the content of those emails or messages).
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Feb 17, 2016 at 05:19 PM. )
     
JeffHarris
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2016, 07:00 AM
 
Yeah, just ONE case. Right.

One, followed by TWO, followed by THREE...

"Exceptions" become rules, especially when dealing with the US Gummint... as my grandpappy used to say. ;-)
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2016, 11:51 AM
 
It's like the FBI are expecting to unlock the phone, look through some emails or notes, and stumble across a list entitled "25 of my closest terrorist friends, their present locations and contact information, and set-in-stone plans for attacks around the US."

This is a gross, overreaching power-grab for what likely amounts to the revelation of nothing more than crappy, unuseful, meaningless data on a single phone.

It would be a whole different story if the FBI said, "We have very strong suspicions that the phone contains specific and valid information about X, and X is directly and immediately related to national security interests and the well-being of this nation's citizens," but instead it's just, "We're just really curious about what's on this phone and it's absolutely killing us that we can't look at it."
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2016, 08:57 PM
 
I went to the White House petition and read the Privacy Guidelines. Just to sign in for the petition means all your submitted info becomes public domain.

That kind of makes it a non-petition petition because folks who care will not go there.
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2016, 01:46 AM
 
That's kind of how petitions work, though, and protects against false or fabricated signatures. Someone at some point has to go, "Here's the petition, and here are all the real-life people that signed it, you can check for yourself."

None of the information you're required to enter is private information. Your first name, last name, address, city, state, and ZIP code are already public information, available to anyone that wants to take a trip down to the city courthouse and read all about you.
     
smacker
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 05:51 AM
 
Two things those guys don't seem to understand. First, the iOS running on the shooters phone can't be unlocked or cracked by Apple, even if they wanted to. And building a backdoor in future iOS versions would certainly compromise the data of every iOS user at some point down the road.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 01:35 PM
 
Which guys?

I GUARANTEE the FBI already knows what Apple can or can't do.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,