Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Cellphones Government Iphone Privacy United States Your Rights Online

DoJ Wants Apple To Decrypt 12 More iPhones (macrumors.com) 285

tlhIngan writes: The Wall Street Journal (paywalled) is reporting that the Department of Justice is seeking Apple's help in decrypting 12 other iPhones that may contain crime-related evidence. The cases are not identified, though a list of the 12 phones in question has come out, but it is not known what level of Apple assistance is required (i.e., how many of those cases are waiting on the FBI request for special firmware to be developed and to be used on "one more phone"). It appears Tim Cook's assertion that hundreds of requests are waiting on this software may not be a fabrication, and the goal is not about just one phone, but to set a precedent to unlock more phones. As TechDirt (which also lists those 12 cases, a list which certainly does not encompass all the phones the Feds would like to peer into) puts it, "[O]nce again, Director Comey was flat out lying when he claimed the FBI has no interest in setting a precedent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DoJ Wants Apple To Decrypt 12 More iPhones

Comments Filter:
  • The duck quacked (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:25PM (#51568805) Journal

    Tim was right: gov't wants to open Pandora's box.

    • Re:The duck quacked (Score:5, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:35PM (#51568933)

      Here are a some non-paywalled links:

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0VW0BM [reuters.com]
      http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/23/doj-vs-apple-12-court-orders [macrumors.com]

      If the new owners of Slashdot really want to improve this site (and I have seen no evidence that they do), a good first step would be stop linking to stories that are paywalled, or that prohibit adblockers. There are always plenty of alternatives.

      • by phorm ( 591458 )

        and another [fastcompany.com] here

      • Maybe the powers-that-be actually listened to you? I didn't see the article before, but now there are non-paywall links as well and the "main link" is to macrumors. Perhaps we need a new story for an Ask Slashdot, "Why does Slashdot keep putting paywall articles up?" lol.

        In regards to the article, the public needs to know the scope of these requests. Is there any "terrorism" in these? I really doubt it, but I think Apple should tell us to show the FBI's whole "it's about terrorism" is a flat-out disinfor
        • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          Submissions are made by users. The users are submitting the links.

          Yes, Slashdot has editors, but technically there is no editorial policy that certain links will not be accepted. Perhaps that is what is required.

          However, it may be odd for an ad-supported site to come out strongly against what is technically within the right of the other sites to do; that is to block access to their sites unless their own ads are viewed. I suppose the new administration has to weigh the two considerations and determine wh

      • Re:The duck quacked (Score:5, Informative)

        by NatasRevol ( 731260 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:43PM (#51569501) Journal

        Here's a link to an article showing that there's hundreds or thousands of state/local cases waiting for this exact precedent.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02... [nytimes.com]

        To that point, the New York City police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., criticized Apple after it refused to comply with the court order and said that they currently possessed 175 iPhones that they could not unlock.

        Charlie Rose recently interviewed Mr. Vance and asked if he would want access to all phones that were part of a criminal proceeding should the government prevail in the San Bernardino case.

        Mr. Vance responded: “Absolutely right.”

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by pla ( 258480 )
        If the new owners of Slashdot really want to improve this site (and I have seen no evidence that they do), a good first step would be stop linking to stories that are paywalled, or that prohibit adblockers.M

        Why would a largely ad-sponsored site want to help people seeking to block ads? I appreciate that Slashdot hasn't done the same - Yet - But I sure as hell don't expect them to help me avoid ads at other sites.
      • Re:The duck quacked (Score:5, Informative)

        by RavenLrD20k ( 311488 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:57PM (#51569595) Journal

        Ummm...I've seen you here for a very long time, and with such a low UID, you've been here a while... have you never used the Submission system before to know how it works? You know, the community user (not an editor) goes out on the internet, finds an article that he thinks would be good for the site, posts a summary with (hopefully) a link... and then the "editors" (I wonder how much of the firehose acceptance procedure is automated, given the amount of times I've seen early stories have had broken links that had to be, and eventually were, fixed) will pull that submission in to display on the front page.

        Judging by the fact that your MacRumors link seems to have been added to the summary and noted as the primary link in the headline; as well as a link to techdirt added post user quoted summary...I think it's safe to say that the human editors have gone back and added some of the more open links that you've suggested, albeit keeping the original user submitted WSJ link. Already that's marginally better than how it used to be with direct copy and only an edit if a story /summary posted was wildly inaccurate...and often not even then.

        How fast do you really expect this site to change under new ownership, anyway? We've already made our distaste for overwhelming change very much heard with the previous masters (slashdot beta...yes, it was a bad design...but boy did we as a community let them know how we felt about it). I frankly don't blame Whipslash & team from taking their time with deciding on what changes to start implementing. They even devoted a full article/discussion to getting community opinions on the matter. They know we're the sort that run for the pitchforks and torches whenever something is slightly amiss (you can put yours down for the moment...seriously), and they're not going to want to upset that balance for fear of revolt or (worse for them) mass exodus.

        In summary: The new /. team is going to need at least a few months to get the new code worked out and I wouldn't be surprised if it's all going to be stuff that we as a community wouldn't even notice unless we were completely focused on the subtle. As a WebDev rolling out a new site for my company, it took us over a year of planning and 6 months of coding to get things to where a completely fresh new site was rolled out (granted...as a software house, we move slower than what appears to be the norm). All the back end automation stuff is probably going to be streamlined and fluffed to serve the new masters before we start to see ANYTHING on the front end.

      • by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @04:15PM (#51569765)

        If the new owners of Slashdot really want to improve this site (and I have seen no evidence that they do), a good first step would be stop linking to stories that are paywalled, or that prohibit adblockers. There are always plenty of alternatives.

        I think the solution is for people not to submit links that are paywalled, or that prohibit adblockers.

      • Re:The duck quacked (Score:5, Informative)

        by whipslash ( 4433507 ) Works for Slashdot on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @07:39PM (#51571207) Homepage Journal
        When the news broke it was originally reported by only the WSJ so we wanted to provide the breaking news before waiting for another site to regurgitate the news. Once they did, we updated the story (which was submitted to us by a user and voted up in the firehose).

        No evidence that we want to improve the site huh? Well I answered hundreds of questions here on how we can improve Slashdot: https://ask.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

        In the 3 weeks we have owned the site we have removed the "Jobs" section, discontinued "Videos" (by popular demand), fixed the search bar, have the groundwork laid to roll out https in the next week or two, and are well on our way to supporting Unicode.
        • by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @10:03PM (#51572165) Homepage Journal

          As someone who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention the the behind-the-scenes stuff going on about Slashdot, I just want to say that you guys, whoever you guys are now (I wasn't even aware of a change of ownership and have no idea who the new owners are), seem to be doing a good job so far or at the very least exhibiting the attitude of someone who'll do a good job.

        • by zugmeister ( 1050414 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @11:08PM (#51572417)
          I mean this seriously and with no sarcasm.
          Thank you!
        • There will always be people who will be saying negative things. Some of them are normally people who say good things.

          I have noticed the efforts you have personally put into getting things in order and many others have as well. Than you for your time. I believe you are sincere.

        • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @04:36AM (#51573429)

          so we wanted to provide the breaking news

          Oh man you're going to ruin my relationship with my girlfriend. We had a good thing going here. I would sit in the study on the computer, she'd be in the living room on the TV. I'd read a slashdot article and start a sentence with "Hey did you hear...." to which the answer would always be "Yes that was in the news 2 days ago, stop reading slashdot"

          I wish this was made up.

    • by knightghost ( 861069 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:39PM (#51568967)

      DOJ actively works against citizen's interests. In this case, they are demanding a WMD that will be used by governments and criminals against hundreds of millions of people.

      The FBI already has tremendous search capability and that is increasing given how corporations track people then sell that data.

      • DOJ actively works against citizen's interests. In this case, they are demanding a WMD that will be used by governments and criminals against hundreds of millions of people.

        Oooo ... if they are developing WMDs, can we invade and throw them in Gitmo?

        I wonder how many would support any presidential candidate that makes this happen.

        • by schwit1 ( 797399 )
          Obama is relocating the Gitmo terrorists, so it will soon have a lot more room just in time for Tim Cook and the Apple band.
        • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          The problem with anyone who wins on that platform is that they become in charge of the DOJ. So it ends up being their own people, and even if some radical candidate ended the DOJ (as such), he'd create a Department of Liberty or something, and they'd end up doing the same thing.

          But he could end up throwing the old team in Gitmo, which might still be entertaining, at least.

          Maybe they could put a track in at Gitmo and make them do a Death Race or something for PPV.

    • by flopsquad ( 3518045 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:47PM (#51569521)

      Tim was right: gov't wants to open Pandora's box.

      Pandora's Box, whoa!! Slow down, pardner. We just want to investigate 12 phones! That's only 11 more than the 1 phone we claimed was The Only One That Needed to Be Unlocked.

      I mean, when you really think about it, 11 is a pretty small number. You can't even get a dozen eggs with only 11 in there. Would you not crack a handful of eggs to Stop Terrorists From Killing Us All? They probably have sarin gas hidden under an orphanage, and that blood will be on Tim Cook's hands.

      Oh, and we're gonna need to use this for a few CP stings, just the very worst of the worst, really only like 350 devices. What's 350? I mean, that's not even 10 minutes worth of seconds! Can we not spare a few minutes to Keep Your Children Safe? Being against decrypting these phones is basically like letting a predator live in your basement and eat your Goldfish crackers while you tell the cops you've never met him.

      Right, and there's about 10,000 devices involved in drug crimes we'll be needing to do this for. Drugs are bad, and you don't want your kids being Forced at Gunpoint to Try Meth, right? It's not like it's *your* phone, it's a bunch of violent thugs who were born this way, like Lady Gaga.

      There's no other way to stop a black market that we ourselves created than to step just a tiny tiny bit on civil liberties. Terrorists, pedophiles, and cartel assassins don't really *need* civil liberties that badly, do they? Maybe the extra civil liberties we're taking from them we'll give to you good people, like in a tax credit or something.

      Look, while we're at it, Sony and UMG are telling us that lots of phones have pirated music and movie content. This is Probably Responsible for Kanye West Being $50 Million in Debt, and you don't want him to starve in the streets, do you?

      We just want to use this court-sanctioned decryption process in a targeted, limited way to inspect every device that comes within 150 miles of a border or port of entry to the US. And any time someone is stopped or questioned by law enforcement. And at random checkpoints. But they'll have juice and cookies at the checkpoints! And shackles, but mostly snacks!

      It's Kanye West fachrissakes! He's a musical genius, said it himself! And while we're looking for any unauthorized copies of any music, movie, or software, or evidence of participation or support of any act of piracy, we can *also* check for terrorism links, CP, drug use references, GPS data that would indicate a traffic violation, evidence of any past criminal activity, plans to stage disruptive protests, and other unamerican activities.

      And just to pacify you civil liberties nuts, this means we won't have to target those other 10,362 people! Don't say we never did anything for you.

      Pandora's Box... lord you anti-government nutters and your hyperbole!

  • Hipster Terrorist? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wkwilley2 ( 4278669 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:26PM (#51568829)

    The San Bernadino phone was just the start, pretty soon, it will be "DOJ wants the backdoor keys for all your iPhones"

    • by clodney ( 778910 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:42PM (#51569007)

      Where I think this is going to get interesting is what happens next.

      From my perspective, and I assume from Apple's, they have a security vulnerability in the current version of iOS: anyone with the Apple signing key can sign firmware, which can then be loaded onto the phone without unlocking the phone first. This custom firmware can then defeat the measures designed to prevent brute forcing of the users passcode.

      Regardless of whether they win or lose the current court battle, I expect Apple to fix the vulnerability in the next version of iOS. I think that is as simple as altering the operating system so that if new updates are applied without an unlock, the original OS/firmware wipes the phone *before* applying the update. That plugs the hole because before the brute force friendly firmware gets installed, the data is destroyed.

      Suppose Apple loses the case - I doubt this new version of firmware technically counts as contempt of court, but certainly after having had their cooperation be compelled by the government, said government will not be happy if Apple decides to make sure they can't get forced in that particular way again, and I would expect some level of retaliation by the courts/government.

      • I don't know if you know the answer to this or not, but if someone leaves their iPhone sitting around can anyone pick it up, enter the incorrect PIN 10 times, and destroy all of the data on it?

        • I don't know if you know the answer to this or not, but if someone leaves their iPhone sitting around can anyone pick it up, enter the incorrect PIN 10 times, and destroy all of the data on it?

          If the phone has that feature enabled (not the default), the answer is yes.

        • by taustin ( 171655 )

          That is apparently the case, yes. Don't leave your phone lying around.

        • by Marco Polo ( 168143 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:20PM (#51569311)

          Depends on how long "Jest laying around is" 2 hrs and 21 mins then yes.

          Depending on how long you have it you can LOCK it for a few mins and They can't use it.

          TRY - wait time ---- Total Time
          1-5 -- none ---------- none
          6 ---- 1 minute ------ 1 minute
          7 ---- 5 minutes ----- 6 minutes
          8 ---- 15 minutes --- 21 minutes
          9 ---- 60 minutes --- 81 minutes
          10 -- 60 minutes ---141 minutes
          11 -- black screen -- wiped device

        • Yes you can keep trying to guess the pin, but there is a exponentially increasing time delay between allowed attempts after 5 or so. Getting into something like 10+ hours the closer you get to 10 tries.

          So, no, you can't casually wipe people's phone at the coffee shop.

          (I don't actually own a recent iphone, just know this from general discussion about this case - someone with first hand knowledge can chime in)

        • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

          If the user has enabled the feature and leaves his phone around monkeys for two hours, then yes.

          Then he goes home and restores it from his encrypted backup.

      • And then if Apple ever have a bug in their software that bricks phones, they will not be able to be rescued, but will need to be trashed on mass. No thanks.

        • If Apple has a bug in the software, it would more than likely be covered under their warranty. They fixed their Error 53 issue, and they don't want a class-action lawsuit against them.
        • by chihowa ( 366380 )

          You mean "en masse". Hopefully you won't get too pissed off about being corrected and we can gradually become (or at least appear) more educated as a group.

          The fact that our language contains so many idioms makes this harder, but a first step should be to think about what "on mass" could mean and decide that it probably isn't the actual phrase you're looking for.

      • by dhaen ( 892570 )
        Interesting idea, but it makes me wonder if there are ANY circumstances where we would want to allow a decrypt. How about: The authorities are sure that a phone contains information that would thwart an imminent attack? Where is the morality in creating a system upgrade that would defeat us from ever preventing this?

        Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of privacy, but I'm troubled by the absolute implications.

        • Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of privacy, but I'm troubled by the absolute implications.

          It's impossible to have a free society where every "Hollywood movie plot threat" can be neatly solved. Even (especially) heavily-controlled societies like prisons cannot eliminate crime.

          If somebody is telling you that they can take away the risks inherent in life, watch your wallet and your freedom.

        • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

          > Where is the morality in creating a system upgrade that would defeat us from ever preventing this?

          Same morality that doesn't require the government cut off our hands and feet at birth. Tools should function as tools, not be agents of a state. Remember, if everything is backdoored for state use (to prevent terrorism, or whatever song and dance they have to sing to make it so you own and control nothing for fear that you too are a terrorist), then we are just rolling the dice every year and hoping we co

        • Sure, and if the terrorists hate your family and are threatening to blow up a building unless the US government beats your kid to death before your eyes, you're fine with that too, because what's life of your one kid vs. the thousands in the building.... right?

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          The authorities are sure that a phone contains information that would thwart an imminent attack?

          Will they pinkie swear that the information is really there and the attack really is imminent or will it be another Iraq? WMDs, we're super serial OMG YELLOWCAKE!!!

          The authorities have lied so big and so often that there is nothing they can say that would convince me of a genuine need to break the encryption on anything at this point. I absolutely positively do believe that they would claim millions of lives hang in the balance if they don't get the data from some small time pot dealer's phone immediately.

      • What you described in the second paragraph is already how it works in current iOS versions. You can't update a locked phone without unlocking it OR wiping it.

      • by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:57PM (#51569593) Homepage Journal

        and I would expect some level of retaliation by the courts/government.

        You are seing it already. Apple made things the way they are exactly because of previous requests. So this time, the angle is "you are on the side of terrorists". It's a warning shot. Next time it will be "you ARE the terrorists".

        The thing saving Apple is that thanks to two decades of NeoCon politics, multinational corporations are now more powerful than governments, and the crooks can't play hardball anymore.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @04:28PM (#51569871) Journal

        What is amazing to me is this isn't even a fourth amendment/privacy/fifth amendment/rights of the accused/exclusionary evidence/ type question. Its a question of very very basic freedom.

        Apple sells a phone, they are not necessarily in any on going business relationship with the owner of said phone after that happens. The DOJ argues though that they should be able to phone them up and demand they create something which does not today exist (an unlock tool or firmware without protections). So Apple who was not a participant in any crime, an accessory, or in material possession of evidence etc now must act.

        This quite literally sets the precedent the DOJ can conscript and individual or organization who has ever sold or manufactured something to assist in an investigation! We are supposedly not slaves! This very concept should be offensive to all freedom loving Americans and frankly anyone who isn't siding with Apple on this "Hates Freedom."

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. --William Pitt

  • All together now (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:31PM (#51568893)

    "This is my surprised face."

    Meanwhile: "...New York City police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., criticized Apple after it refused to comply with the court order and said that they currently possessed 175 iPhones that they could not unlock."

    So that's 188 on the list so far...

    • by creimer ( 824291 )

      So that's 188 on the list so far...

      That's a lot of iPhones with illicit cat videos.

    • I assume those were the two people that Charlie Rose had on his show. (I remember they were from New York, and that number sounds right):

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]

      It was horrible -- he was trying to point out some flaws, but he really didn't sufficient background to counter them.

      Their argument was basically 'we used to be able to do this, and then Apple went and locked us out at the last OS update.' and 'Apple claimed iOS 7 was secure, so they should just go back to that'.

    • Re:All together now (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:08PM (#51569211)

      Indeed. Here's the New York Times article [nytimes.com] that's the source for that information about New York already having 175 iPhones lined up to be unlocked if this precedent gets set. The FBI's assertion that this is just about one case is pandering to the public's short attention span by downplaying the ramifications this case would have on others.

  • Bruce Schneier says (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:32PM (#51568905) Homepage Journal

    My go-to person for security issues is Bruce Schneier [schneier.com]. Here's what he says about the issue:

    The current case is about a single iPhone 5c, but the precedent it sets will apply to all smartphones, computers, cars and everything the Internet of Things promises. The danger is that the court's demands will pave the way to the FBI forcing Apple and others to reduce the security levels of their smart phones and computers, as well as the security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized. The FBI may be targeting the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, but its actions imperil us all.

    He elaborates on this in another section:

    This is an existing vulnerability in iPhone security that could be exploited by anyone.

    There's nothing preventing the FBI from writing that hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues. There's every reason to believe, in fact, that such hacked software has been written by intelligence organizations around the world. Have the Chinese, for instance, written a hacked Apple operating system that records conversations and automatically forwards them to police? They would need to have stolen Apple's code-signing key so that the phone would recognize the hacked as valid, but governments have done that in the past with other keys and other companies. We simply have no idea who already has this capability.

    The best solution I've seen so far, from right here on Slashdot, is to have future firmware updates require the phone to be unlocked. IOW, the user is presented with an alert, and the user must type in the passcode before the update is applied.

    This would seem to solve the problem for future releases, Apple could legitimately say that there's no way to unlock the phone.

    • The best solution I've seen so far, from right here on Slashdot, is to have future firmware updates require the phone to be unlocked. IOW, the user is presented with an alert, and the user must type in the passcode before the update is applied.

      This would seem to solve the problem for future releases, Apple could legitimately say that there's no way to unlock the phone.

      I think this is a great idea, but I don't think they can do it now until this situation is settled in the court. Not doing what the governme

      • I think this is a great idea, but I don't think they can do it now until this situation is settled in the court. Not doing what the government has taken them to court on is one thing, but making what they are wanting harder while it isn't settled is obstruction of justice (I'm not a lawyer so the charge may not be exact but you get the idea).

        Since this "is only seeking access to Farook's phone and no one else's", then as long as whatever Apple does doesn't affect "this one phone" it wouldn't be a legal problem since they aren't making what this court wants harder.

        The political ramifications though, are left as an exercise for the reader.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Since the FBI has claimed that this is only about that one iPhone, not all, they can legitimately lock up all the others now. They have been explicitly told that the other iPhones and future iPhones are not at all involved.

    • by clodney ( 778910 )

      This is an existing vulnerability in iPhone security that could be exploited by anyone.

      There's nothing preventing the FBI from writing that hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues. There's every reason to believe, in fact, that such hacked software has been written by intelligence organizations around the world. Have the Chinese, for instance, written a hacked Apple operating system that records conversations and automatically forwards them to police? They would need to have stolen Apple's code-signing key so that the phone would recognize the hacked as valid, but governments have done that in the past with other keys and other companies. We simply have no idea who already has this capability.

      I think this is overly simplistic. I have no idea what precautions Apple takes with its code-signing key, but other organizations I know take this very seriously - a USB key in a locked safe, with 2 people required for access, and the signing only done by loading the binary onto an air gapped computer, signing the binary, and then returning the key to the safe.

      If Apple takes precautions at that level, it is by no means a given that the code signing key has leaked. On the other hand, if phones are signed a

      • I don't feel like you're really thinking through what it means to have the resources of a national intelligence agency.
    • I think general iOS updates do require one to unlock their phone before proceeding, what is being talked about is the phone recovery mechanism when one connects the phone to a computer. I assume this was left 'open' so that it could be performed when the phone is software "bricked" so that the hardware may be ok, but the software is beyond usable/repairable.

      If Apple blocks this for the obvious personal info safety benefits it would mean that the only way to recover a phone may be to wipe it completely clean

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I think general iOS updates do require one to unlock their phone before proceeding, what is being talked about is the phone recovery mechanism when one connects the phone to a computer. I assume this was left 'open' so that it could be performed when the phone is software "bricked" so that the hardware may be ok, but the software is beyond usable/repairable.

        If Apple blocks this for the obvious personal info safety benefits it would mean that the only way to recover a phone may be to wipe it completely clean

    • I see the second issue as exactly opposite to the first quote. A precedent in favor of the government on this case seems like a good way to ensure that hardware makers stop giving themselves access to their customers' devices, otherwise they will get showered with government orders. That is exactly what we want -- i.e. actual security, not pretend security at the changeable whim of the vendor. Apple, for this device model at least, seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. They want to themselves b
      • by suutar ( 1860506 )

        Govt: "Unlock this, we have a writ"
        Victim: I can't
        Govt: Precedent says you have to
        Victim: I really can't
        Govt: welcome to contempt of court
        Victim: But it's just flat out not possible. It's not because I don't want to, I _can't_.
        Govt: *snore*

  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:34PM (#51568919)

    1. Build a LLC that owns all IP rights to the tools that forensics tools.
    2. Have the LLC sign a contract with Apple that states that Apple will never release trade secrets to other vendors to comply with the production of forensics tools.
    3. Have Apple refer them to the LLC.
    4. Let the LLC charge the government $100,000/job as a firm fixed price contract.

    You'll see the FBI getting pretty libertarian in how it prioritizes searches and seizures if that's the only way Apple will work with them.

    • Aren't there already other companies that already offer those services at a really high price?

    • (2) Is illegal. Or rather, will not legally shield Apple. All NDA's have (or will be modified by the court to have) a clause that allows compliance with subpoenas. Usually, the best an NDA can guarantee is that I contact the party I have an NDA with, and they can (at their expense) try to squash the subpoena, and I won't comply if they are taking legal measures to block it.
    • Unfortunately, I think that would pretty much be doomed to fail. This (http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645) a great article on some of the problems inherent in this request by the FBI from a forensics and court-case point of view.

      tl;dr

      The FBI wants Apple to create an *instrument*, and this instrument needs to pass forensic muster. That means it can't modify the data on the phone, it just has to unlock it. But how do you check that? Well, it turns out tools like this need to be tested and validated by a th

  • Camels nose ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:41PM (#51568993) Homepage

    This will open the floodgates of making all of these companies be responsible for developing tools for law enforcement to demand access. And then law enforcement will demand they simply be given those tools to avoid the whole pesky court system and due process.

    Welcome to the future, where law enforcement wants it to be illegal for you to have information they cannot access, and failure to allow yourself to be spied on is a criminal act. You can't have any freedom and security because they need to remove it to protect your freedom and security.

    You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, citizen.

    In Soviet America, phone unlocks you.

    But keep telling yourselves you don't live in a surveillance society, one day you'll believe you have always been at war with Eurasia. Failure to comply is now a thoughtcrime.

    What happened to those oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, instead of wiping your ass on it?

  • Was it too difficult to wait until the precedent had been set, before demonstrating that those who warned us that it wouldn't end there they were exactly right?

    • Was it too difficult to wait until the precedent had been set, before demonstrating that those who warned us that it wouldn't end there they were exactly right?

      Be happy Government Intelligence is ahead of the curve.

      Perhaps the Court of Public Opinion might come to the correct conclusion and see the man behind the green curtain.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      It simply demonstrates that they don't care what the outcome is going to be because most people (51% or so) don't care.

      • It simply demonstrates that they don't care what the outcome is going to be because most people (51% or so) don't care.

        Most of the minority of people who answer a stranger's questions about their personal opinions over the phone, don't care.

  • by wardrich86 ( 4092007 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:42PM (#51568997)
    DOJ is requesting remote backdoor capabilities to all phones so that they can browse for hot nudes at any time anywhere. They originally wanted it to stop terrorism, but then realized that every other thing they've done to try to stop terrorism seems to have failed miserably. The DOJ is happy to announce that this time their plans will be used 100% as expected, and will for sure have great success.
    • DOJ is requesting remote backdoor capabilities to all phones so that they can browse for hot nudes at any time anywhere. They originally wanted it to stop terrorism, but then realized that every other thing they've done to try to stop terrorism seems to have failed miserably. The DOJ is happy to announce that this time their plans will be used 100% as expected, and will for sure have great success.

      I'm not sure I want to grant them backdoor access unless they at least buy me dinner first.

  • Pitch and feathers!
  • It's just the one terrorist's phone... oh, and their partner. Oh, and these other 12 cases that aren't related -- you don't want to protect pedophiles do you? Boy it'd sure be handy if you just had a tool to deal with all the requests we're sending you. Why don't you just give us the tool so it's easier and we don't have to bother you?
  • Yea, good one. Like we can trust the FBI and CIA with a one off. We all knew this was the goal. If you say yes to one you have to say say to all. Now...when is the public going to stand up and say "NO"? Or do we want cases like the the one just posted today: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org] This is when the data was unprotected. Which in essence will be the effect if the FBI has it's way. (some in the FBI has said we should ban encryption so the government has full unfettered access).

    Or another case
  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:06PM (#51569193) Homepage Journal

    The next iPhones should have the timer between password attempts and the "wipe after 10 tries" options moved from software to the security chips in silicon.

    "Sure we can put in a hacked iOS version, but the counters and timers are all in chip and iOS cannot touch those."
    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      The next iPhones should have the timer between password attempts and the "wipe after 10 tries" options moved from software to the security chips in silicon.

      "Sure we can put in a hacked iOS version, but the counters and timers are all in chip and iOS cannot touch those."

      iPhone 5S and above already do that - the secure enclave checks PINs, enforces the 10 entry lockout and wipe (if enabled), and enforces the delays. And it's speed means the slow hashes stay slow.

      The iPhone 5c is based on the iPhone 5,

      • by grub ( 11606 )
        Good to know, thanks. I'm still rocking the old iPhone 5 and should be updating soon. I thought counters and such were in code on all the iPhones.
    • Not sure if serious.

      Apple has already done both of those things. The timer is already in place on the phone in question, and I believe any Apple device with an A7 or newer moved some parts of the encryption key blah blah into hardware - I really don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the specifics but have seen this info come up in previous articles.

      • edit - re-reading, you must mean set the wipe-after-10-tries settings setting in hardware somewhere so that the OS can't change it, which I don't think iPhones do now, and is a good idea.

  • by taustin ( 171655 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:13PM (#51569245) Homepage Journal

    Once the precedent is set, the feds are only a national security letter away from telling Apple (and all other phone an IoT manufacturers) that "your next routine iOS (or whatever) update will have remote access to everything that we can activate without your involvement, and if anyone finds out it exists, you go to prison." That's not a hack, that's a built in back door, as part of the OS, and no security can possibly protect you from the manufacturer's deliberate intent.

    The precedent is the only thing that matters here.

  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:29PM (#51569397) Homepage

    I mean, those guys with hearts as pure as driven snow really just want to make sure we've explored those scary terrorists' phones and everything to the extent possible. It can't possibly be that they want to set a precedent that they'll use repeatedly to go after low-level drug users instead.

    Look here and you can see that those "sneak & peak warrants" that they got to fight terrorism have actually been used a couple of times to fight terrorism:

    http://www.motherjones.com/kev... [motherjones.com]

    See, in 2013 they only used sneak & peaks against terrorists 51 times. Think about that. And forget about the 11,078 times they were used against druggies. Just think about those 51!

  • In the customer letter that Apple releasedhttp://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ they said

    "Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation."

    If the phone is locked how can Apple install a new operating system on it?

  • Progress here.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@carpan e t .net> on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @05:11PM (#51570173) Homepage

    The big progress here..... remember how it used to take years or even decades for DOJ lies to be exposed? Now all manner of government lies are just blasted to all hell within DAYS. It really is wonderful progress.

  • Seriously, did anybody think they wanted just the one phone? That belonged to somebody that is now dead (so it is effectively a closed case)? And I'm unsure of how the government thinks that software designed for one phone could not be used on basically every other phone out there? If the government wants us to trust them, they either need to actually be honest, or not be so bad at lying...
  • by jbmartin6 ( 1232050 ) on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @06:00PM (#51570519)
    I don't think Director Comey was lying at all. he is an honorable man who only has the public interest at heart. Only malcontents and other assorted ne'er do wells would even think otherwise.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...