“Although they want to compel assistance from Apple to unlock a phone used by San Bernardino mass shooter Syed Farook, officials say the techniques they propose are limited in scope and pose no risk to the privacy of other iPhone users,” Michael Liedtke reports for The Associated Press. “Security experts say it’s not so simple. ‘It’s a very dangerous proposition to claim that this capability could not be re-used,’ said Will Ackerly, chief technology officer at Virtru, a computer security firm he co-founded after working 8 years at the National Security Agency.”
“Federal prosecutors have asked a court to force Apple to produce special software that would help the FBI guess the passcode to an iPhone found in Farook’s car. Federal officials say Apple will be free to destroy that software once the iPhone is open to investigators,” Liedtke reports. “Apple argues it’s unrealistic to think that governments, both in the U.S. and overseas, won’t ask to use the same program again in other cases. Ackerly and other experts echoed that concern. And on technical grounds, experts say, it may simply be impossible to keep the program from falling into the wrong hands.”
“They said it would be difficult, but not impossible, to reverse-engineer the Apple program so it could work with other phones. Software is easy to copy, despite the government’s reassurances, said Bruce Schneier, a security expert and chief technology officer for Resilient Systems. ‘That’s the nature of software,'” Liedtke reports. “Computer forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski raised another possibility: If authorities find anything on the iPhone that they use in court — for example, to identify and prosecute any accomplices who aided the San Bernardino shooters — then Apple could be required to explain its software in court. A judge might also permit defense attorneys and their experts to study the program. There’s a strong likelihood ‘this tool won’t be used once, but many times,’ Zdziarski said in an email, adding that each time could expose the software to copying or misuse.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Of course, this bastardized firmware would be demanded when the next big case rolls around and, of course, other governments would demand it, too, and, of course, it would leak eventually, compromising the security and privacy of over one billion iOS users.
As we wrote last November: Backdoors = insecurity. Wherever backdoors exist, it’s not only “authorities” exploiting them legally. Only a blooming idiot would believe in a “secure backdoor” accessible only by properly authorized “authorities.”
This is very simple. With any official who claims “it’s only one iPhone Apple needs to crack” and therefore doesn’t seem to grasp the larger ramifications, look for ulterior motive(s).
None of us should accept that the government or a company or anybody should have access to all of our private information. This is a basic human right. We all have a right to privacy. We shouldn’t give it up. We shouldn’t give in to scare-mongering or to people who fundamentally don’t understand the details. — Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 27, 2015
SEE ALSO:
Pew survey: More than half of Americans think Apple should comply with FBI – February 22, 2016
Facebook CEO Zuckerberg backs Apple versus U.S. government in iPhone security dispute – February 22, 2016
Tim Cook’s memo to Apple employees: ‘This case is about more than a single phone’ – February 22, 2016
Snowden: FBI could hack San Bernardino iPhone without Apple’s involvement – February 22, 2016
Why did the FBI direct the San Bernardino Health Department to reset Syed Farook’s Apple ID? – February 22, 2016
Apple posts open letter: ‘Answers to your questions about Apple and security’ – February 22, 2016
Apple could easily lock rights-trampling governments out of future iPhones – February 20, 2016
Apple is still fighting Big Brother – February 19, 2016
Apple: Terrorist’s Apple ID password changed in government custody, blocking access – February 19, 2016
Fight for the Bill of Rights. Oh, and Tim Cook for President of the United States in this election cycle.
The dangerous precedent we should all fear is a shift in the balance of power away from heavily regulated law enforcement agencies in favor of private corporations who are merely concerned only by corporate profits in total disregard for public security.
Sarcasm, right?
Think objectively.
Law enforcement have a legal obligation to serve and protect the public. They are heavily regulated and are fully accountable for any wrongdoing or harm they may cause to the public.
On the other hand, Apple has no such legal obligation to protect the public (let alone serve the public). Apple only serves the interests of their shareholders.
Apple likely cannot and will not be held accountable or liable for any wrongdoing or harm caused to the public (notice I haven’t said “their customers” although it may well extend to their own customers) if someone misuses their technology.
So, for Apple, it’s all very good for business (i.e. shareholders) but for law enforcement this would constitute a dangerous precedent which would make it far more difficult for them to protect the public.
At the end of the day, the public wins only if and when law enforcement wins.
“Law enforcement have a legal obligation to serve and protect the public. They are heavily regulated and are fully accountable for any wrongdoing or harm they may cause to the public.”
Hilariously false. They protect the government, and the law, they have no obligation, legal or otherwise to protect the public and face no consequences when they endanger or kill the public except in exceedingly rare circumstances.
“At the end of the day, the public wins only if and when law enforcement wins.”
False.
You are dangerously misinformed.
You live in a heavily distorted reality.
I’m very sorry for you and those who believe the same.
So “heavily regulated” that not even the US Congress knew of the daily intrusion into personal privacy and the daily violations of the Constitution until they were revealed by Edward Snowden, who risked his life and liberty to do so. The cardinal rule of government remains “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
First off, power does not corrupt!
It is lack of integrity which is responsible for corruption at all levels of government and in society in general and as a whole.
Private corporations and governments are equally exposed to corruption.
The U.S. Congress was not made aware of the privacy intrusions and other violations because various systemic failures within the government which prevented them from being duly informed.
As far as I am concerned, Snowden is certainly not a hero. All he ever wanted was fame and glory. He deserves none.
I wish I could rate your post into the negative star range. Such a disgusting little troll willing to toss away our security and privacy to “heavily regulated law enforcement agencies”… the same agencies that are “heavily regulated” are also responsible for around 80,000 raids per year into people’s home (up from around 2,000 in 1980 before the Drug War went into overdrive). This includes raids into the wrong home and even killing the wrong person in the wrong home.. (oops!) and, guess what? no prosecutions.
So much for your “heavily regulated” BS. Get bent.
If the government has its way, along with the certainties of death and taxes, will also be, privacy breaches and identity theft. 🖖😀⌚️
In a republic, you get the government you vote for. The lack of education in the USA, combined with three generations selling out to Wall Street & corporate greed has clearly caught up with us. Word to the wise: Trump is the greediest monarchist of all. If you want a more independent, democratic nation, you have to throw out both corrupt political parties.
This scenario is cited as one threat:
“If authorities find anything on the iPhone that they use in court — for example, to identify and prosecute any accomplices who aided the San Bernardino shooters — then Apple could be required to explain its software in court. A judge might also permit defense attorneys and their experts to study the program.”
The problem with using that scenario is that if that came true…if hacking into the iPhone enabled authorities to identify and arrest accomplices…that would vindicate the decision to hack the iPhone in the minds of most people. At that point the authorities could say, “see, we were right all along…getting into the iPhone brought more terrorists to justice, before they could kill again.” And they would be right.