Apple Unlocking iPh...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Apple Unlocking iPhones vs US Government

84 Posts
18 Users
0 Reactions
11.5 K Views
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5133
 

Meanwhile in New York …
PDF of MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge JAMES ORENSTEIN Brooklyn, New York
February 29, 2016
http//blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2016/02/applebrooklyn-2.29.16order.pdf

In deciding this motion, I offer no opinion as to whether, in the circumstances of this case or others, the government's legitimate interest in ensuring that no door is too strong to resist lawful entry should prevail against the equally legitimate societal interests arrayed against it here. Those competing values extend beyond the individual's interest in vindicating reasonable expectations of privacy – which is not directly implicated where, as here, it must give way to the mandate of a lawful warrant.
They include the commercial interest in conducting a lawful business as its owners deem most productive, free of potentially harmful government intrusion; and the far more fundamental and universal interest – important to individuals as a matter of safety, to businesses as a matter of competitive fairness, and to society as a whole as a matter of national security – in shielding sensitive electronically stored data from the myriad harms, great and small, that unauthorized access and misuse can cause.
How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago. But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive. It would betray our constitutional heritage and our people's claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789.
Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not. The government's motion is denied.

Besides the legal arguments, there is an interesting point of view about the Government's (and forensic expert's) statements about usage of IP-Box.

jaclaz


   
ReplyQuote
(@thefuf)
Reputable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 262
 

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/03/cis-files-amici-curiae-brief-apple-case-behalf-iphone-security-experts-and-applied

1. We are against backdoors, so we don't want to have them in cryptographic algorithms and implementations, because there is no way to ensure that nobody will misuse them (by the way, this is a typical zero-risk bias). A legal barrier is not enough for us here.
2. We are against backdoors, but we want software updates to be automatically installed on end-user devices, and we don't care that there is no way to ensure that a manufacturer will not misuse them to install a backdoor. A legal barrier is enough for us here.

So, increasing the attack surface with cryptographic backdoors is unacceptable, but doing the same with automatic software updates is okay.


   
ReplyQuote
(@thefuf)
Reputable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 262
 

From the same paper

Compelling Apple to create forensic software for the government is also dangerous due to any bugs the software might contain

I guess Zdziarski wrote this statement, because he already wrote exactly the same thing in his blog.

1. Does he know that any tool may contain a bug?
2. Does he know that there are forensic tools being actively developed that contain reported and unfixed bugs for years?
3. Does he know that NIST test results miss important bugs and issues, even when these bugs and issues were discovered and reported several years ago?

So, bugs are everywhere, even in forensic tools.


   
ReplyQuote
(@gchatten)
New Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 3
 

Apple has recently unlocked and provided data in two different criminal cases I worked on. A Court Order was issued, the phone sent to Apple and I received all of the data as well as part of Apple's code used with a section redacted.

I believe it's a permanent "back door" that's the issue here, however, ignoring a Court Order to unlock and dump one phone is certainly a 180-degree turn for Apple.


   
ReplyQuote
4n6art
(@4n6art)
Reputable Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 208
 

LOL Pretty sure you are being sarcastic and you already know this…. ) Yes, under ideal situations you could BUT in this case… phone was either turned off or not accessed successfully for 48 hours so the print option doesn't work.

Play-doh can open PassCode, see here

Vkansee @MWC15 proof


   
ReplyQuote
RolfGutmann
(@rolfgutmann)
Noble Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1185
 

Zdziarski sure knows - submitted amongst others 50 options to solve the case (info out of his blogs)


   
ReplyQuote
RolfGutmann
(@rolfgutmann)
Noble Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1185
 

@4n6art By considering the improvement from TouchID (1st) to now in iPhone 6s/plus TouchID 2nd and iOS sec improvements to fall in the trap that hacks in the past will last forever (now MWC 2016) is risky.

You may miss something.


   
ReplyQuote
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5133
 

The "dormant cyper pathogen" 😯 is a nice new twist in the matter
http//arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/san-bernardino-da-says-seized-iphone-may-hold-dormant-cyber-pathogen/

jaclaz


   
ReplyQuote
(@thefuf)
Reputable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 262
 

In a follow-up e-mail, Zdziarski added "This reads as an amicus designed to mislead the courts into acting irrationally in an attempt to manipulate a decision in the FB'Is favor…

I can also add that Zdziarski did write a blog post and did sign an amicus curiae brief apparently designed to mislead the court too. He tries to convince the public and the court that forensic software is developed in a more pedantic way than any other software, that there are some magic validation procedures to hunt bugs in forensic software, and that these magic procedures work, and then he concludes that Apple developers can't write forensic tools. Is this a big joke?


   
ReplyQuote
kacos
(@kacos)
Trusted Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 93
 

dormant cyber pathogen .. lol D

Lavabit resurfaced and commented on the subject also ..


   
ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 9
Share: