Simviation Forums

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:10 pm**

Arstechnica is generally a good tech site. Usually, they back the privacy of the individual over the government.

Most of what I've read, concerning the ongoing fight to resist the FBI getting access to the killers iPhone have been slanted.

Apple is fighting to protect ALL iPhone users.

If the FBI can get into one phone, the "secret" will get out and all iPhones will be open to anyone.

It goes on and on in that vein.

On the one hand, I support the right to privacy (although I don't believe it exists all that much anymore). And on the other hand, this is the phone used by killers and may lead to other potential killers.

Essentially, I didn't know the facts. Was Apple protecting a secret "backdoor"? A password that would open ANY iPhone?

If you want to keep your opinions, fine.

If you want to know the facts, read this - Encryption isn’t at stake, the FBI knows Apple already has the desired key.

This is somewhat long, and detailed, article, but Arstechnica has done an exceptional job in breaking it down.

Unfortunately, there was a forced password change that may make it all pointless.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:48 pm**

Apples responds with a defensive Q&A

Answers to your questions about Apple and security

Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?

The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.

Now that certainly sounds like a good answer.

But that's covered in the arstechnica article.

The iPhone requires that its firmware have a digital signature that authentically demonstrates that the firmware was developed by Apple and has not been subsequently modified. The FBI does not have (and is not asking for) access to Apple's signing key. It is instead asking for Apple to use its signing key to sign the custom firmware so that the iPhone will accept it and run it. It is this signature requirement that means the FBI cannot create the software itself.

It's this same requirement that also means that iPhone users would be safe even if the special firmware leaked. Changing the embedded unique identifier within the special firmware would break the signature and thus cause targeted iPhones to reject the firmware. This is why complying with the court demand would not jeopardize the security of any other phones. The cryptographic safeguards don't allow it.

Essentially: It is possible to change ONLY one iPhone, AND IT HAS TO BE DONE BY APPLE.

Another way to look at it - That one phone is targeted and no other iPhone would work with a copy of that change.

One more thing - This isn't the killers phone. This phone belongs to the county that he worked for.

Ask yourself this - If members of your family were killed by someone connected to the San Bernardino killers, and if it were proven that the two were connected through an iPhone account - Would you want to sue Apple based on it's protection of one killers iPhone?

Get real. Apple is one of the top two or three most valuable companies in the world. Your great, great grand kids would die of old age with no resolution in sight.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:17 pm**

Too many links to read entirely because I'm forkin lazy. The first encrypted smart phone was the Blackberry. Not Apple. Apple saw the success and mimicked it with different code. Governments as well as terrorist were snapping up RIMs Blackberrys because of the encryption. Interesting though that both companies went for fruity names. I like Rasberries and bananas personally.
My synopsis: You will lose your customer base if you squeal.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:15 pm**

In the end it will be decided by a judge, not by corporate executives worried about their bonuses, profits, and shareholder value. And that's as it should be. And since this is skirting on politics and probably not appropriate here in a Simviation forum, I'm out!

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:41 pm**

Politics

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:02 am**

OldAirmail wrote:Politics

Interesting reading...and various points of view...

...!

Paul.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:21 am**

I would never have an iphone - over rated - over popular and there are better phones out there for anyone who would care to look into it. Certainly bought by sheep.
Plenty of intelligent people buy iphones but many I suspect don't research the alternatives running the much better, in my opinion, android OS.
Android is no where near as controlling your device as Apple - and that's my main reason not to have Apple - they control too much of what you can install - even to the point of installing stuff for you!
With Android - pretty much YOU control your device - with iphones - pretty much APPLE controls your device.
Some linux coders I know call them the 'idiot phone' ..... :whistle:

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:22 am**

I am on the search....(but not very quickly)...

...for a simple mobile device with a personal phone directory, a large screen, and very large number buttons, enabling me just to make ordinary telephone call to other mobile phones and land-line phones...
..and nothing else!

I have a cheap, £25 mobile phone for making emergency breakdown calls, but it is also full of complicated stuff that I don't use, and don't want to use!

All I want is a simple; "Telephone" with big buttons....

...and a telephone speaker+mike hand set...('cos I'm going deaf)...

...please!....

...!

I need? one of these; a mobile version, but somewhat smaller, and less dusty...>>>

Paul....fone home!...

...!

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:26 pm**

pete wrote:I....

- they control too much of what you can install - even to the point of installing stuff for you!
.....

Pete, you are really being too severe with Apple.

They just don't want to let their children around the world play with anything sharp. :doh:

I have a phone at home. I have an, extremely, cheap pay as you go cell phone.

I don't value Twitter, etc so I can live without an internet connected phone.

I don't begrudge anyone their iPhone or fancy Android phone.

But I'm of a generation that has a hard time justifying the incredibly high rates that the younger people are willing to pay.

I have a friend with a wife and young teen girl. There house was taken in a foreclosure a few months ago.

And yet they'll buy a new iPhone every two years. Their monthly phone bill is more than my monthly mortgage payment.

They think that it's well worth the money. :confusion-shrug:

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:50 am**

For those who believe in all those elaborate conspiracy theories, 911, Roswell, vaccinations, Chemtrails, Area 51, Aliens, Big Phama, ever lasting light bulbs, cars running on water, war for oil and lets not forget the biggest of them all, the grand daddy, moon landings........lets just reflect on the fact that..........The most powerful government on earth can't unlock an iPhone........

Matt

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:49 am**

Give it to a 9 year old kid. Have it cracked in no time flat.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:27 pm**

.The most powerful government on earth can't unlock an iPhone........

... well they could (easily) ... they just need to do it above board and in an accountable (legal) way ... otherwise the evidence will go against them later in court, etc

(On a further note about Google's Android etc ...... the other day I finally gave into the prompts to sync my device to Google Live, Maps, Gmail and more ..... - I had a dental appt today -- they had sent me a reminder yesterday with the time. 40 mins before time I was just getting ready (toothbrushing extra well, flossing and mouthwash

) and low and behold my 'phone' buzzes to let me know I should be leaving for my dental appt and would I like directions and traffic report for the journey ...... my oh my ..... So now Google is reading my emails and taking data from them ..... quite worrying! But this is the result of the allowed sync!! )

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:01 pm**

Don't sink, don't sink!

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:41 pm**

I apologise for making light of this issue. I do fully understand the implications of unlocking an encrypted device. I suppose it's been a problem for Military chiefs for time immemorial, that's why they have intelligence agencies to find out the secrets of their enemies(and friends too). I suppose, what the FBI and CIA are saying is that they don't operate outside of the law (ahem). Either that or they haven't found anyone intelligent enough to crack this code (again Ahem). What I suspect is that this issue has been raised to publicise Apple's super strong security for e-mails, which has previously been the sole premise of the Blackberry. Google too have their version of an encrypted vault they call "knox", after fort knox. It would seem that Blackberry's lifeline is about to be cut, therefore the effort by Apple to prove to the FBI and CIA that their encryption is better than the alternative! I've no doubt that the courts will support Apple in this to prove to the world that the Apple is unbreakable. It won't stop the security agencies from cracking the code, just as they did during WWII with the German Enigma. :shifty:

Posted: **Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:33 am**

This looks like a completely unbiased source.

FBI contacted Apple, received data related to San Bernardino case 3 days after shooting

According to a court filing prepared by Apple, the company first received — and responded to — FBI requests for information related to last year's deadly shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., just three days after the attack.

As noted in the declaration of Lisa Olle, manager of Apple's Global Privacy & Law Enforcement Compliance Team, law enforcement officials contacted the company's 24-hour emergency call center on the afternoon of Dec. 5, three days after Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in a self-proclaimed act of terrorism. Farook's iPhone 5c now sits at the heart of a contentious debate between privacy advocates and national security hawks.

The information sheds new light on Apple's efforts to cooperate with FBI investigatory operations prior to being served a federal court order compelling assistance in breaking into Farook's iPhone. It was previously learned that by early January Apple was in regular discussions with government officials over how best to extract the phone's data, though information stored on Apple's end was apparently provided weeks earlier.

On Dec. 5, Apple handed over two parcels of information after receiving legal notice seeking subscriber information (likely iCloud subscriber data, though it's not specified in Olle's declaration) attached to three names and nine specific accounts. A day later, Apple received a search warrant for emails, messages and other information associated with three separate accounts. Another request on Dec. 16 sought information related to one name and seven different accounts. Apple was able to provide same-day turnaround on each of the three requests.

As for the iCloud account attached to Farook's iPhone, Olle states the official search warrant was served on Jan. 22 seeking the same communications and customer information requested in December. Apple complied and on Jan. 26 provided the government with whatever data it had in its possession.

It was later revealed that the FBI ordered the San Bernardino County Department of Health, Farook's former employer and owner of the iPhone 5c in question, to reset the associated Apple ID password on Dec. 6 without first consulting Apple. Company representatives, including CEO Tim Cook, said the move was a misstep as it nullified the possibility of using iCloud's automatic sync feature to procure a backup without unlocking the device.

Washington? It looks like the order came from Keystone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmpHvOzlxE[/youtube]

Simviation Forums

FBI and Apple - The facts

FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts

Re: FBI and Apple - The facts