Terrorism: Unlock the iphone when it is terrorism

Maybe they don't really record everything. Maybe they can't really record everything?

unified National Security efforts

It's always surprising to me when the same people who cannot stand the idea of gov't intrusion into their lives will easily and willingly give up their personal freedom from gov't intrusion into their life when they are afraid of something.

I understand your statement but it's similar to saying that you are patently again war.

Privacy: If I want privacy, I keep the data/idea in my head.

The FBI, DOJ, and others are debating if secure products and services should be legal. They hide this in language around warrants and lawful access, and scream about terrorists and child pornographers. What they don’t say, what they never admit, is that it is physically impossible to build in back doors for law enforcement without creating security vulnerabilities.

It simply can’t be done. If Apple, the government, or anyone else has master access to your device, to a service, or communications, that is a security flaw. It is impossible for them to guarantee that criminals or hostile governments won’t also gain such access. This isn’t paranoia, it’s a demonstrable fact. No company or government is completely secure.

Who the hell needs encryption on
their phone other than spouse-cheaters and criminals?

Who the hell needs encryption on
their phone other than spouse-cheaters and criminals?

all the encryption in the world doesn't stop traitors.

identifying traitors

Answer, if you can get out of the box, what are the tools National Security needs to stop those whose very intent is destroy a system that permits the freedoms you talk about?

The feds already have the call records, the texts, the emails, heck, they even have the shooters. For that matter, they probably have recordings of the calls. The FBI doesn't exactly have a sterling record of not abusing the public's trust so I'm not particularly inclined to extend more just because their PR folk have switched from "it's for the children" to "the terrorists are coming".

SAN FRANCISCO — An elite group of security technologists has concluded that the American and British governments cannot demand special access to encrypted communications without putting the world’s most confidential data and critical infrastructure in danger.

A new paper from the group, made up of 14 of the world’s pre-eminent cryptographers and computer scientists, is a formidable salvo in a skirmish between intelligence and law enforcement leaders, and technologists and privacy advocates…

In the paper, the authors emphasized that the stakes involved in encryption are much higher now than in their 1997 analysis. In the 1990s, the Internet era was just beginning — the 1997 report is littered with references to “electronic mail” and “facsimile communications,” which are now quaint communications methods. Today, the government’s plans could affect the technology used to lock data from financial and medical institutions, and poke a hole in mobile devices and countless other critical systems that are moving rapidly online, including pipelines, nuclear facilities and the power grid.

“The problems now are much worse than they were in 1997,” said Peter G. Neumann, a co-author of both the 1997 report and the new paper, who is a computer security pioneer at SRI International, the Silicon Valley research laboratory. “There are more vulnerabilities than ever, more ways to exploit them than ever, and now the government wants to dumb everything down further.”

Abstract

Twenty years ago, law enforcement organizations lobbied to require data and
communication services to engineer their products to guarantee law enforcement
access to all data. After lengthy debate and vigorous predictions of enforcement
channels “going dark,” these attempts to regulate the emerging Internet were abandoned.

In the intervening years, innovation on the Internet flourished, and law
enforcement agencies found new and more effective means of accessing vastly larger
quantities of data. Today we are again hearing calls for regulation to mandate the
provision of exceptional access mechanisms. In this report, a group of computer
scientists and security experts, many of whom participated in a 1997 study of these
same topics, has convened to explore the likely effects of imposing extraordinary
access mandates.

We have found that the damage that could be caused by law enforcement exceptional
access requirements would be even greater today than it would have been 20
years ago. In the wake of the growing economic and social cost of the fundamental
insecurity of today’s Internet environment, any proposals that alter the security dynamics
online should be approached with caution. Exceptional access would force
Internet system developers to reverse “forward secrecy” design practices that seek to
minimize the impact on user privacy when systems are breached. The complexity of
today’s Internet environment, with millions of apps and globally connected services,
means that new law enforcement requirements are likely to introduce unanticipated,
hard to detect security flaws. Beyond these and other technical vulnerabilities, the
prospect of globally deployed exceptional access systems raises difficult problems
about how such an environment would be governed and how to ensure that such
systems would respect human rights and the rule of law.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

If what Apple knows can open the phone, then a traitor could also sell the method of de-encryption

We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

It seems the gents that wrote that report don't know the hand that feeds.

How can something be both hard to detect and at the same time stick [out] like a sore thumb?

I wish y'all were more consistent. One day yer all begging the gubmint to
come down hard on the Malheur Malcontents and the next day yer telling 'em
to back off from iPhone Malcontents. You want big gubmint, or knott?

Is Trump getting elected?

Even if cracking this phone would only affect this phone, Apple has already said they don't feel like doing it. That should be it. They don't feel like doing it. The government should leave them alone at that point.

something went wrong

SB health department (owners of the phone) to reset the password of the iCloud account

The account was reset by a San Bernardino County employee

Who the hell needs encryption on
their phone other than spouse-cheaters and criminals?

Who the hell needs encryption on
their phone other than spouse-cheaters and criminals?

No banking on the phone, no internet shopping. No passwords. No aps. No music. Nothing more personal than the phone numbers it's had run through it. I don't even post on here from the phone.

Smart Phones are a BIG part of everyday Communication HUGE leap for Mankind

If you want privacy then don't put your sh#t on the public internet.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, Norton, Apple probably cannot do that without compromising the security of all iOS devices including all iPhones and tablets.

Apple stock will plummet when they pay the lawyers, engineers and court costs for all the defence -- merely to save face?

You show no sense of perspective

exponential growth

spiny Norman,

the keynoted source SEC filings would sound pretty good.

But isn't your source Motley Fool?

If those shooters had a safety deposit box and the bank refused to attempt to open the box, claiming that opening the box would cause them to lose their customers trust, or more outrageously, that opening the box would encourage thieves to break into their bank, would you all feel the same way?

“Drone strikes have been sold to the American public on the claim that they’re ‘precise’. But they are only as precise as the intelligence that feeds them. There is nothing precise about intelligence that results in the deaths of 28 unknown people, including women and children, for every ‘bad guy’ the US goes after,” said Reprieve’s Jennifer Gibson, who spearheaded the group’s study.

But no. If you're in government, YOU don't do the work - especially if it involves thinking ahead, or just thinking - you use force and coercion...

But treason is the law of the land now.

Terrorists don't use iPhones.

You've been 0wned .......

Some victims of the San Bernardino attack will file a legal brief in support of the U.S. government's attempt to force Apple Inc to unlock the encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the shooters, a lawyer representing the victims said on Sunday.

Stephen Larson, a former federal judge who is now in private practice, told Reuters that the victims he represents have an interest in the information which goes beyond the Justice Department's criminal investigation.

"They were targeted by terrorists, and they need to know why, how this could happen," Larson said.

If those shooters had a safety deposit box and the bank refused to attempt to open the box, claiming that opening the box would cause them to lose their customers trust, or more outrageously, that opening the box would encourage thieves to break into their bank, would you all feel the same way?

If Apple's encryption is genuinely impossible or unduly difficult to break, they should be proud to say that. Otherwise, I can't see how they can simply refuse to help

Yes I'd feel the same way. I'm not going to give up my privacy for something that may or may not help in a single terrorism case. And terrorism in general has less of a chance of killing you than being hit by lightning. If you really want to reduce risk lets make the speed limit 45 mph nationwide. That would save about 20,000 Americans per year. Way more than have ever been killed by terrorists. Sound good?

Just noting how many people have been killed by terrorists in the past doesn't necessarily give meaningful information as to what may happen in the future.

I don't need no stinkin privacy