I’m positive this is being used as a litmus test, however, as the request was written, the FBI is asking that Apple open this one device. Sadly, doing so will create precedent for the FBI and every other alphabet agency to demand this access in the future. It’s a slippery slope of chicken and egg proportions.
Not that I have any facts to contradict you Adam Black but you come across as someone peddling innuendo as well, perhaps even a paid troll.. #justsayin .. Show your proof..
I shared this week’s I Cringely post, not that I think it’s correct, but it is an interesting theory.
My main disagreement is that I think Cringely is giving far too much credit in assuming Obama is hoping to cause a privacy friendly Supreme Court decision..
I don’t quite understand — from what I’ve heard, the US government wants Apple to add a back door to the phone-encryption support in future versions of iOS. How can that possibly help with a past incident?
I have no idea what it is you doubt, or can’t find in a simple google search. If the FBI had Apples signed Digital key they could do this themselves.
If they don’t , the firmware will be locked to this device only. Like all of them. Snowden was implying this without saying it. That’s what innuendo is.
I on the other hand have spoken plainly.
If you can’t google the details, I have a recent post in my stream with links to articles.
I don’t know where one gets one of these jobs as a “paid troll”. If you think my comments are worth me getting paid, please teach me how!! How much? I’m poor.
David Megginson Its not a backdoor. Apple was employing a metaphor for PR purposes. They said it was ” equivalent to a back door”.
Which is sort of like a man saying he is ‘equivalent to being pregnant ‘ . Which means hes not. Its a metaphor.
And its one I think does damage to public education over crypto, since the FBI genuinely does want backdoors in encryption! This nonsense from Apple is muddying the waters, and will hurt public support to stop real backdoors.
This is what Apple wrote «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. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.»
I find this puzzling — if the data is properly encrypted, then a new version of iOS shouldn’t be able to recover it; if a new iOS version can recover it, then there’s already a backdoor that Apple’s simply claiming not to use right now, and this statement is false: «We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.»
James Lamb — Thanks — that helps a lot. Why wouldn’t the FBI just make a bitwise image of the (encrypted) storage and keep working on that? It seems like a remarkably silly request.
The word “screw-up” is too subjective to debate, but the article actually manages to make them look worse.
Paraphrase: _«sure, if we hadn’t reset the password we would have had most of the data off the phone at the next automated backup, but there’s a bit of stuff on the phone that doesn’t get backed up and we’d like that, too, so it wasn’t a “screw-up” … OK?»_
Never Stop Posting 
So… the request has little do do with the specific case?
LikeLike
Apparently so. They just want to force this into becoming routine.
LikeLike
I’m positive this is being used as a litmus test, however, as the request was written, the FBI is asking that Apple open this one device. Sadly, doing so will create precedent for the FBI and every other alphabet agency to demand this access in the future. It’s a slippery slope of chicken and egg proportions.
LikeLike
1) Metadata. Not actual data
2) Yes. Its dark 6 weeks on. That’s the issue. The FBI screwed up by resetting the password, which blocked the auto back up.
3) More metadata. He’s a bit obsessed over it
4) FBI destroyed evidence?
Got proof?
5) Please enlighten us Mr Snowden. Why the bullshit innuendo?
LikeLike
Jason ON Companies have unlocked devices before. This isn’t the Litmus test apple is making it out to be.
LikeLike
Not that I have any facts to contradict you Adam Black but you come across as someone peddling innuendo as well, perhaps even a paid troll.. #justsayin .. Show your proof..
LikeLike
I shared this week’s I Cringely post, not that I think it’s correct, but it is an interesting theory.
My main disagreement is that I think Cringely is giving far too much credit in assuming Obama is hoping to cause a privacy friendly Supreme Court decision..
LikeLike
I don’t quite understand — from what I’ve heard, the US government wants Apple to add a back door to the phone-encryption support in future versions of iOS. How can that possibly help with a past incident?
LikeLike
Gord Wait “proof” is for mathematicians.
I’m not one.
I have no idea what it is you doubt, or can’t find in a simple google search. If the FBI had Apples signed Digital key they could do this themselves.
If they don’t , the firmware will be locked to this device only. Like all of them. Snowden was implying this without saying it. That’s what innuendo is.
I on the other hand have spoken plainly.
If you can’t google the details, I have a recent post in my stream with links to articles.
I don’t know where one gets one of these jobs as a “paid troll”. If you think my comments are worth me getting paid, please teach me how!! How much? I’m poor.
David Megginson Its not a backdoor. Apple was employing a metaphor for PR purposes. They said it was ” equivalent to a back door”.
Which is sort of like a man saying he is ‘equivalent to being pregnant ‘ . Which means hes not. Its a metaphor.
And its one I think does damage to public education over crypto, since the FBI genuinely does want backdoors in encryption! This nonsense from Apple is muddying the waters, and will hurt public support to stop real backdoors.
LikeLike
This is what Apple wrote «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. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.»
I find this puzzling — if the data is properly encrypted, then a new version of iOS shouldn’t be able to recover it; if a new iOS version can recover it, then there’s already a backdoor that Apple’s simply claiming not to use right now, and this statement is false: «We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.»
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
LikeLike
It might be helpful to review some technical details about what’s being asked.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical-perspective-apple-iphone-case
LikeLike
James Lamb — Thanks — that helps a lot. Why wouldn’t the FBI just make a bitwise image of the (encrypted) storage and keep working on that? It seems like a remarkably silly request.
LikeLike
How would the FBI get a copy of that storage?
I suppose they could disassemble the phone and get at the flash memory chip..
LikeLike
This is another perspective of what’s being asked of Apple by the FBI:
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
LikeLike
Here’s an article giving the FBI’s side:
http://recode.net/2016/02/21/fbi-says-resetting-san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-password-not-a-screwup/
LikeLike
The word “screw-up” is too subjective to debate, but the article actually manages to make them look worse.
Paraphrase: _«sure, if we hadn’t reset the password we would have had most of the data off the phone at the next automated backup, but there’s a bit of stuff on the phone that doesn’t get backed up and we’d like that, too, so it wasn’t a “screw-up” … OK?»_
LikeLike