Philip Houska It is public knowledge about Apple that it really believes in its security, and protection for the users of its products is in the first place. The Californian giant proved it again today, when CEO Tim Cook opposed the FBI's request to breach the security of one iPhone. The United States government is practically asking Apple to create a "backdoor" to its devices. The whole case could have a major impact on the privacy of people around the world.
The whole situation was in a certain way "provoked" by the terrorist attacks in the Californian city of San Bernadino from last December, where a married couple killed fourteen people and injured two dozen more. Today, Apple expressed its condolences to all the survivors and provided all the information it could legally obtain in the case, but also strongly rejected an order by Judge Sheri Pym that the company help the FBI crack the security on the iPhone of one of the attackers.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]We must defend ourselves against this regulation.[/su_pullquote]Pym issued an order for Apple to provide software that would allow the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to access the company's iPhone of Syed Farook, one of two terrorists responsible for several human lives. Because federal prosecutors do not know the security code, they therefore require software that should enable certain "self-destruct" functions to be broken. These ensure that after several unsuccessful attempts to break into the device, all stored data is deleted.
Ideally—from the FBI's point of view—the software would operate on the principle of unlimited input of various code combinations in rapid succession until the security lock was breached. Subsequently, the investigators could obtain the necessary data from it.
Apple CEO Tim Cook finds such a regulation an overreach of the powers of the US government and in his open letter published on Apple's website he stated that this is an ideal situation for public discussion and he wants users and other people to understand what is currently at stake.
"The United States government wants us to take an unprecedented step that threatens the security of our users. We must defend against this order, as it could have consequences far beyond the current case," writes the Apple executive, who compared the creation of a special program to crack system security to "a key that will open hundreds of millions of different locks."
“The FBI may use different wording to define such a tool, but in practice it is the creation of a 'backdoor' that would allow security to be breached. Although the government says it would only use it in this case, there's no way to guarantee that," Cook continues, stressing that such software could then unlock any iPhone, which could be heavily abused. "Once created, this technique can be continually abused," he adds.
Kevin Bankston, director of digital rights at the Open Technology Institute in New America, also understands Apple's decision. If the government could force Apple to do something like that, he said, it could force anyone else, including helping the government install surveillance software on cellphones and computers.
It is still not entirely clear what investigators could find on terrorist Farook's corporate iPhone, or why such information would not be available from third parties such as Google or Facebook. However, it is likely that, thanks to this data, they want to find certain connections to other terrorists or relevant news that would help in a larger action.
The iPhone 5C, which Farook didn't have with him on the suicide mission in December but was later found, ran the latest iOS 9 operating system and was set to erase all data after ten failed unlock attempts. This is the main reason why the FBI is asking Apple for the aforementioned "unlocking" software. At the same time, however, it is important to mention that the iPhone 5C does not yet have Touch ID.
If the found iPhone had Touch ID, it would contain the most essential security element of Apple phones, the so-called Secure Enclave, which is an improved security architecture. This would make it virtually impossible for Apple and the FBI to crack the security code. However, since the iPhone 5C does not yet have Touch ID, almost all lock protections in iOS should be overwritten by a firmware update.
“While we believe the FBI's interests are right, it would be bad for the government itself to force us to create such software and implement it into our products. "In principle, we actually fear that this claim would undermine the freedom that our government protects," Cook added at the end of his letter.
According to court orders, Apple has five days to inform the court whether it understands the gravity of the situation. However, based on the words of the CEO and the entire company, their decision is final. In the coming weeks, it will be extremely interesting to see whether Apple can win the battle against the US government, which is not only about the security of a single iPhone, but practically the entire essence of protecting people's privacy.
I personally hope they don't succumb to them. Not that I have anything that needs to be encrypted, but I see no reason for the US government to hack my phone. I'm not their citizen, I'm not on their territory and I don't want anyone to interfere with my privacy like that.
That's how it would start, and in a few years we could all have mandatory tracking chips. Let them deal with the terrorists differently.
The problem here is that we have been under the microscope for a long time and Apple is using a fictitious twist on the word "freedom".
If breaking the protection should save just one life, then it's worth it....at least in my opinion.
They people often say things like "I deal with terrorists differently", but only until it affects them personally and then they deny everything they said
It's difficult, I wouldn't say that the US will be interested in terrorists who want to attack in the Czech Republic. Yes, a lot is being watched today - and that's why I see no reason to continue expanding the powers of governments at the expense of citizens' rights.
I see it similar to EET - zero effect that just buzzes and intrudes more into people's privacy.
Both will only lead to abuse and it will be sanctified by the universal safety/avoidance of blackness, which no one guarantees anyway.
See my reply to johanna
Well, I have a different opinion.
Otherwise, I don't use Google in any form, I don't use discount cards or other cards (except debit cards from the account) and I never have, I don't shop at eureka and the like, nothing goes to my emails - except for what I have set up for the purpose of discussion forums and I don't even log in to that. apart from confirmation of registration, I don't use dubious and illegal software or music, movies, etc., antivirus and other nonsense, I don't have Flash, I use passwords over 20 characters in an illogical combination. I don't steal and I'm not a terrorist, I just don't want someone to dig into what's mine.
Hereby I salute the FBI and other spies who, under the pretext of peace, sometimes commit filth for a completely different purpose.
Are you telling me you've never used google?
But yes, it used to be, when I was looking for some articles, for example - but now I haven't used it for 4 years. Of course, what you're looking for is stored by anyone other than google, but I don't like that company and so I don't use their products.
you have to be well-swept in your head
Loving Google is perhaps not an obligation. And if I don't like something, I won't use it and support it when there are many alternatives.
are you kidding? The fact that a breach can threaten the lives and freedom of millions of users around the world incl. so-called "non-free countries", you probably missed it somehow. The FBI is able to monitor almost everything that goes into and out of the phone. And the standard circus around "poor victims" and "the need to protect" is a completely useless way that the FBI tries almost every year to get rid of practically any private,
Specifically, what is the threat? If you're not doing anything wrong, there's no reason to focus on you (yo, it's that classic bullshit). Yes, it can be misused, but that is a question of whether a person is willing to sacrifice his privacy to use the service/device.
You have the freedom to return to the push-button Nokia, to stop using services such as Google search (and that you prefer to use it rather than e.g. český seznam.cz?), maps and return to the golden pages and the atlas.
When you think about it, for example, the extensive use of discount cards and portals (like Clubcard, IKEA Family, various loyalty cards from pharmacies) is a big sacrifice of your privacy (and don't tell me you don't own anything similar) in order to save a few crowns.
I can also mention, for example, Heureka. It is enough for the shop to have their script on their website (and almost everyone has it) and Heureka knows what you are buying. You don't even have to search for the product via their website and you will still receive a questionnaire from Heureka that you bought here and here and to evaluate the e-shop and the product. And all purchases can give a clear idea about a person, his weaknesses and can then be abused.
Humanity has always been attracted to some superior authority (tribal leader, king) that they trusted. In the IT world, you can take as an example how certificates and certification authorities work.
move just a few km to the east, here you will NOT DO ANYTHING BAD far away from your perception. Criticism of the regime -basa, homosexuality -basa, publication of true information -basa, intercourse with unsavory persons -argument in court.
to criticize the regime you don't have to have an encrypted phone to be detected, but just look at the history of disqus and other bullshit. And homosexuality? See my point on Heurek.
There are tools that will help you not to be so exposed, but the normal user will not use them (Eureka, Google, Amazon), the rest is up to you how you want to be exposed (posts on disqus, xichtokniha, etc.)
On the other hand, the Internet and privacy on it as such is something else, and it is something else for the company to create a backdoor itself, which can be abused, and now I'm not talking about authorities, but practically everyone (and that they would start looking for it immediately if they knew that Apple made it). The fact that there are X holes in every system is a different matter, and if the FBI had better come to people from the JB community and ask them to decrypt the phone, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal.
I typed "Polar A360 review" into the search engine and for the next week ads for smartwatches and sport testers popped up in my browser. Then it stopped because I typed "wifi weather station" into the search engine and guess what for the next week.
You see, there is no privacy on the internet, so I don't understand the hysteria. People swear that they want to break into a terrorist's encrypted cell phone (ok, it's a precedent), but at the same time they happily share photos on a face book, get discount cards, etc. Do you want privacy? Extend your own two-line and no one will eavesdrop on you.
For your experience: a friend ordered a book from Amazon for his father-in-law Everyone Poops (a children's book) and guess what he got as a contextual advertisement....
If you're not doing anything wrong, is there no reason to focus on you? .. so next time we'll have the password "noble work"? You are not doing anything wrong from whose point of view? different organizations have different opinions on what is and isn't bad .. and this is the road to hell ..
sad when you only focus on one thing at the beginning and ignore the other arguments ….
I don't see a reason, not even a terrorist attack, why the US government should have a backdoor on phones all over the world and to excuse it by saying that there is no freedom is short-sighted, because every allowed rein will eventually come back to us like a boomerang...
If they found contacts of other like-minded perverted muslims or other bastards in that unlocked iPhone, then I wouldn't mind at all. It should be done on a case-by-case basis. In this case, definitely enable decryption, in another case, maybe not. Who are we protecting? Friends of those murderers? If any of them throw a party again, I'd blame it on Apple. There are 6 million security cameras in England, what freedom are we playing with here.
If you care about anyone being able to hack into your phone at any time, you don't need to put a password on it, but most people don't care about that.
one has to be very stupid to write "In this case decryption must be allowed, in another maybe not." After all, once you create that possibility, it will be difficult to determine who can use it and when. That's like giving the keys to your apartment to your neighbors, saying that they can't come to you without your permission and that you decide based on their intentions. And then you will be terribly surprised that someone robbed you. It's exactly the same nonsense and it amazes me that even though they explain in the article that once they create the backdoor they will no longer have control over it and will not be able to turn it off at all, there will still be some idiot who will come up with total bullshit and he still brags about it in the discussion
Or how could you limit when and who can decrypt the phone? That is, how do you even want to treat it so that your boss or wife, for example, cannot do it if you de facto cancel the basic security?
but the article is not really about the fact that ANYONE could hack into anyone's phone
What keys and tools do you think your wife or the FBI chief will use? lol
and as for the security of the iPhone, it has been proven and tested that the fingerprint security can be easily copied with the help of a scanner and a little chemistry, so anyone who gets your fingerprint and a little bit of the phone will get there... and you don't mind this? :]
I didn't want to respond to Kokot Krobot. I'm glad at least someone understood my post. I was in no way talking about the fact that the FBI, CIA, DEA or KGB should automatically receive a universal decryption tool from Apple. My thinking was that it would work the same way as, say, approving wiretaps or approving a search warrant. The court would simply decide on a specific device on a case-by-case basis. If he found enough reasons to break the protection, Apple would crack it and hand over the data to the FBI. The FBI wouldn't decipher it themselves. The court would probably approve of those assassins. Similar to a court approving a house search and confiscation of a convicted pedophile's computer. How does the Krobot look at this? Is the confiscation of a pedophile's computer an attack on the personal freedom of an ordinary person? I say no, and if it helps uncover a network of pedophiles, I'll be happy. Otherwise, I understand Tim Cook's arguments. Recently, the so-called protection of personal data has become a great PR topic. Android has at least caught up to iOS. Nothing lags in the case of flagships, in terms of design there are far more beautiful phones among androids. The apps are also up to par. The issue of privacy is probably the last area where iOS may have a bit of an upper hand. Although even the most secure phone in the world won't help a stupid user. So I get it.
God, and we're still talking about the fact that someone is totally licked and didn't read the article.
You have absolutely failed to notice that the only reason the FBI doesn't have the data is because it can't, it just can't, not even apple itself can get the data from the iPhone. As soon as they create this option (backdoor as they call it everywhere), it is really impossible for the FBI to have to ask for it from Apple itself. Or rather, why would she ask for it when she can decipher the data herself, right? But I'm glad to have been called a cocoon, although your opinion is based on the naive notion that everyone in the world acts only in the best interest. Apple has made it clear that it understands this particular case but will not create a backdoor that could be easily exploited later, that's what the whole defense is about. If this single case could be decided without affecting the other iPhones, I would also agree, but that's not how security policy really works. Either there is a hole or there isn't.
I really have no idea what kind of world you live in or what kind of apprentice you have, but these days it is really impossible to prohibit or prevent the security forces from using this back door, even if it is not officially intended for them. Especially if she forces them herself.
Your comparison with a pedophile is pretty lame on both legs, the FBI doesn't need to beg anyone when seizing a computer, regardless of the fact that no one is interested in seizing that iPhone, let the FBI do it. However, if you think it's perfectly fine for a backdoor to be added across the board to all iPhones in the world because of one assassin, then deal with it with your phone. If you want to compare it exactly, the FBI would have to force MS to program something like a "password reset" into Win, which MS and the security forces will be able to use as needed. If you believe that the government will use this only in extreme cases, then that is also your problem, but the experience of recent years speaks clearly - the government, and especially the one in the USA, collects private data of users without their knowledge, without reason and without any court order. There have been enough of those affairs, regardless of the fact that the US government itself has an office that deals with data collection full-time.
And about the print, you probably watch a lot of TV, because it is really not possible to get a complete print in good quality and without any damage from every glass that the person touches, this has already been discussed many times.
And again I appeal to your technical education, it really is not possible to create a way to break the security and then decide who can and cannot use this backdoor, it will always work on decency, whether the person in question will follow this recommendation. I don't even have to remind you of the impact it would have if a hacker group got hold of this backdoor. The analogy to a lock and key is quite accurate, either the lock simply cannot be bypassed or an official path will be created for which you will have to have court permission and then at night you can only hope that the thief will not allow you to unlock the door and steal it without a court order your.
Well, McAfee will crack them in 3 weeks. He offered it himself, and if he fails, he will eat the shoe. So we'll see.
it can be seen that you still do not understand anything, it wants to read and think
I guess I'll have to read what actually happened, but why doesn't the FBI use it, case closed :-)
It may also depend on who will have more power. Elected governments or corporations?
It's about the fact that governments want to have unlimited access to everything and the "fight against terrorism" is just a cover - let them stop supporting weapons and constantly meddling in something and it will get better. But the biggest business is controlled war - and this must be secretly supported in order to be able to fight against it "legally" and at the same time get more information - because these are more valuable than gold today.
This is not to say that Apple is holy.
The FBI, CIA, and other agencies have been trying to crack the iPhone's security ever since its inception. The FBI is not at all about data from one specific iPhone, but about access to iOS. Apple provided instructions on how to use iCloud backups and get data from the attacker's iPhone. But that didn't suit the FBI, so it deliberately restarted the iCloud password, as it admitted. Now he is not demanding data from Apple, but a new firmware, or rather a special version of iOS that would not include data deletion after 10 attempts and other security measures.
If the FBI was as much about saving people's lives as many here claim, they would use iCloud backups and not reset the password. In addition, the investigators do not hide the fact that they have other iPhones that they would like to unlock - that is why the court ordered Apple to provide the software and not just obtain the data.