What is wrong with having a 'search warrant'?

I find it all peculiar. Is there a historical precedent for Bell, BT etc?

Yes the NSA have that massive data warehouse out in the desert which we hear stories about the power usage of and which obviously has a massive amount of data storage capabilities and the prism fibre splits at locations nationwide, however what they need in this case is data from the phone as they obviously don't have all the links they need. We don't know the details of the case of course, but the suspect is dead.

Incidentally I'm pretty sure some people knew about a lot of what the NSA was doing even before Snowden. I certainly had read bits and pieces way before his revelations, sure the size and scale and detail wasn't known, but people did already know about some of it, but it wasn't widely published and the press stayed away and didn't report on it in the mainstream until Snowden. I can remember reading bits outside of the mainstream news back in 2007, 2009 etc and there is some information in Google's search archives. When it all came out my first through was "I thought people knew this", I think what Snowden did was release all the details and for the first time we saw all the detailed paperwork, rather than just knowing it was happening, but not on what scale and not seeing the details.

What it sounds like they want to do is fundamentally weaken the security of devices. It takes 72 hours to crack an iPhone's passcode of 4-6 digits if there's no lockout I've heard. If we make it so that the FBI can break into phones, then other smart people can break into phones.

As I say, Applepay and Android's version coming to the UK this year allow purchases with the phone using the phone's security. It is also the 2nd factor for Natwest, Halifax online banking and others. Weaken this at your peril as this month hackers are breaking into Natwest customer's bank accounts and transferring money out by getting the account switched to another sim, this isn't made up, it's happening and the banks and mobile companies are working hard now to prevent this. Weakening the passcode security could mean a stolen device is used for exactly the same thing.

We're still suffering with the US's software export encryption restrictions which enforced weak encryption years ago, meaning that much of the legacy encryption is much more insecure than it should have been. That all came about because of demands from law enforcement, it never stopped any serious criminals, but it weakened the security for millions many for years, people should familiarise themselves with this --> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK

BIB is one of the reasons why the organisation I work for hasn't rolled it out yet, they a bit busy pursuing their own payment method at the moment.....though they have said they will support Apple Pay by May at the latest, though admittedly it is currently in trial by a number of staff and customers. Which falls completely in line with your own perspective.

There was a rumour that the networks were going to offer their own version as they were sick of the stop/start in the industry. EE, Vodafone and O2 have been keen on contactless technology, Three has been hesitant. I have seen the processes behind Apple Pay, how it works, simple in practice, yet complicated behind the scenes. I have been able to ascertain whether Apple gets a cut everytime their system is used, procurement won't reveal anything, anyway I'm digressing.

In this country since the advent of chip and pin in this country card fraud dropped by as much as 90%, now most of it occurs online, 13 years ago it was the other way round. If the FBI wins its case then I can see the likes of Apple and Android Pay go bye bye.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03...arted_warrant/
'"As Apple well knows, the order does not compel it to unlock other iPhones or to give the government a universal 'master key' or 'back door'."'

So, it seems we are getting conflicting messages on this incident.

Until the next court order, or the next country comes knocking.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02...lovein_claims/

The Manhattan District Attorney's office has got 175 iPhones all waiting on this court decision...


http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ell-more-crime

"They'd just send it to the NSA if they wanted access, FBI wants a legal precedent."

Says Richard Clarke, former national security advisor and head of counter-terrorism to presidents Clinton and Bush.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03...ears_into_fbi/

Quite similar to the thinking of some here earlier in the thread. Richard Clarke also points to the fact that three past national security directors as well as a former head of the NSA and other high-level security officials are "much more sympathetic" to Apple's arguments than the FBI's.

Pot kettle?

Only in America would a spying agency advocate privacy, when invading it is their chosen pastime

There's a clear difference between buying exploits and being able to intercept communications and then using the collected metadata and contents to track potential high level suspects and forcing Apple to lower the security for everyone and make the vendor of any device have to unlock it FOR law enforcement on demand. This will lead to an overall weakening of security for everyone, and not all manufacturers would be as good as Apple at writing these FBI backdoors I'm sure.

One of the functions of GCHQ and the NSA is actually securing vital communications and helping secure national infrastructure. I genuinely believe that they think what the FBI wants is a bad thing, as do that massive list of technology companies.

Now the FBI is after the iOS source code? http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/22...ne-source-code

And apparently many cases waiting of encrypted messages on WhatsApp that the DOJ wants access to.

Thank you for the patronising remark, I know very well what GCHQ is and does, my husband works in partnership with them and for them from time to time. Of course I don't have the clearance in which to see his work, nor speak about it, please in future don't treat me like I'm stupid. Fine my remark was silly but good natured, you really must come down from that perch you put yourself from time to time.

A reply like that and you go off on one. I didn't argue with you, I didn't challenge you. I thought I made a fair comment about my belief that they genuinely think what the FBI is requesting is a bad thing, and one of the reasons why. Can I suggest that you don't reply to my posts in future if you're going to go all over sensitive at the slightest thing?

Ha ha, FBI are so considerate. If it's too much work for Apple programmers, they can do it themselves. Just give them the source code and any private keys required. I'd think the best solution would be if Apple did what they are asked for in a hush-hush way, so FBI gets the data that can possibly help dismantle terrorist cells and Apple keep their image.

People still buy Android phones by the hundreds of millions across the world, despite multiple potentially devastating bugs and very little in the way of coherent solutions.
Seriously? Android is sold in the millions because it's license fee is way cheaper for low-cost carriers and cellphone manufactures. Plus, a big majority of cellphones bundle it by default. What do you suggest? That everyone buys apple products? That we all move to worse-than-trash windows phones?
Also, you don't get a device infected with no responsability from the user

I don't know the status of any company or business under the US Constitution. However I have seen many businesses defending their products in court using some rather creative methods. By law Apple doesn't have to give up the source code AFAIK, so it will be interesting to see how this will be enforced should a court grant access.

A more nuanced way of looking at it, a court can force a company to release information for example, yet it doesn't compell any particular member of the organisation to do so.

I have a feeling if the FBI does get the source code, they won't be able to do much with it, which just makes the situation look even more stupid.

There are no licence costs associated with using Android, given its open source, that is where the manufacturers get their code. Google doesn't actually make any money from Android, its the stuff underneath, such as adverts and targeted campaigns. If you visit google dashboard you would see a glimpse of the information they hold on you. Now that being said, if device makers want to run Google Play, they have to conform to a standard Google dictates. Meaning you can't just have some Google Play services, you have to have them all, music, maps, books etc.

I am happy to be corrected, the bulk of Google's earning are from adverts desktop and mobile.

So, someone stepped foward to unlock the iPhone for the FBI thus ending the case.
I have always assumed the likes of the NSA have loads of hacks to do acces phones, so are the NSA and FBI uncoperative with each other?

As interesting, there have been at least 63 other court orders compelling Apple to assist the feds.
http://newsdaily.com/2016/03/apple-g...-devices-aclu/
Confusingly, there is nothing there to say they objected in those 63 cases.

If Apple unlocked the phone, on the quiet, for the FBI, then OK.

However, if a 3rd party has broken in, and Apple don't know how, then they will feel very vulnerable. If they don't know how it was done, it will be harder for them to block this reduction in security.

I'm guessing it is now the equivalent of a publicly released jailbreak, which Apple then would normally rush to patch.

The main difference is that this has not been publicly released, leaving it an open-exploit for however long the American security agencies and whoever helped them, keep it secret. That's risky.

Everyone knows a jailbreak is relying on a limited time exploit that they can take advantage of. I don't like the idea of a government agency holding onto an exploit they can use indefinitely, or at least until the same exploit is used in a jailbreak. I also don't like the idea of third-party companies selling secret information they've discovered about how to hack iOS (or anything else) to governments.

But it would have involved Apple creating the backdoor.

And once the Genie is out of the bottle...

The genie is out of the bottle as far as the FBI are concerned.

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/30/...unlock-iphone/


"The FBI has agreed to help an Arkansas prosecutor unlock an iPhone and iPod that belong to two teenagers accused of killing a couple, reports the Associated Press. The move comes days after the FBI announced that it had unlocked the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone"

It was never about 'One phone'. I think most people knew that.

Apple will benefit from all of this in a big way. The FBI have just now gone and proved that Apple were right...they didn't just want to be able to unlock that one phone, they wanted to be able to lock any phone. This third party that the FBI are now using to unlock iPhones...Apple will now be finding out how the company did it (I suspect they already know) and they'll release an update that will sort this out and make the security of the phones even tighter than it was already. Any future lawsuit that the FBI try and bring against Apple instructing them to unlock an iPhone...well the actions of the FBI now agreeing to unlock an iPhone and Ipod of two teenagers in Arkansas shows that they will use the technology/hack to unlock any phone they want. More importantly though, the FBI cannot legally instruct a company to build a piece of software for them...they can't do that. The only leg the FBI had to stand on was that they were saying they only wanted this particular iPhone unlocked, however now they've gone and agreed to let this 3rd party company unlock an iPhone and an iPod, they won't have a leg to stand on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...i-s-phone.html

So, they could have just done it all via ebay anyway!

As I see it, what was proven here is that the phone isn't that secure after all. FBI can do it by themselves quietly from now on. And there's a solution out there for anybody. Unless this 3rd party was Apple themselves.

The phone is still more secure than a Windows or android phone. It took a third party from a foreign country to hack into it. It was not something straight forward that the FBI could do themselves from the outset.

The issue here was not about cracking the code. You can brute force a passcode lock with a machine, it just keeps on trying all the possible combinations until it finds the right one. The more complex the password is e.g 4 digits vs 6 vs alphanumerical, the longer it takes but it can be done.

The issue was if the phone was set to erase after 10 incorrect tries. The FBI wanted Apple to build a custom version of iOS that would allow them to nullify that part of the security. They would then be able to brute force their way in. If an iPhone is set to erase itself after 10 incorrect password attempts then brute forcing attacks will not work.