along with a big fucking NO ... WASHINGTON — Apple <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/apple_computer_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org> engineers have begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/iphone/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> using methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts.
If Apple succeeds in upgrading its security — and experts say it almost surely will — the company will create a significant technical challenge for law enforcement agencies, even if the Obama administration wins its fight over access to data stored on an iPhone used by one of the killers in last year’s San Bernardino, Calif., rampage. If the Federal Bureau of Investigation <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org> wanted to get into a phone in the future, it would need a new way to do so. That would most likely prompt a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple. The only way out of this scenario, experts say, is for Congress to get involved. Federal wiretapping laws require traditional phone carriers to make their data accessible to law enforcement agencies. But tech companies like Apple and Google are not covered, and they have strongly resisted legislation that would place similar requirements on them. “We are in for an arms race unless and until Congress decides to clarify who has what obligations in situations like this,” said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Companies have always searched for software bugs and patched holes to keep their code secure from hackers. But since the revelations of government surveillance made by Edward J. Snowden, companies have been retooling their products to protect against government intrusion. For Apple, security is also a global marketing strategy. New security measures would not only help the company in its fight with the government, but also reassure investors and customers. “For all of those people who want to have a voice but they’re afraid, we are standing up, and we are standing up for our customers because protecting them we view as our job,” Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, said on Wednesday in an interview with ABC News. Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-3>Related Coverage Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-3>RELATED COVERAGE - Justice Department Calls Apple’s Refusal to Unlock iPhone a ‘Marketing Strategy’FEB. 19, 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/business/justice-department-calls-apples-refusal-to-unlock-iphone-a-marketing-strategy.html> - Apple Faces U.S. Demand to Unlock 9 More iPhonesFEB. 23, 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/technology/justice-department-wants-apple-to-unlock-nine-more-iphones.html> - Apple Sees Value in Its Stand to Protect SecurityFEB. 20, 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-value-in-privacy-vow.html> - Public Split Between Concern Over Terrorism and PrivacyFEB. 18, 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/public-split-between-concern-over-terrorism-and-privacy.html> - Times Readers Weigh In on the Apple DebateFEB. 18, 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/apple-fbi-reaction.html> - Narrow Focus May Aid F.B.I. in Apple CaseFEB. 22, 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/technology/apple-unlock-iphone-san-bernardino.html> The company first raised the prospect of a security update last week in a phone call with reporters, who asked why the company would allow firmware — the software at the heart of the iPhone — to be modified without requiring a user password. One senior executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity, replied that it was safe to bet that security would continue to improve. Separately, a person close to the company, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed this week that Apple engineers had begun work on a solution even before the San Bernardino attack. A company spokeswoman declined to comment on what she called rumors and speculation. Conversation Starters <http://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/conversation-starters>Provocative looks at pressing issues. - ‘black-ish’ Show Runner Kenya Barris on Police Brutality and ‘The Cosby Show’FEB 24 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/arts/television/blackish-kenya-barris-police-brutality-episode.html?rref=collection%2Fspotlightcollection%2FConversation%20Starters> - Democrats Press G.O.P. to Consider a Supreme Court PickFEB 24 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/democrats-press-gop-to-consider-a-supreme-court-pick.html?rref=collection%2Fspotlightcollection%2FConversation%20Starters> - Poorest Areas Have Missed Out on Boons of Recovery, Study FindsFEB 24 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/business/economy/poorest-areas-have-missed-out-on-boons-of-recovery-study-finds.html?rref=collection%2Fspotlightcollection%2FConversation%20Starters> - Syrian Minister’s Wife Named to Assess Mental Health of the DisplacedFEB 24 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/middleeast/syrian-ministers-wife-named-to-assess-mental-health-of-the-displaced.html?rref=collection%2Fspotlightcollection%2FConversation%20Starters> - Struggle Over Supreme Court Pick Enters a New Level of ‘Hardball Politics’FEB 24 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/struggle-over-supreme-court-pick-enters-a-new-level-of-hardball-politics.html?rref=collection%2Fspotlightcollection%2FConversation%20Starters> See More » <http://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/conversation-starters> Independent experts say they have held informal conversations with Apple engineers over the last week about the vulnerability. Exactly how Apple will address the issue is unclear. Security experts who have been studying Apple’s phone security say it is technically possible to fix. Advertisement Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-4> “There are probably 50 different ideas we have all sent to Apple,” said Jonathan Zdziarski, a security researcher. Apple built its recent operating systems to protect customer information. As Mr. <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/>Cook wrote in a recent letter <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/> to customers, “We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.” But there is a catch. Each iPhone has a built-in troubleshooting system that lets the company update the system software without the need for a user to enter a passcode. Apple designed that feature to make it easier to repair malfunctioning phones. In the San Bernardino case, the F.B.I. wants to exploit that troubleshooting system by forcing Apple to write and install new software that strips away several security features, making it much easier for the government to hack into the phone. The phone in that case is an old model, but experts andformer Apple employees <https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699881253189853184> say that a similar approach could also be used to alter software on newer phones. That is the vulnerability Apple is working to fix. Apple regularly publishes security updates and gives credit to researchers who hunt for bugs in the company’s software. “Usually, bug reports come in an email saying, ‘Dear Apple Security, we’ve discovered a flaw in your product,’ ” said Chris Soghoian, a technology analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union. “This bug report has come in the form of a court order.” Photo James B. Comey Jr., director of the F.B.I., said the government is not seeking a skeleton key to iPhones. CreditDrew Angerer for The New York Times The court order to which Mr. Soghoian referred was issued last week by a federal judge magistrate, and tells Apple to write and install the code sought by the F.B.I. Apple has promised to challenge that order. Its lawyers have until Friday to file its opposition in court. Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-6>RECENT COMMENTS Michael 2 minutes ago Terrorists and criminals will line up to buy iPhones. Few people use a landline anymore so little can be gained from warrants ordering... Michael 2 minutes ago And this is one of the many reasons why I trust Apple and continue to buy and use their products, especially in an era when Americans vote... njglea 3 minutes ago So BIG Brother Apple thinks they are superior to OUR government and wants to protect us? Who is going to protect US from THEM and their... - SEE ALL COMMENTS - WRITE A COMMENT In many ways, Apple’s response continues a trend that has persisted in Silicon Valley since Mr. Snowden’s revelations. Yahoo, for instance, left its email service unencrypted for years. After Mr. Snowden revealed the National Security Agency surveillance, the company quickly announced plans to encrypt email. Google similarly moved to fix a vulnerability that the government was using to hack into company data centers. Apple’s showdown with the Justice Department is different in one important way. Now that the government has tried to force Apple to hack its own code, security officials say, the company must view itself as the vulnerability. “This is the first time that Apple has been included in their own threat model,” Mr. Zdziarski said. “I don’t think Apple ever considered becoming a compelled arm of the government.” The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., signaled this week that he expected Apple to change its security, saying that the phone-cracking tool the government sought in the San Bernardino case was “increasingly obsolete.” He said that supported the government’s argument that it was not seeking a skeleton key to hack into all iPhones. Apple, though, says the case could set a precedent for forcing company engineers to write code to help the government break into any iPhone. “The U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create,” Mr. Cook said in his letter. Advertisement Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-8> Advertisement Continue reading the main story <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-8> The heated back-and-forth between the government and technology companies is, at least in part, a function of the Obama administration’s strategy. The White House has said it will not ask Congress to pass a law requiring tech companies to give the F.B.I. a way to gain access to customer data. That has left the Justice Department to fight for access one phone at a time, in court cases that often go unnoticed. CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?_r=0#story-continues-9> 731COMMENTS While it is generally accepted that Silicon Valley’s tech giants can outgun the government in a technical fight, the companies do face one important limitation. Security features often come at the expense of making products slower or clunkier. Apple’s brand is built around creating products that are sleek and intuitive. A security solution that defeats the F.B.I. is unworkable if it frustrates consumers. One of the impediments to encrypting all the data in Apple’s iCloud servers, for instance, has been finding a way to ensure that customers can easily retrieve and recover photos and other information stored there. “Telling a member of the public that they’re going to lose all the family photos they’ve ever taken because they forgot their password is a really tough sell,” Mr. Soghoian said. “A company wants to sell products to the public.” On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 8:26:37 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-fbi-privacy-security/ > Massaging the Message > > Throughout the ongoing fight between Apple and the FBI over custom access > to an iPhone used by one of the two terrorists who killed 14 people in San > Bernardino, the government has framed the argument as a simple trade-off: > You must surrender a little privacy if you want more security. The scales > don’t balance quite so neatly, though; there’s nothing secure about giving > the FBI their way. Still, it’s been an effective way for the government to > win over the public, on its way to trying to win over the courts. > > FBI director James Comey most recently pushed the dichotomy in an op-ed > <https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead> > > for Lawfare. “We have awesome new technology that creates a serious tension > between two values we all treasure: privacy and safety,” he writes. “That > tension should not be resolved by corporations that sell stuff for a > living. It also should not be resolved by the FBI, which investigates for a > living.” > > It also should not be framed as an absolute. Doing so presents the issue > to the American public in a way that makes the FBI’s request palatable > while obfuscating the potentially dangerous precedent it would represent. > Added Insecurities > > The case against the FBI’s insistence that it is not asking for all that > much has been made repeatedly, both here > <http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/> > > and elsewhere > <https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/fbi-says-apple-court-order-is-narrow-but-other-law-enforcers-hungry-to-exploit-it/>. > > In fact, a team of researchers offered a version of it last year when they > published the prescient paper “Keys Under Doormats > <http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=8>.” > > [.pdf] > > “As computer scientists with extensive security and systems experience, we > believe that law enforcement has failed to account for the risks inherent > in exceptional access systems,” the group wrote in July. The risks of that > type of backdoor include adding complexity to an already intricate system > that’s difficult keep secure, and the impossibility of creating access that > would be used solely by the FBI. Any backdoor accessible to law enforcement > can and also would be used by a hacker for any number of nefarious reasons. > > “It would be great if we could make a backdoor that only the FBI could > walk through,” says Nate Cardozo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier > Foundation. “But that doesn’t exist. And literally every single > mathematician, cryptographer, and computer scientist who’s looked at it has > agreed.” > > The current Apple case doesn’t involve a backdoor in the traditional > sense. The FBI is asking Apple to create a tool that would circumvent a > feature that deletes all of the information on the phone after 10 failed > password attempts. “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a > master key loose on the land,” Comey wrote. But the authority it would > grant the FBI could be used again across a range of scenarios that weaken > our privacy, sure, but our security as well. > > “The precedent isn’t that they unlock one phone,” says Jake Williams, CEO > of Rendition Infosec. “There’s no reason down the road they can’t go to > Microsoft, or anyone else, for that matter, to create some intentionally > vulnerable applications.” In the scenario Williams envisions, the FBI could > force Microsoft to send out a malicious Windows update to any machine > connected to a specific IP address, like the Wi-Fi at a coffee shop. > > In truth, you don’t need to look as far ahead as that. In a newly unsealed > court brief > <https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/new-court-filing-reveals-apple-faces-12-other-requests-to-break-into-locked-iphones/>, > > Apple lawyer Marc Zwillinger reveals that the company has challenged at > least a dozen recent FBI requests to unlock iPhones by various means. In > some cases, Apple could extract the requested data without creating a new > tool. In four instances cited in the brief, though, the iPhones in question > run iOS 8 or later, the operating system a new tool would be designed to > circumvent. > > Not only, therefore, is this not just about “this one phone,” as the FBI > has insisted. It’s not even about hypothetical future cases. The ruling, or > at least the precedent it sets, could assist the government in at least > *four* instances Apple is currently fighting. It also could apply beyond > our borders, in countries with far governments that might have even more > nefarious things in mind. > > “If China [today] demanded that Apple put in a backdoor, Apple would say > no,” says Cardozo, adding that the company could threaten to pull its > products from the market, creating a public relations nightmare for the > Chinese government. “That equation changes once Apple accedes to an FBI > order. If the FBI can compel Apple to do it, and it’s publicly known that > Apple has given the FBI this key, then China has a very different calculus > … The PR around a Chinese demand gets a lot better for China, and a whole > hell of a lot worse for Apple.” > > And increasingly, it’s the PR that matters. > > What’s important to understand about the San Bernadino iPhone case is that > its very existence is a public relations maneuver. > > “The FBI chose this case very, very carefully,” says Cardozo, who argues > that law enforcement sees it as the “perfect case” for litigating the issue > in the absence of backdoor-friendly legislation from President Obama and > Congress. That it’s a terrorism case, in particular, spurs sympathies to > align with law enforcement, regardless of how much benefit the FBI would > actually get from the access it has requested. > > “I think if the FBI said hey, we want to architect backdoors into devices > so that we can get access to whatever we need, whenever we need it—*need* > being a relative term there—I think the public in general would not be for > that,” says Williams. > > So far, buoyed by the specter of terrorism and the false duality of > privacy and security, the public in general is buying what the FBI is > selling. A recent Pew Research poll > <http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/> > > found that 51 percent of Americans think Apple “Should unlock the iPhone to > assist the ongoing FBI investigation,” while 38 percent say Apple should > not. (The rest had no opinion.) Even the survey itself shows how effective > the FBI’s messaging has been. Apple is not being asked to unlock an iPhone; > it’s being asked to create software that would help the FBI unlock it. > After which, there’s every reason to expect Apple and every other tech > company will be asked to create more software that could be used to > diminish even more civil liberties. > > At the same time, the FBI has managed to attack Apple’s posture of > altruism, saying in a recent court filing that the company’s resistance was > rooted in “its concern for its business model and public brand marketing > strategy,” not larger security concerns. > > It’s an odd construction in that it assumes the two are mutually > exclusive. Security has long been part of Apple’s sales pitch, but that > doesn’t diminish its importance. > > For its part, Apple has posted both a strident defense > <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/> of its opposition and an FAQ > <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/> for customers, which > reiterate largely the same points: That compliance would open the door to a > host of security and privacy oversteps. It has also reached out directly > <http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-says-the-government-bungled-its-chance-to-hack-that-iphone/> > > to the press, both to clarify its position and embarrass its opponent. > > In many ways, Apple’s is the tougher sell, because the way computer > security works means that it has to be absolute. Any precedent that says a > company can be compelled to weaken its security will have injurious > consequences, full stop. There are no shades of grey, no matter what > politicians and law enforcement might suggest. > > “You hear over and over and over again, from the pro-backdoor camp, that > we need to strike a balance, we need to find a compromise,” says Cardozo. > “That doesn’t work. Math doesn’t work like that. Computer security doesn’t > work like that … It’s kind of like climate change. There are entrenched > political interests on one side of a ‘debate,’ and on the other side is the > unanimous scientific and technical community.” > The Void of Legislation > > Ultimately, the reason this debate is happening at all is that there’s no > legislative guidance around encryption. The All Writs Act that the FBI has > cited dates to 1798, and even the most recent supporting precedent dates to > 1977 > <http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-writ-precedent-in-the-apple-case>. > > Until Congress acts, the FBI will continue to attempt to gain access > through the courts. > > “These issues will be decided in Congress,” Bill Gates said in a recent > Bloomberg TV interview > <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute>, > > attempting to clarify previous comments that had been wrongly interpreted > as him favoring the FBI. “You don’t want to just take the minute after a > terrorist event and swing that direction, nor do you want to swing away > from government access when you get some abuse being revealed. You want to > strike that balance.” > > That resolution may be forthcoming. In an open letter to Comey today, US > Representative Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, asked that the FBI withdraw > its case in favor of letting the legislative branch do its job. “We should > all take a breath and talk to each other,” he writes, echoing Comey’s call > that Americans “take a deep breath” about the debate, “rather than use a > lawsuit to circumvent the critical and necessary policy discussions.” > > Lieu, one of four sitting federal lawmakers with a computer science > degree, has dabbled in encryption legislation before, having recently > proposed > a bill <http://www.wired.com/2016/02/encrypt-act-2016/> that would > preempt states from haphazardly passing their own anti-encryption laws. At > the time, he was hesitant about introducing legislation that would have a > broader impact, but his stance appears to have possibly evolved. > > “The precedent set in this case would essentially enact a policy proposal > to weaken encryption that has not yet gained traction in Congress and was > previously rejected by the White House,” says Lieu. “Let Congress, > stakeholders, and the American people debate and resolve these difficult > issues, not unelected judges based on conflicting interpretations of a law > passed 87 years before Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.” > > And when those debates do happen, let’s also make sure they’re not framed > by misleading dichotomies like “privacy versus security.” We can’t give up > one without presenting a grave threat to the other. > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcmMydDdpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NTYzNTY3MTA-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaXB2ajkzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1NjM1NjcxMQ--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
