
It’s not about this 5c - davidbarker
https://marco.org/2016/02/17/not-about-this-5c
======
mtgx
I think people are also missing the point when they say "newer iPhones
wouldn't be affected by this anyway".

I think what's more likely to happen is that in a future case, the FBI will
tell the judge that Apple has already complied with such a request before, and
now "suddenly" it doesn't want to anymore. Then the judge will probably agree
with the FBI that Apple is in the wrong here, and tell Apple "hey, do that
thing you did with the previous iPhones, too".

And what _that_ will mean is that Apple will have to make it so the Secure
Enclave _can_ be tampered with. That would affect _all_ devices, because Apple
would have to cripple every single device like that if it wants to be able to
comply with all future orders, and you can also say bye-bye to secure storage
of fingerprint data and credit card data on iPhones.

It's all about the precedent here and it's an _extremely dangerous one_. As
Apple said, too, if the FBI succeeds in getting Apple to push _malicious
updates_ to their users, who knows what kind of other similar requests will
come from the FBI - not just to decrypt local storage, but also to break end-
to-end encryption for communications and so on.

FBI's fight is literally a fight against good security.

------
makecheck
I don’t think Apple will lose.

First, there is an obvious pre-technology version of this problem: I have some
information in my brain, and only in my brain, that I refuse to tell you. You
are unable to pursuade me to cough it up. Therefore, you never get the
information.

The FBI should be forced to treat an encrypted phone as being equally opaque
and inaccessible. You can see the phone, you suspect it contains something you
want, you can’t get it. You can see my head, you suspect it contains something
you want, you can’t get it.

Besides, Apple has the money to fight forever in legal proceedings (shouldn’t
be hard...seems the FBI had to drag out an 18th-century clause to even make
the request; it should only become more comical from here on out).

Also, phones are sold everywhere in the world. You don’t even need a phone to
be a “phone” because anything with WiFi access can effectively communicate; it
doesn’t matter if the device was purchased domestically or even has the
ability to connect to cellular networks. So yeah, given these options,
terrorists will obviously decide to only purchase a Certified Backdoored U.S.
Cellphone™ for all their illegal activities, right!?

~~~
pedalpete
Just playing Devil's Advocate

Why would should your phone be treated as 'equally opaque and inaccessible' be
any different to the belongings in your house? Your office? Your car? Digital
representations are not 'thoughts', they are an encrypted form of a physical
thing (by encrypted I don't mean technological encryption, but we can't read
the 0s and 1s without a app to decipher). How would an undeveloped roll of
film be treated in a similar case? Would the FBI just go 'oops, not developed
yet, guess we can't see what is in there'. No, they'd develop the film, plain
and simple.

Just to be clear, I'm NOT suggesting we create back doors, but I don't see any
physical object containing data to be the equivelant of what is in our minds.

More troubling, what happens when we create mind-readers? That's where things
get really edgy.

~~~
makecheck
Undeveloped film doesn’t meet the definition of inaccessible if it’s sitting
on a desk in your house. It would have to be a roll of film that was buried
under a million tons of concrete — you may know exactly where it is and
suspect that its contents could be useful, yet you also know that it’s
effectively _gone_ and there’s no way it’s ever going to be retrieved.
Encrypted devices have to be treated like they’re buried forever.

