Forcing US companies to make insecure products makes the other 96 % of the world's population aware that US products are mandated to be insecure by design.
On a serious note, I don't fancy Apple either. (Although I once was a card carrying fanboy of the old Apple in the 80's and 90's.)
I am inclined to believe that it is already too late. The escalating effect is sure to come to the detriment of us all, as you say. Whether Apple wins or loses this one. It will come up again. This battle with the clipper chip and mandatory weak encryption with a government key already happened in the 90's. Now the government wants more. Much more.
Sorry to sound like a pessimist. But I think I am actually a realist.
I realize that you are making fun of the government for having abysmally poor security.
This kind of incompetence is not reserved to government.
AT&T for example, had a web site that would show you your information. If you increased or decreased a number in the address bar by typing over it, you could see another customer's information. In fact, you could easily get information for hundreds or thousands of customers.
If you were to tell anyone of this bad security -- then YOU ARE THE CRIMINAL!!!
EVEN IF what you describe were true, and it would not be. The FIB would grab that new firmware at gunpoint under color of law the first chance it gets.
But even if, then this simply becomes the camel's nose under the tent. Or the foot in the door.
All law enforcement agencies will now want a revolving door into Apple for an endless stream of 'break into this iPhone' demands.
Of course, with the newest phone hardware this is simply impossible. What makes this case more interesting is that this is an older iPhone.
If you read the link about how iOS security works, at least in the latest phones, newer than this present case, a data wipe simply consists of the Secure Enclave destroying the decryption key. No need to wipe anything. It's all just a bunch of encrypted data that statistically resembles random noise. Good luck decrypting it without the key.
What the FBI wants here is to get hold of the key. But wouldn't it be easier to simply torture the defendant? It seems the court could simply order that, it is more likely to be effective, and would cost significantly less. And it is the in accordance with the values of the Untied Police States of America.
Who would pay for this new software development? Apple? The Taxpayers?
Will Apple be compensated for the opportunity cost of lost time to market? What if Apple were to miss a major market opportunity because they have to divert significant resources into a development effort? Would Apple be compensated for that?
Can the court require the FBI to post a several billion dollar bond to cover this possibility?
Or maybe the FBI can use their own resources to recruit and employ the developers who would do this work? (Oh, yeah, a government run software development project. Those always work out well.)
Is there some standard dollar amount to how high a barrier Apple should be required to jump over? What if Apple designs a device where the cost to break into it is absurdly high? Why should Apple be considered more capable of breaking it than our good fiends at the NSA? [sic]
In this present case, is the cost to absurdly high to require Apple to comply with this order without compensation?
The ultimate question: can the government require that nobody is allowed to build devices that are secure enough that it is infeasible to break into them? Or should the world be aware that US devices are mandated to be insecure by design?
Gibson's lack of a basic understanding of the meaning of spam might simply reflect his lack of basic understanding of the internet. Also perhaps it reflects his lack of basic understanding of the term unsolicited. Or the term bulk. Could it possibly reflect even a lack of understanding of the practice of law? Everyone would have to draw their own conclusions from the available evidence.
If you publish something in a newspaper, wouldn't it only be considered published that one time. If I find that newspaper in the stacks of my public library fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again fifty years later?
If you publish a book, and I find it in a public library or a bookstore fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again?
If you publish something on the intarweb tubes, and someone reads if fifty days later, does that now mean it was published again?
A patent gives you a monopoly. To protect your right to sell the patented thing.
Is Lexmark somehow claiming that their INK is special in some way? (Not the cartridge. Not the mechanism. Not the printer. But the INK ITSELF.)
If yes, then these third party ink manufacturers are not infringing an ink patent, because their ink is different.
If no, then what Lexmark is doing is misusing a patent on some other mechanism to prevent other parties, and the end user from engaging in their own private transaction to buy/sell ink for the printer the customer owns. Or said differently, Lexmark is misusing a patent monopoly on some mechanism to create another monopoly that they should not rightfully have on getting a different kind of ink into the printer.
It could be argued that since the device can receive over the air (OTA) updates, that Apple can subvert the device, even if it cannot break the encryption.
Apple could develop (at whose expense?) an OTA update that collects the password the next time the user unlocks the encryption.
But can Apple be compelled to develop this? Even if the government pays, it cannot pay Apple for the lost opportunity cost of diverting resources from developing new products. Money cannot make up for time-to-market.
In this situation, Apple could selectively deploy such an OTA update to a single target. But then this is just the camel's nose under the tent, or the foot in the door.
The real question we're dancing around by suggesting that Apple COULD defeat encryption by expending tremendous resources are really these:
Should Apple (and everyone else) be LEGALLY BARRED from building a secure product?
Even though there may be no such law in writing. The effect becomes just the same. If you can, through tremendous cost and effort, manage to defeat encryption, then you should be required to do so at the government's mere whim and slightest wish.
Other questions:
Can Apple (and anyone else) be COMPELLED to expend tremendous resources to break into a device? At whose expense? Will all of their expenses be compensated, including a lost market because Apple diverted resources away from product development? Is there some level of cost (exact dollar value please) at which Apple is no longer required to break into a device? What if Apple deliberately engineers a device to ensure that the cost to break in will exceed this threshold?
And finally a lesson for those concerned with privacy. Once your phone has been seized, they may not be able to unlock it, but once the bad guys return it to you, it may have been compromised with software such that your next successful unlock of the device will open it up for them to rummage through fishing for, or to manufacture evidence.
Maybe the lesson SME is giving, and one we should not be quick to thank them for, is a lesson along with a demonstration of how to abuse copyright.
Hey future lawyers: the real lesson here is not on the contents of that lecture you can no longer see, but in how quickly and easily we can take down anything we want, any time, any where. Tomorrow's lesson will be that it is not even necessary to use a clip of Sony's music. Even a nature recording can be taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown.
Future lawyers, there is a large market for your services to censor all sorts of things. Copyright should be the natural tool you think of when it comes to censorship.
On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It
Re:
On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It
Re: Re: Let me google that for you....
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re: Re: Re:
Forcing US companies to make insecure products makes the other 96 % of the world's population aware that US products are mandated to be insecure by design.
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re: UB Trippin', DoJ
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re: It all starts with just one...
I am inclined to believe that it is already too late. The escalating effect is sure to come to the detriment of us all, as you say. Whether Apple wins or loses this one. It will come up again. This battle with the clipper chip and mandatory weak encryption with a government key already happened in the 90's. Now the government wants more. Much more.
Sorry to sound like a pessimist. But I think I am actually a realist.
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re: It all starts with just one...
You are failing to see the big picture here.
Piracy!!!
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re: Re:
This kind of incompetence is not reserved to government.
AT&T for example, had a web site that would show you your information. If you increased or decreased a number in the address bar by typing over it, you could see another customer's information. In fact, you could easily get information for hundreds or thousands of customers.
If you were to tell anyone of this bad security -- then YOU ARE THE CRIMINAL!!!
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re:
But even if, then this simply becomes the camel's nose under the tent. Or the foot in the door.
All law enforcement agencies will now want a revolving door into Apple for an endless stream of 'break into this iPhone' demands.
Of course, with the newest phone hardware this is simply impossible. What makes this case more interesting is that this is an older iPhone.
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Re: Two sides to this for Apple
What the FBI wants here is to get hold of the key. But wouldn't it be easier to simply torture the defendant? It seems the court could simply order that, it is more likely to be effective, and would cost significantly less. And it is the in accordance with the values of the Untied Police States of America.
On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
Unduly Burdensome
Will Apple be compensated for the opportunity cost of lost time to market? What if Apple were to miss a major market opportunity because they have to divert significant resources into a development effort? Would Apple be compensated for that?
Can the court require the FBI to post a several billion dollar bond to cover this possibility?
Or maybe the FBI can use their own resources to recruit and employ the developers who would do this work? (Oh, yeah, a government run software development project. Those always work out well.)
Is there some standard dollar amount to how high a barrier Apple should be required to jump over? What if Apple designs a device where the cost to break into it is absurdly high? Why should Apple be considered more capable of breaking it than our good fiends at the NSA? [sic]
In this present case, is the cost to absurdly high to require Apple to comply with this order without compensation?
The ultimate question: can the government require that nobody is allowed to build devices that are secure enough that it is infeasible to break into them? Or should the world be aware that US devices are mandated to be insecure by design?
On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
Re: About his response to Levy's letter
On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
Re: Single Publication Rule
If you publish a book, and I find it in a public library or a bookstore fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again?
If you publish something on the intarweb tubes, and someone reads if fifty days later, does that now mean it was published again?
On the post: After Failing To Use Copyright & Trademark Law To Stop Printer Ink Resellers, Lexmark Finally Scores A Victory With Patent Law
MISUSE of a patent
Is Lexmark somehow claiming that their INK is special in some way? (Not the cartridge. Not the mechanism. Not the printer. But the INK ITSELF.)
If yes, then these third party ink manufacturers are not infringing an ink patent, because their ink is different.
If no, then what Lexmark is doing is misusing a patent on some other mechanism to prevent other parties, and the end user from engaging in their own private transaction to buy/sell ink for the printer the customer owns. Or said differently, Lexmark is misusing a patent monopoly on some mechanism to create another monopoly that they should not rightfully have on getting a different kind of ink into the printer.
On the post: No, A Judge Did Not Just Order Apple To Break Encryption On San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone, But To Create A New Backdoor
The REAL questions we are dancing around
Apple could develop (at whose expense?) an OTA update that collects the password the next time the user unlocks the encryption.
But can Apple be compelled to develop this? Even if the government pays, it cannot pay Apple for the lost opportunity cost of diverting resources from developing new products. Money cannot make up for time-to-market.
In this situation, Apple could selectively deploy such an OTA update to a single target. But then this is just the camel's nose under the tent, or the foot in the door.
The real question we're dancing around by suggesting that Apple COULD defeat encryption by expending tremendous resources are really these:
Should Apple (and everyone else) be LEGALLY BARRED from building a secure product?
Even though there may be no such law in writing. The effect becomes just the same. If you can, through tremendous cost and effort, manage to defeat encryption, then you should be required to do so at the government's mere whim and slightest wish.
Other questions:
Can Apple (and anyone else) be COMPELLED to expend tremendous resources to break into a device? At whose expense? Will all of their expenses be compensated, including a lost market because Apple diverted resources away from product development? Is there some level of cost (exact dollar value please) at which Apple is no longer required to break into a device? What if Apple deliberately engineers a device to ensure that the cost to break in will exceed this threshold?
And finally a lesson for those concerned with privacy. Once your phone has been seized, they may not be able to unlock it, but once the bad guys return it to you, it may have been compromised with software such that your next successful unlock of the device will open it up for them to rummage through fishing for, or to manufacture evidence.
On the post: Google Partially Caves To French Demands For More Global Censorship Of 'Forgotten' Links
Re: Re: Re: Hey France...
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Re:
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Re:
But don't blame YouTube. Blame the DMCA.
It could have been much, much worse with SOPA.
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Re: Re: Re: Todays Lesson
Hey future lawyers: the real lesson here is not on the contents of that lecture you can no longer see, but in how quickly and easily we can take down anything we want, any time, any where. Tomorrow's lesson will be that it is not even necessary to use a clip of Sony's music. Even a nature recording can be taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown.
Future lawyers, there is a large market for your services to censor all sorts of things. Copyright should be the natural tool you think of when it comes to censorship.
On the post: CIA Head John Brennan Says CIA Failed To Prevent Terrorist Attacks Because Of Encrypted Communications
If Brennan is sincere in this belief . . .
Didn't they all, just as the CIA does here with Paris attacks, engage in rewriting history contrary to known facts?
1984 was supposed to be a warning. Not a road map.
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Re: Re: 99.9% accuracy... .01% of the time
Next >>