[John Vieira]

No!
The phones are so secure that the manufacturer (Apple) cannot hack them.

That's a good old BlackBerry standard security for 10 years now and I got used to secure device encryption.

BlackBerry was never able to decrypt your phone without your (strong) password, afaik.

Posted via CB10

They always could decrypt your phone. Blackberry works way too closely wit government agencies to NOT give them that ability.

Posted via -sigh- Priv. Guess we have to get used to Android guys....

[bobshine]

No!
The phones are so secure that the manufacturer (Apple) cannot hack them.

That's a good old BlackBerry standard security for 10 years now and I got used to secure device encryption.

BlackBerry was never able to decrypt your phone without your (strong) password, afaik.

Posted via CB10

Actually, seem like In theory, it's possible. Like in this case, what the judge is suggesting, is that Apple create a custom version of their OS with two new feature:
-disable the limit of 10 attempts
-allow electronic entry of password
They can then brute force attack the iPhone and unlock it.
So yeah, it means that the manufacturer can hack into the phone, since they can sign an OS and modify it as pleased.

Now that's a scary tool cause imagine if it falls into the hand of a corporate spy... they can easily use it to unlock corporate phones and spy on corporate secrets.

Posted via CB10

[Superdupont 2_0]

They always could decrypt your phone.

Could or can?
According to BBRY they have no backdoor to bypass device encryption.

Posted via CB10

[Witmen]

What's sad is we probably wouldn't even be discussing this right now if the terrorists had been BlackBerry users. BlackBerry has a long standing track record of handing over information collected from their users to governments. Chen himself has even said so.

Not to mention BlackBerry forces you to agree to give them your full permission to collect and share your data with the government before you can even use their services.

Kind of crazy considering how lots of folks here talks about Apple not caring about their user's privacy.

[DenverRalphy]

A point to ponder...

The argument that creating what is essentially a backdoor would be "providing a tool without any assurance that it wouldn't be abused/misused" and would be a bad thing. Would not the same argument apply to creating a snoop proof encryption tool to the masses? After all, it too would be a tool that can be (and has been) abused/misused. Does the argument only apply when it's in a person's desired interests to do so?

[bobshine]

Could or can?
According to BBRY they have no backdoor to bypass device encryption.

Posted via CB10

Typically an encryption is composed of a public and a private key. Unless they use the same key for all phones, the private key is unique for each device, which renders it impossible to decrypt, unless using insane amount of computing power (insane as in thousands of years with all the computers in the world)



Posted via CB10

[randall2580]

A point to ponder...

The argument that creating what is essentially a backdoor would be "providing a tool without any assurance that it wouldn't be abused/misused" and would be a bad thing. Would not the same argument apply to creating a snoop proof encryption tool to the masses? After all, it too would be a tool that can be (and has been) abused/misused. Does the argument only apply when it's in a person's desired interests to do so?

This tool already exists. Encryption is in it's simplest form, mathematics. It's hard to outlaw math.

In a world where a mandated backdoor exists, the majority of folks would have phones with a backdoor that would only take bad guys a certain amount of time before they found it, while real bad guys with need for strong encryption would always have access to it because as you pointed out in another response, the knowledge is out there now.

So then the argument is who is worthy of snoop proof encryption? Who makes that decision?

[brookie229]

As an aside, and maybe unrelated to this thread, I don't believe they will find anything of any value on this phone anyway. The low-life terrorists had the good sense to destroy their personal phones and also perhaps a PC hard drive which is missing. They would have destroyed this device as well if it had sensitive data on it. I understand that the authorities have to uncover all stones but IMHO this one is a dead end. Regardless, this is a fascinating case and underscores the need to further define or establish meaning to "The writ of assistance" as it applys to the US Constitution.

[LazyEvul]

A point to ponder...

The argument that creating what is essentially a backdoor would be "providing a tool without any assurance that it wouldn't be abused/misused" and would be a bad thing. Would not the same argument apply to creating a snoop proof encryption tool to the masses? After all, it too would be a tool that can be (and has been) abused/misused. Does the argument only apply when it's in a person's desired interests to do so?

It's a heck of a lot easier to stop corporations, who have to abide by the law, from implementing backdoors than it is to stop criminals from obtaining illegal tools (assuming that we make "snoop proof" encryption illegal). Especially since we're talking software here, not physical objects.

It's pretty hard to monitor the Internet to make sure someone isn't sending very specific lines of code, and even harder to enforce that. Think anti-piracy, but even less successful because of the nature of what you're looking for. These wouldn't be media files hosted by file-sharing sites, you could stick the code for such a tool as plaintext into a legitimate email and send it to whomever you wish. If you want to obscure it even further, you could send it as an image file. A Word doc. A PDF. Host it on a website in a different jurisdiction. The options are endless.

And there are plenty of open-source encryption tools out there already for people to compile on their own - OpenPGP, OpenVPN, Signal, VeraCrypt, etc. Can't mandate backdoors for those no matter how hard you try.

In other words, banning encryption/mandating backdoors would more than likely only stop regular, law-abiding citizens from reaping the security benefits.

[anon(9607753)]

So, Apple doesn't have a right to challenge the rule of law and appeal it to a higher court? Fortunately, they are billionaires and can't be pushed around by even government agencies.

When it comes to defending someone who is OK with running around shooting innocent people that is definitely crossing a line and anyone who cannot see that has their head stuck up some billionaire's ***.

Posted via CB10

[stevec66]

Just send it over to the Dutch police aren't they suppose to have cracked the BlackBerry code on locked phones. I don't think giving law enforcement any opportunity to access anyone's person data is a good thing.

Posted via CB10

[Technarch]

Like drug cartels support the war on drugs, spies support the war on encryption. And this is really great because companies run the government so this is sort of like the mouth biting the hand.

Industrial espionage is worth big time $$$. Nobody gives a toss about some nude selfies when there's unpatented secrets to be stolen!

Posted via CB10

[djchrisluna]

I'm curious how could the government possibly enforce this court order? Can't cook take them for there $$ and just say he was unable to create the ''backdoor'' they're looking for after extensive research?

How in the world are they going to prove what cook is saying isn't true if the fbi is on record of having no clue how to do it.

Posted via CB10

[Doggerz]

Could or can?
According to BBRY they have no backdoor to bypass device encryption.

Posted via CB10

BlackBerry can and will spy on your device whenever Chen feels like it. He has said so. And like someone else just said, had the terrorists been using a BlackBerry (like El Chapo did) the government would already have what it wants.

Apple built encryption that even they can't break. BlackBerry has always had a way into your phone and a way to look at what ever you're sending on their BES or BBM servers.

BlackBerry is the least secure company right now when it comes to Uncle Sam. If I didn't just but a Sony android I think I'd go get an iPhone right now even if I hate being like everyone else and hate the UI. At least Tim Cook is trying to stand for something.

Z30STA100-5 / 10.3.2.2813 / T-Mobile

[Matt J]

Wow. iPhone is so secure that the FBI can't crack it. I would assume the same security with BlackBerry, whether BB10 or Android.

[LazyEvul]

I'm curious how could the government possibly enforce this court order? Can't cook take them for there $$ and just say he was unable to create the ''backdoor'' they're looking for after extensive research?

How in the world are they going to prove what cook is saying isn't true if the fbi is on record of having no clue how to do it.

Posted via CB10

There's been quite a lot of analysis done by experts and what the courts are asking for (their request is very specific) is almost certainly technically-feasible. They want to flash a custom OS onto the device (which we know Apple has the tools & signing codes for) to prevent the phone from wiping after 10 password attempts or asking them to wait after a certain number of incorrect attempts (both of which are software-controlled functions, and thus Apple should be able to modify them in a custom OS).

There have been some questions raised about how the Secure Enclave might complicate the process for various reasons, but that's a feature in the iPhone 5s and above - the phone in question here is an iPhone 5c. Nonetheless, the Secure Enclave shouldn't make this impossible either, to the best of the publicly-available knowledge.

The real trouble is the legal precedent that this sets will allow courts to ask software vendors to insert any code they deem necessary into their products - the specific wording used in the ruling is that "modifying an operating system - writing software code - is not an unreasonable burden for a company that writes software code as part of its regular business."

That could mean backdoors, OTA updates containing spyware, or custom forensics tools like what Apple is being asked for here. And that, in turn, is a precedent that other governments around the world will be very interested in - China, Russia, etc. China already tried to make a push for mandating backdoors last year (which, ironically, the US government criticized). This would give them all the reason they need to try again.

[Superdupont 2_0]

BlackBerry can and will spy on your device whenever Chen feels like it. He has said so. And like someone else just said, had the terrorists been using a BlackBerry (like El Chapo did) the government would already have what it wants.

Apple built encryption that even they can't break. BlackBerry has always had a way into your phone and a way to look at what ever you're sending on their BES or BBM servers.

BlackBerry is the least secure company right now when it comes to Uncle Sam. If I didn't just but a Sony android I think I'd go get an iPhone right now even if I hate being like everyone else and hate the UI. At least Tim Cook is trying to stand for something.

Z30STA100-5 / 10.3.2.2813 / T-Mobile

You are obviously confusing "BIS" with "BES", and "data in transit" with "data at rest".

Sorry, but have you ever heard about Edward Snowden?
He is a famous whistleblower who revealed (also) secret collaborations between the agencies and corporations.

You might show me the Snowden document which proves that BlackBerry ever decrypted the "data at rest" on a locked device?
I would accept also other sources than Snowden.

[Superdupont 2_0]

Perhaps a good read for some: BlackBerry stands by its phones after forensic security group claims to have decrypted private messages | CrackBerry.com

[BBZ10wannabe]

I'm curious how could the government possibly enforce this court order? Can't cook take them for there $$ and just say he was unable to create the ''backdoor'' they're looking for after extensive research?

How in the world are they going to prove what cook is saying isn't true if the fbi is on record of having no clue how to do it.

Posted via CB10

If they fail, they could be compelled to hand over their code? If this happens you can bet they would figure it out in a hurry..

Posted via CB10

[bobshine]

BlackBerry can and will spy on your device whenever Chen feels like it. He has said so. And like someone else just said, had the terrorists been using a BlackBerry (like El Chapo did) the government would already have what it wants.

Apple built encryption that even they can't break. BlackBerry has always had a way into your phone and a way to look at what ever you're sending on their BES or BBM servers.

BlackBerry is the least secure company right now when it comes to Uncle Sam. If I didn't just but a Sony android I think I'd go get an iPhone right now even if I hate being like everyone else and hate the UI. At least Tim Cook is trying to stand for something.

Z30STA100-5 / 10.3.2.2813 / T-Mobile

False. Remember that government had tried to shut down BlackBerry cause they couldn't have access to BES transmissions.

Note also that the US federal government uses BlackBerry to secure their network... why would they use the technologies of a Canadian company that can spy on them?

Posted via CB10

[JeepBB]

Now that's a scary tool cause imagine if it falls into the hand of a corporate spy... they can easily use it to unlock corporate phones and spy on corporate secrets.

Which, in a nutshell, is Apple's defence.

If Apple created this tool (truly a "backdoor" but that emotive word appears nowhere in the FBI's submission), it would inevitably escape into the wild.

Once out there, various "bad people" would use it for bad reasons, and (unfortunately) "good people" would also misuse it while justifying it as being for the greater good. Apple have stated that they reject entirely the FBI's argument that they would only use it in this one case - and Apple are right to do so! Does anyone seriously believe that the IRS (for example) wouldn't use such a tool (if it existed) to build tax evasion cases?

The various government agencies would be forming a line outside Apple HQ!

[Cozz4ever]

False. Remember that government had tried to shut down BlackBerry cause they couldn't have access to BES transmissions.

Note also that the US federal government uses BlackBerry to secure their network... why would they use the technologies of a Canadian company that can spy on them?

Posted via CB10

Actually, it is true what bobshine has said. Blackberry keeps a record of messages such as BBM and eBBM. You as a government or corporation that has rights over the phone, can request back logs of the messages. This happened in Brazil not too long ago. I quick search can find the articles even on crackberry. Reading the user agreement of BBM will show the user grants rights to any messages and pictures/ media to blackberry. In no way does this mean it can be hacked. In fact only a court order will get the messages. User agreements to government and corporate phones may be very different. As maybe they keep their own servers for back logging or simply pay blackberry to do it.



Posted via CB10

[JohnGrey]

A point to ponder...

The argument that creating what is essentially a backdoor would be "providing a tool without any assurance that it wouldn't be abused/misused" and would be a bad thing. Would not the same argument apply to creating a snoop proof encryption tool to the masses? After all, it too would be a tool that can be (and has been) abused/misused. Does the argument only apply when it's in a person's desired interests to do so?

The tipping point is the notion of check-and-balance, and more specifically redressability and punitive correction. The private citizen can be corrected by the state for such excesses. When, not if, the state overreaches, what organ functionally exists to bring the weight of law to bear? When the government can offer broad presidential pardon and cajole the Supreme Court to ignore flagrant of constitutional law whilst retroactively painting it as 'legal', the situation can only be considered what it reasonably is: those that demand our information are doing so because they have power, wish to keep it, and have the courts and weapons to attempt to do so.

[mavsguy842]

I'm siding with Apple's stance that they will not make a master key that could be used to unlock any iPhone.

The government cannot be trusted, even to obey their own self-imposed rules. The government's record of data security is less than stellar, so I don't believe such a valuable tool wouldn't eventually be stolen. If it were to exist, the government would abuse it and criminals would get their hands on and use it as well.

[bobby1966]

This man was a terrorist.

Apple should be helping not hindering the investigation.

Posted via CB10