Apple engineers may have the last word

[mako...@yahoo.com]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights


If
Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.

Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?

[John Larkin]

If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
the demanded items, they should.

I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
consultants could be hired..

Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
with court orders.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 00.52.42 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
> >
> >
> >If
> > Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
> >
> >Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>
> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
> the demanded items, they should.

Apple has handed over everything they had on their servers from the phone

there is a difference between handing over stuff you have and being forced
to create tools to do it

>
> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> consultants could be hired..

so basically the equivalent of the draft just for companies

>
> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> with court orders.

but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor

and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor

-Lasse

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

>Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 00.52.42 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>> >
>> >
>> >If
>> > Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
>> >
>> >Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>>
>> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
>> the demanded items, they should.
>
>Apple has handed over everything they had on their servers from the phone
>
>there is a difference between handing over stuff you have and being forced
>to create tools to do it

I don't see a big difference, as long as the task is not horribly
burdensome. A court-issued search warrant might require me to open a
safe, or fly to a branch office to fetch something, or dig up a box in
the back yard.

>
>>
>> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
>> consultants could be hired..
>
>so basically the equivalent of the draft just for companies

Any company has the right to tell employees what they are expected to
do. And the employees have the right to quit if they don't want to do
it.

>
>>
>> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
>> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
>> with court orders.
>
>but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor

No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.

I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
they can just say so.

If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
would be a very interesting revelation.

>
>and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
>LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor

They wouldn't have to publish the technique. And they should always
comply with legal US court orders. Search warrants are a legal and
historical fact. Encryption should not be a way to evade them.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 01.51.39 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> >Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 00.52.42 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >If
> >> > Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
> >> >
> >> >Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
> >>
> >> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
> >> the demanded items, they should.
> >
> >Apple has handed over everything they had on their servers from the phone
> >
> >there is a difference between handing over stuff you have and being forced
> >to create tools to do it
>
> I don't see a big difference, as long as the task is not horribly
> burdensome. A court-issued search warrant might require me to open a
> safe, or fly to a branch office to fetch something, or dig up a box in
> the back yard.

this is more like telling you to build a tool to open the safe you sold to
your neighbor

>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> >> consultants could be hired..
> >
> >so basically the equivalent of the draft just for companies
>
> Any company has the right to tell employees what they are expected to
> do. And the employees have the right to quit if they don't want to do
> it.
>

I'm talking about the company being drafted

drafted or in prison is usually the only times the government can force
you to work for them

> >
> >>
> >> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> >> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> >> with court orders.
> >
> >but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor
>
> No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
> logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
> sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.
>
> I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
> and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
> they can just say so.
>
> If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
> would be a very interesting revelation.

The encryption is unbreakable

They want a firmware the doesn't limit or slow down the number of pin
code tries and a way to update the firmware without being logged in

>
> >
> >and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
> >LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
>
> They wouldn't have to publish the technique.

don't don't have to publish anything, once everyone knows they have it
they will ask for it

> And they should always
> comply with legal US court orders. Search warrants are a legal and
> historical fact. Encryption should not be a way to evade them.

That horse left the barn a long time ago


-Lasse

[mixed nuts]

Set up a kiosk in Chennai near the engineering department at MIT. Offer
good pay, a nice apartment, free car, free parking, twice annual trips
home and a fellowship grant at a US graduate school of his/her choosing.

--
Grizzly H.

[Clifford Heath]

On 19/03/16 11:51, John Larkin wrote:
>> and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
>> LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
> They wouldn't have to publish the technique.

A back-door is almost trivial to find, once you know that one is present.

> Encryption should not be a way to evade them.

America used to lead the world in science, but now, its legislators are
trying to redefine the rules of mathematics, and outlaw the ones they
can't redefine. A sad day indeed.

[mixed nuts]

On 3/18/2016 7:52 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>> If Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team
>> to carry out a government-mandated task.
>>
>> Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can
>> the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee
>> who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>
> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to
> furnish the demanded items, they should.
>
> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> consultants could be hired..
>
> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to
> comply with court orders.

Then Obama can use the new authority to discover who is opposed to
liberalism and global and send the FEMA box cars with shackles to
strategic locations where the crack troops can load up the patriotic gun
owners they have collected in pre-dawn helicopter raids who will be
interned in re-education camps.

--
Grizzly H.

[bill....@ieee.org]

Encryption is a mathematical technique. "Should" doesn't come into it.

If the encryption technique were powerful enough, then it would be uncrackable, even by the people who designed it.

The spooks traditionally wanted every encryption scheme to have a back door so that they could crack it if they felt the need. Donald Davies was rude about this in conversation back in 1980, but I don't remember him making the point explicitly in his book

http://www.amazon.com/Security-Computer-Networks-Teleprocessing-Communication/dp/0471921378

which got published in 1984.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Carl Ijames]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:qk7pebl9vu1tu5v31...@4ax.com...

==============================================================================

The only way to do the job is to create a new version of firmware,
cryptographically sign that firmware with Apple's secret key so the
processor will accept it, and then they can try passwords until they get it.
They don't know if the user turned on the "delete everything after ten wrong
password tries" feature or not, so they need that removed, then they need
the increasing delays before accepting the next password after a wrong one
removed, and then they need a fast way to input test passwords. Bruce
Schneier has a very good summary in his newsletter:
https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2016/0315.html#2, followed by
a long list of links to other sources and details. My recollection is that
Apple estimates 4-6 engineers for 4-6 weeks to create and test the code and
then install it in this one phone. Most ironic tidbit is that it was the
FBI who told the county to change the password on the phone in the first
place, which is why they can't get in now
(http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/20/san-bernadino-county-fbi-gunman-apple-account).

-----
Regards,
Carl Ijames

[rickman]

On 3/18/2016 7:52 PM, John Larkin wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>>
>>
>> If
>> Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
>>
>> Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>
> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
> the demanded items, they should.
>
> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> consultants could be hired..
>
> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> with court orders.

That is not what they have been ordered to do. They have been ordered
to turn over a hacked version of the OS which will allow the possessor
to guess the access code an unlimited number of times as well as
allowing the codes to be entered much faster. This could then be used
on any similar phone.

This is code that would have to be written.

--

Rick

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen

I can be forced to show up in court, testify, provide documents. I
can't see that this case is any different.

>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
>> >> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
>> >> with court orders.
>> >
>> >but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor
>>
>> No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
>> logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
>> sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.
>>
>> I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
>> and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
>> they can just say so.
>>
>> If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
>> would be a very interesting revelation.
>
>The encryption is unbreakable

Cool. All Apple has to say is that they can't do it.

>
>They want a firmware the doesn't limit or slow down the number of pin
>code tries and a way to update the firmware without being logged in

I guess Cook can risk being punished for contempt of court, or for
obstruction of justice.

>
>>
>> >
>> >and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
>> >LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
>>
>> They wouldn't have to publish the technique.
>
>don't don't have to publish anything, once everyone knows they have it
>they will ask for it

Unless Apple declares the crack to be impossible, any government can
and will demand that they do it. Whether or not they have done it in
the USA won't matter.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[Jon Elson]

John Larkin wrote:


> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> with court orders.
>

No, to preserve the chain of custody of evidence, I suspect the FBI will not
allow Apple to ever even SEE the phone. They will require Apple to provide
the tools to alter the phone to allow them to hack the passcode. Once the
FBI has such a tool, they can apply it to any iphone (perhaps only of the
same model).

I think this is what Apple is so upset about, and they may be being very
careful about exactly what they say publicly, so they felt they could not
describe the scenario in detail.

Jon

[Clifford Heath]

On 19/03/16 14:31, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
>> Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 01.51.39 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
>> drafted or in prison is usually the only times the government can force
>> you to work for them
> I can be forced to show up in court, testify, provide documents. I
> can't see that this case is any different.

You're very keen to tell us what you can't see.
Not at all keen to see what we've been plainly putting in front of you:
* Any method that can decrypt the data must be automated
* It cannot rely on a secret that only the Gubmint knows
* Any automatable method can be discovered and implemented by anyone
* Criminals and foreign powers are eager to Apple to implement a
backdoor, because they'll get right through it.

Exactly how is that even remotely like being required to testify in court?

[rickman]

Yes, you can't see. I agree. Actually, you refuse to see as well as
distort the facts.

Can the court compel you to perform analyses on your equipment you have
no previously done? Can they compel you to design new equipment?

>>>>> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
>>>>> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
>>>>> with court orders.
>>>>
>>>> but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor
>>>
>>> No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
>>> logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
>>> sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.
>>>
>>> I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
>>> and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
>>> they can just say so.
>>>
>>> If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
>>> would be a very interesting revelation.
>>
>> The encryption is unbreakable
>
> Cool. All Apple has to say is that they can't do it.

They have said they can't do it without undermining the security of
their phones which would be a *huge* economic burden on them.

>> They want a firmware the doesn't limit or slow down the number of pin
>> code tries and a way to update the firmware without being logged in
>
> I guess Cook can risk being punished for contempt of court, or for
> obstruction of justice.

That's why they have lots of lawyers to argue the matter in court.

>>>> and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
>>>> LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
>>>
>>> They wouldn't have to publish the technique.
>>
>> don't don't have to publish anything, once everyone knows they have it
>> they will ask for it
>
> Unless Apple declares the crack to be impossible, any government can
> and will demand that they do it. Whether or not they have done it in
> the USA won't matter.

"Can"... maybe. "Will"... you can't predict the future. Apple is
fighting this in court and no one knows which way this will roll. Heck,
Lindsey Graham has changed his mind and now agrees with Apple having
learned a few things about the matter which you seem to wish to ignore.

--

Rick

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:17:16 PM UTC+11, mixed nuts wrote:
> On 3/18/2016 7:52 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
> >> If Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team
> >> to carry out a government-mandated task.
> >>
> >> Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can
> >> the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee
> >> who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
> >
> > If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to
> > furnish the demanded items, they should.
> >
> > I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> > consultants could be hired..
> >
> > Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> > texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to
> > comply with court orders.
>
> Then Obama can use the new authority to discover who is opposed to
> liberalism and global

Granting the amount of self-advertising done around here by our resident right-wing nitwits, Obama wouldn't need to crack the encryption on any phone to find that out.

> and send the FEMA box cars with shackles to
> strategic locations where the crack troops can load up the patriotic gun
> owners they have collected in pre-dawn helicopter raids who will be
> interned in re-education camps.

Who bother? The only way to remain a right-wing nitwit is to be terminally ineducatable. Sending them to re-education camps might get them off the streets, but the chances of actually educating any of them seem remarkably slim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Robert Baer]

John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>>
>>
>> If
>> Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
>>
>> Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>
> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
> the demanded items, they should.
>
> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> consultants could be hired..
>
> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> with court orders.
>
>
>
>
>

Oh my gosh! Someone finally makes a clear statement as to what is
really wanted without manufacturing scary BS.
Why is it that there is only ONE sane person here?

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:45:18 -0800, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> Gave us:

> Oh my gosh! Someone finally makes a clear statement as to what is
>really wanted without manufacturing scary BS.
> Why is it that there is only ONE sane person here?

It isn't you.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:45:18 -0800, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> Gave us:

> Oh my gosh! Someone finally makes a clear statement as to what is
>really wanted without manufacturing scary BS.
> Why is it that there is only ONE sane person here?

Set your clock correctly, dumbshit.

[upsid...@downunder.com]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:52:33 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>>
>>
>>If
>> Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
>>
>>Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>
>If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
>the demanded items, they should.
>
>I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
>consultants could be hired..
>
>Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
>texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
>with court orders.

The problem seems to be that the phone is a piece of evidence and thus
could not be handed over to Apple for extraction, without invalidating
the use of the user data found in that particular phone as evidence.

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/03/2016 2:33 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>
>> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
>> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
>> with court orders.
>>
> No, to preserve the chain of custody of evidence, I suspect the FBI will not
> allow Apple to ever even SEE the phone. They will require Apple to provide
> the tools to alter the phone to allow them to hack the passcode. Once the
> FBI has such a tool, they can apply it to any iphone (perhaps only of the
> same model).

They chain of custody gets compromised anyway, since the phone contents
can be (indeed will be) changed by the update. The updated software
could also change the encrypted content once the correct PIN is found.
It could also just make it appear that incriminating information is in
the encrypted file system, even if it isn't.

Any competent defence attorney would highlight that possibility. Apple
employees would have to be called to give evidence on the matter. A jury
might still be left wondering (and hence having reasonable doubt).

Not that the above matters so much if the phone contents is to be used
for intelligence purposes rather than as evidence in a prosecution.

Sylvia.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:00:49 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com Gave us:

snip

>The problem seems to be that the phone is a piece of evidence and thus
>could not be handed over to Apple for extraction, without invalidating
>the use of the user data found in that particular phone as evidence.

Only against a live suspect/perpetrator. For use as evidence in
anti-terrorism actions, it would be fine.

The problem is that the assholes cannot be trusted to not simply erase
it and claim it was unrecoverable.

The real stupid shit in all this is that the rotten bastards DO have
backdoors into ALL of their devices and the operating systems on them.
Don't let them fool you.

[mako...@yahoo.com]

Can and will?
It's already happened
http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/brazil-facebook-arrest/

Mark

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

The federal gov't wouldn't have the resources. They're too committed to
diligently tracking down Hillary's and the IRS' deleted e-mails, and
prosecuting no one.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Indeed.

What the FBI and the feds want is access to billions of mobile devices.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-cannot-legal-case-apple-inc-223034884--finance.html

"AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday made a
passionate case for mobile devices to be built in such a way as to
allow government to gain access to personal data if needed to
prevent a terrorist attack or enforce tax laws."

All your data are belong to us.

In Orwell's 1984 there was a screen on your living room wall that monitored
you. Now it's in your pocket. And it tracks your friends, too.

We've been solving crimes and catching criminal for centuries without that.

The federal government is a far greater threat, both potential and real.
Imagine what a U.S. gone rogue could do.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin, reply to
the Governor, Nov. 11, 1755

Cheers,
James Arthur

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 8:51:39 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

> >
> >but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor
>
> No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
> logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
> sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.
>
> I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
> and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
> they can just say so.
>
> If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
> would be a very interesting revelation.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. They're asking Apple to eliminate the iOS code that erases the encryption keys after 10 unsuccessful system password login attempts, and this will be done through an authentic iOS update the phone is designed to accept. From there on, the forensics can brute force hack the password.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:11:28 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:47:54 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
> > On 19/03/16 11:51, John Larkin wrote:
> > >> and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
> > >> LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
> > > They wouldn't have to publish the technique.
> >
> > A back-door is almost trivial to find, once you know that one is present.
> >
> > > Encryption should not be a way to evade them.
> >
> > America used to lead the world in science, but now, its legislators are
> > trying to redefine the rules of mathematics, and outlaw the ones they
> > can't redefine. A sad day indeed.
>
> Indeed.
>
> What the FBI and the feds want is access to billions of mobile devices.
>
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-cannot-legal-case-apple-inc-223034884--finance.html
>
> "AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday made a
> passionate case for mobile devices to be built in such a way as to
> allow government to gain access to personal data if needed to
> prevent a terrorist attack or enforce tax laws."
>
> All your data are belong to us.
>
> In Orwell's 1984 there was a screen on your living room wall that monitored
> you. Now it's in your pocket. And it tracks your friends, too.

Technically speaking, your mobile phone doesn't monitor you. It does know where you are - which is technically essential to any cellular telephone system, otherwise how can your calls get to you? This isn't the kind of "monitoring" that Orwell had in mind.

> We've been solving crimes and catching criminal for centuries without that.

Not all that effectively.

> The federal government is a far greater threat, both potential and real.

As a potential threat, any government has to be taken seriously. If you want to tout them as a real and actual threat, you do need evidence that they are doing something wrong - not wrong in the sense of collecting taxes and redistributing some of the money they collect to the poor, no matter how much that sets your teeth on edge, but wrong in the sense of being illegal and destructive.

> Imagine what a U.S. gone rogue could do.

Invade Irak on the pretext of non-existent weapons of mass destruction? Foment a military takeover in Chile or Iran? It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up some pretty horrifying possibilities.

I suppose that if Trump got into power he could manage something even more stupid and damaging to the long term interests of the US, but considering what Republican presidents have gotten up to in the past - even the sainted Reagan was selling arms to Iran to pay right-wing terrorist in Central America - he'd be merely conforming to a rather unfortunate tradition.

> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
> Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin, reply to

> the Governor, Nov. 11, 1755.

As a fan of the radical enlightenment (which you are not) Franklin probably didn't entirely share your idea of what constitutes liberty, which involves - for you - rather more of the rich being free to get even richer at everybody else's expense than most rational observers would endorse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:
>
> Unless Apple declares the crack to be impossible, any government can
> and will demand that they do it. Whether or not they have done it in
> the USA won't matter.

Since they are manufactured in China, the Chinese government might have
everything they need to order a Chinese company to reverse-engineer it.

--

[krw]

The issue at hand is specifically the US. The US is a _little_
different in that we're supposed to have this thing called the
"Constitution". There is no "fourth amendment" in most of the world,
nor a first, for that matter. Apparently, many (and *most* lefties)
don't want them here, either.

[krw]

Do you think there is anyone in China who can? No one *can* reverse
engineer it. That's the whole point of encryption (digital
signatures).

[rickman]

It would appear that neither you or john understand the case. The
government is *not* asking Apple to break into any phones to retrieve
data. They are asking Apple to make a tool that would allow the
government to break into the phone in question, which would also allow
them to break into every similar phone.

John seems to be resisting an understanding of reality with both fists.
What's your reason for not getting it?

--

Rick

[krw]

They don't really need the phone for evidence. They need it for links
to co-conspirators.

[John S]

On 3/19/2016 10:30 AM, rickman wrote:
> neither you or john

English 101:

...neither you NOR john...

[John Larkin]

The owner of the phone, Syed Rizwan Farook, is dead, so his defense is
not involved.

This controversy is partly head-butting between Cook and the FBI. He
has pretty much said so.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 01.51.39 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> >
> > >Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 00.52.42 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:

> > >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >If
> > >> > Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
> > >> >
> > >> >Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
> > >>
> > >> If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
> > >> the demanded items, they should.
> > >

> > >Apple has handed over everything they had on their servers from the phone
> > >
> > >there is a difference between handing over stuff you have and being forced
> > >to create tools to do it
> >
> > I don't see a big difference, as long as the task is not horribly
> > burdensome. A court-issued search warrant might require me to open a
> > safe, or fly to a branch office to fetch something, or dig up a box in
> > the back yard.
>
> this is more like telling you to build a tool to open the safe you sold to
> your neighbor

I think it's closer to: they've opened the safe, grabbed the (digital)
contents, but all they found inside were some cryptic writings.

> > >
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> > >> consultants could be hired..
> > >

> > >so basically the equivalent of the draft just for companies
> >
> > Any company has the right to tell employees what they are expected to
> > do. And the employees have the right to quit if they don't want to do
> > it.
> >
>
> I'm talking about the company being drafted
>
> drafted or in prison is usually the only times the government can force
> you to work for them

Or 40% of your productive time to support others :-), but your point
is well-taken.

> > >>
> > >> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> > >> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> > >> with court orders.
> > >

> > >but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor
> >
> > No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
> > logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
> > sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.
> >
> > I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
> > and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
> > they can just say so.
> >
> > If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
> > would be a very interesting revelation.
>

> The encryption is unbreakable

>
> They want a firmware the doesn't limit or slow down the number of pin
> code tries and a way to update the firmware without being logged in
>
> >
> > >

> > >and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
> > >LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
> >
> > They wouldn't have to publish the technique.
>

> don't don't have to publish anything, once everyone knows they have it
> they will ask for it

Yes. Or, just having the plain text and the cipher text, they might crack
it and not have to ask. In the future they might just automatically
download it.

> > And they should always
> > comply with legal US court orders. Search warrants are a legal and

> > historical fact. Encryption should not be a way to evade them.
>
> That horse left the barn a long time ago
>
>
> -Lasse

If the American founders tried to have their revolution today, the feds
would just use their cellphone contacts to round them all up. No America.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[John Larkin]

I'm sure that Apple could work out a reasonable arrangement with the
courts, something that would allow them to modify that single phone to
get around the password block, but not release the mods into the wild.
The owner of the phone is dead, so his rights aren't compromised.

Apple doesn't want to. More people could die.

[John Larkin]

Right. It probably wouldn't be evidence, it would be leads to other
terrorists. Lives might be saved.

[mixed nuts]

You forget that Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn could be given letters
of marque and reconstitute the privateer army from Chicago and Bay area
leftist radicals and vegans referred to in popular youtubes as the
Weather Underground.

--
Grizzly H.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Ah yes, Comrade Barry's consorts might be endangered.

The only way to avoid that is for Glorious Leader to fit us all with
data loggers and public restroom cameras. It's the only solution.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[krw]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:28:42 -0700, John Larkin

<jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:31:54 -0400, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:00:49 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:52:33 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If
>>>>> Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?
>>>>
>>>>If a search warrant is issued by a court, and Apple is able to furnish
>>>>the demanded items, they should.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
>>>>consultants could be hired..
>>>>
>>>>Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
>>>>texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
>>>>with court orders.
>>>
>>>The problem seems to be that the phone is a piece of evidence and thus
>>>could not be handed over to Apple for extraction, without invalidating
>>>the use of the user data found in that particular phone as evidence.
>>
>>They don't really need the phone for evidence. They need it for links
>>to co-conspirators.
>
>Right. It probably wouldn't be evidence, it would be leads to other
>terrorists. Lives might be saved.

Maybe. ...at the cost of runaway government.

[John Larkin]

The issue is whether a court has the right to compel parties to
furnish materials when they can. Search warrants are traditionally
legal and sensible. There is no issue of self-incrimination here. What
has changed is not the runaway power of the government, it is the
changed nature and sheer quantity of information in the computer age.
And the recent popularity of suicide shooters and bombers.

One subtlety here is that the owner of the phone isn't on trial - he's
dead - but the desire by the FBI to track his contacts and possibly
prevent more terrorist attacks.

If I were Cook, I'd find a way to do it. Dead suicide killers don't
need Apple to defend their privacy.

"Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" lists "life" first.

[Jasen Betts]

and if it's not evidence they can't use them as evidence (eg: for
prosecution or search warrants)

--
\_(ツ)_

[Jasen Betts]

as yeah, I forgot, in USA evidence is not needed against "terrorists".

--
\_(ツ)_

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:38:07 -0400, mixed nuts
<melops...@undulatus.budgie> Gave us:
snip

>
>You forget that Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn could be given letters
>of marque and reconstitute the privateer army from Chicago and Bay area
>leftist radicals and vegans referred to in popular youtubes as the
>Weather Underground.

The main reason I think Obama should have never been allowed to run
for office.

He was the chairman of that asshole's federally funded regime.

How the motherfucker ever got out of prison is beyond me, but how he
ended up with millions in fed dollars just blows me away.

Then Obama AND his wife jumped on board to suck up some of the cash.
That is how the jackass paid his way through college. What was it...
Harvard?

[krw]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:36:15 -0700, John Larkin

They cannot force you to produce something that doesn't exist. If you
think that's within their power, please show me the section of the
Constitution that says they can.

>
>One subtlety here is that the owner of the phone isn't on trial - he's
>dead - but the desire by the FBI to track his contacts and possibly
>prevent more terrorist attacks.

They *already* have his phone's metadata (and who knows what else).
They already have all they should need, and should have (and probably
a lot more).

>
>If I were Cook, I'd find a way to do it. Dead suicide killers don't
>need Apple to defend their privacy.

No, but their other customers do.

>
>"Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" lists "life" first.

You've not read the rest of the Constitution, obviously.

[krw]

Oh, good grief. Another loser Europeon. Idiot, no evidence is needed
against the *DEAD*.

[krw]

But they *can* use it (tainted evidence) to find other evidence.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 3:59:34 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> > Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 01.51.39 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> > > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> > > >Den lørdag den 19. marts 2016 kl. 00.52.42 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > > >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights

<snip>

> > this is more like telling you to build a tool to open the safe you sold to
> > your neighbor
>
> I think it's closer to: they've opened the safe, grabbed the (digital)
> contents, but all they found inside were some cryptic writings.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm sure there are enough Apple employees willing to do the work. Or
> > > >> consultants could be hired..
> > > >
> > > >so basically the equivalent of the draft just for companies
> > >
> > > Any company has the right to tell employees what they are expected to
> > > do. And the employees have the right to quit if they don't want to do
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > I'm talking about the company being drafted
> >
> > drafted or in prison is usually the only times the government can force
> > you to work for them
>
> Or 40% of your productive time to support others :-), but your point
> is well-taken.

Actually, that 40% also supports you. The US government actually collects about 30% of GDP in tax. A lot of it is spent on defense (which benefits every US citizen, though the members of the military industrial complex do better out of it). You don't like the way a lot of it is spent, but that's democracy for you (or the rather poor approximation to it present in the US).

> > > >> Apple doesn't need to "create a backdoor", they only have to extract
> > > >> texts from one phone. Apple should make a reasonable effort to comply
> > > >> with court orders.
> > > >
> > > >but the only way to extract the texts is to create a backdoor
> > >
> > > No, they would have physical access to the phone, to jtag it or use a
> > > logic analyzer or equivalent. That's not a backdoor in the usual
> > > sense. It doesn't open other phones to the world.
> > >
> > > I assume that physical access to the guts of the phone is required,
> > > and that, given physical access, it can be done. If it can't be done,
> > > they can just say so.
> > >
> > > If a their encryption can be cracked without physical access, that
> > > would be a very interesting revelation.
> >
> > The encryption is unbreakable
> >
> > They want a firmware the doesn't limit or slow down the number of pin
> > code tries and a way to update the firmware without being logged in
> >
> > > >and if they create a back door from "just this one phone", every other
> > > >LEA and regime around the world will ask for the same favor
> > >
> > > They wouldn't have to publish the technique.
> >
> > don't don't have to publish anything, once everyone knows they have it
> > they will ask for it
>
> Yes. Or, just having the plain text and the cipher text, they might crack
> it and not have to ask. In the future they might just automatically
> download it.

It seems unlikely that having both the plain text and the enciphered text would be enough to let them crack the encryption scheme. That more or less worked for Enigma, but dual key encryption is rather more robust.

> > > And they should always
> > > comply with legal US court orders. Search warrants are a legal and
> > > historical fact. Encryption should not be a way to evade them.
> >
> > That horse left the barn a long time ago
>

> If the American founders tried to have their revolution today, the feds
> would just use their cellphone contacts to round them all up. No America.

A different America, which would look rather more like Canada and Australia, which would be no bad thing. Neither works as well as Germany or Scandinavia, but having revolutions and invasions isn't much fun, and it can take a while to clean out the criminal element that comes to power after a revolution - it still hasn't happened in the US.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John Larkin]

But the messages do exist. They are hidden by Apple software. People
could die if more loonies make suicide attacks. Apple could help the
FBI access the messages, under court order.

>>
>>One subtlety here is that the owner of the phone isn't on trial - he's
>>dead - but the desire by the FBI to track his contacts and possibly
>>prevent more terrorist attacks.
>
>They *already* have his phone's metadata (and who knows what else).
>They already have all they should need, and should have (and probably
>a lot more).
>>
>>If I were Cook, I'd find a way to do it. Dead suicide killers don't
>>need Apple to defend their privacy.
>
>No, but their other customers do.

Apple is making a business decision, not a moral one. "Moral" and
"Apple" don't deserve to be in proximity.

>>
>>"Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" lists "life" first.
>
>You've not read the rest of the Constitution, obviously.

Courts have the "reasonable" right to gather evidence.

[Sylvia Else]

However, the content of the phone could lead to prosecutions of other
individuals, and then the chain of custody could become an issue.

>
> This controversy is partly head-butting between Cook and the FBI. He
> has pretty much said so.
>
>

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/03/2016 8:46 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:00:49 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com Gave us:
>
> snip

>
>> The problem seems to be that the phone is a piece of evidence and thus
>> could not be handed over to Apple for extraction, without invalidating
>> the use of the user data found in that particular phone as evidence.
>

> Only against a live suspect/perpetrator. For use as evidence in
> anti-terrorism actions, it would be fine.
>
> The problem is that the assholes cannot be trusted to not simply erase
> it and claim it was unrecoverable.

Their updated OS could do the same. "Oops - we made a mistake - sorry."

Sylvia.

[krw]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:37:04 -0700, John Larkin

This is the fly in the ointment. *CAN* they be forced to create
something that doesn't exist - something that will damage them, and
their interests, irreparably. Just because a judge says they can be,
doesn't make it so.

>
>>>
>>>One subtlety here is that the owner of the phone isn't on trial - he's
>>>dead - but the desire by the FBI to track his contacts and possibly
>>>prevent more terrorist attacks.
>>
>>They *already* have his phone's metadata (and who knows what else).
>>They already have all they should need, and should have (and probably
>>a lot more).
>>>
>>>If I were Cook, I'd find a way to do it. Dead suicide killers don't
>>>need Apple to defend their privacy.
>>
>>No, but their other customers do.
>
>Apple is making a business decision, not a moral one. "Moral" and
>"Apple" don't deserve to be in proximity.

The intersection isn't null.

>
>>>
>>>"Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" lists "life" first.
>>
>>You've not read the rest of the Constitution, obviously.
>
>Courts have the "reasonable" right to gather evidence.

They have no right to force someone to create something that isn't in
their interest.

[rickman]

On 3/19/2016 2:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>
> If I were Cook, I'd find a way to do it. Dead suicide killers don't
> need Apple to defend their privacy.

That is why you run the sort of company you run and he runs the sort of
company he runs. Too use your own logic, he must be smarter than you,
he makes so much more money it makes you look silly.

I bet he makes more money than your wife too...

--

Rick

[rickman]

There is one thing you excel at, having opinions about things you know
nothing about. If Apple could give the government what they want
without compromising all security on these Apple phones I have no doubt
they would. It has been explained many times how the government has
asked Apple to provide them with a tool they can use on *any* similar
phone. The government has not even asked Apple to help them with this
one phone, but only to give them the ability to open many phones.
Regardless, there is nothing Apple can do to reveal the data encrypted
on this phone other than what the government is asking for. That's why
they are asking for it. Some people just can't understand that.

--

Rick

[Przemek Klosowski]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:33:12 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:


> I think this is what Apple is so upset about, and they may be being very
> careful about exactly what they say publicly, so they felt they could
> not describe the scenario in detail.

The scenario has been described in detail: it involves updating the OS to
a version that does not clear out the key storage after ten failed
password guesses, and allows input of the password in a way more
convenient than touchscreen.

The reason FBI needs Apple is software updates are signed, and the
existing firmware won't update unless the new one is signed by Apple's
private key. Apple of course also has the source to the OS, so it'd be
easy for them to do the FBI-required mods, but in a pinch I imagine FBI
could patch the binary themselves, so it's the private key that they
really can't do without.

[Reinhardt Behm]

krw wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 04:51:57 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Can and will?
>>It's already happened
>>http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/brazil-facebook-arrest/
>>
> The issue at hand is specifically the US. The US is a _little_
> different in that we're supposed to have this thing called the
> "Constitution". There is no "fourth amendment" in most of the world,
> nor a first, for that matter. Apparently, many (and *most* lefties)
> don't want them here, either.

Most others did not need amendments. They have put those rights into their
constitution from the beginning.

--
Reinhardt

[bill....@ieee.org]

The Australian Constitution was certainly written with the defects of the US constitution in mind. I'm not sure that it avoided all of them, but it was written in the 1890's, and people have done better since. The German constitution, written in 1948, is widely admired.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-03-20, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2016 20:46:01 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>>>>Right. It probably wouldn't be evidence, it would be leads to other
>>>>terrorists. Lives might be saved.
>>>
>>> Maybe. ...at the cost of runaway government.
>>
>>as yeah, I forgot, in USA evidence is not needed against "terrorists".
>
> Oh, good grief.

1: indeed

> Another loser Europeon.

2: you could not be more wrong,

> Idiot, no evidence is needed against the *DEAD*.

3: Do you really think they want to use the data on the pbone to catch dead terrorists?

--
\_(ツ)_

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:26:53 -0400, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:02:12 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
><fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless Apple declares the crack to be impossible, any government can
>>> and will demand that they do it. Whether or not they have done it in
>>> the USA won't matter.
>>
>>Since they are manufactured in China, the Chinese government might have
>>everything they need to order a Chinese company to reverse-engineer it.
>
>Do you think there is anyone in China who can? No one *can* reverse
>engineer it. That's the whole point of encryption (digital
>signatures).

What the FBI wants is an OS hack to prevent erasing things if they try
more than 10 times to key in the 4-digit phone unlock code. They would
brute-force try all codes if they could.

And they only want it done to one phone, of a dead non-citizen
terrorist and murderer.

I just read the Time Magazine interview with Cook on this subject. He
makes no sense to me.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 21 March 2016 17:49:12 UTC, John Larkin wrote:

> What the FBI wants is an OS hack to prevent erasing things if they try
> more than 10 times to key in the 4-digit phone unlock code. They would
> brute-force try all codes if they could.
>
> And they only want it done to one phone, of a dead non-citizen
> terrorist and murderer.

No, they want a hack that can and will be used on all phones. This thread's odd, the same points get made over & over.


NT

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:55:45 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com Gave us:

Just as odd as you idiots making stupid contractions. This thread is
odd, not "this thread's odd".

Sure, we know what you mean, but that is not the point. You are
expressing yourself in a forum where what you type will be seen and read
by many over a long period. The gang boy phone chat lingo paradigm is
out.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

Den mandag den 21. marts 2016 kl. 18.49.12 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:26:53 -0400, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:02:12 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> ><fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
> >
> >>John Larkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Unless Apple declares the crack to be impossible, any government can
> >>> and will demand that they do it. Whether or not they have done it in
> >>> the USA won't matter.
> >>
> >>Since they are manufactured in China, the Chinese government might have
> >>everything they need to order a Chinese company to reverse-engineer it.
> >
> >Do you think there is anyone in China who can? No one *can* reverse
> >engineer it. That's the whole point of encryption (digital
> >signatures).
>
> What the FBI wants is an OS hack to prevent erasing things if they try
> more than 10 times to key in the 4-digit phone unlock code. They would
> brute-force try all codes if they could.
>
> And they only want it done to one phone, of a dead non-citizen
> terrorist and murderer.
>
> I just read the Time Magazine interview with Cook on this subject. He
> makes no sense to me.
>

yeh, FBI used the magic password "terrorist" and when they said jump he
didn't ask "how high?", he is clearly crazy ...


-Lasse

[John Larkin]

Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife killed 14 people. He may have friends
that plan to kill more.

[rickman]

That's because John doesn't believe anything that isn't from a
conservative propaganda machine.

--

Rick

[rickman]

And there may be a terrorist working in your company. I think we should
strip search all of them.

--

Rick

[krw]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:49:08 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:26:53 -0400, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:02:12 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>><fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Unless Apple declares the crack to be impossible, any government can
>>>> and will demand that they do it. Whether or not they have done it in
>>>> the USA won't matter.
>>>
>>>Since they are manufactured in China, the Chinese government might have
>>>everything they need to order a Chinese company to reverse-engineer it.
>>
>>Do you think there is anyone in China who can? No one *can* reverse
>>engineer it. That's the whole point of encryption (digital
>>signatures).
>
>What the FBI wants is an OS hack to prevent erasing things if they try
>more than 10 times to key in the 4-digit phone unlock code. They would
>brute-force try all codes if they could.

Right. ...and that requires a digitally signed (i.e. encryption)
software load.

>
>And they only want it done to one phone, of a dead non-citizen
>terrorist and murderer.

Once that software exists, it will *NOT* remain corked. Every LEO on
the planet will want it.

>
>I just read the Time Magazine interview with Cook on this subject. He
>makes no sense to me.

...because you don't want to understand.

[krw]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:17:05 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:55:45 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com Gave us:
>
>>On Monday, 21 March 2016 17:49:12 UTC, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> What the FBI wants is an OS hack to prevent erasing things if they try
>>> more than 10 times to key in the 4-digit phone unlock code. They would
>>> brute-force try all codes if they could.
>>>
>>> And they only want it done to one phone, of a dead non-citizen
>>> terrorist and murderer.
>>
>>No, they want a hack that can and will be used on all phones.
>>This thread's odd, the same points get made over & over.
>>
>>
> Just as odd as you idiots making stupid contractions. This thread is
>odd, not "this thread's odd".

ALwaysWrong is wrong again. Surprise, surprise.

>
> Sure, we know what you mean, but that is not the point. You are
>expressing yourself in a forum where what you type will be seen and read
>by many over a long period. The gang boy phone chat lingo paradigm is
>out.

...and you're wrong, AlwaysWrong.

[krw]

Idiot.

[krw]

On 21 Mar 2016 05:58:31 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>On 2016-03-20, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2016 20:46:01 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>>>Right. It probably wouldn't be evidence, it would be leads to other
>>>>>terrorists. Lives might be saved.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. ...at the cost of runaway government.
>>>
>>>as yeah, I forgot, in USA evidence is not needed against "terrorists".
>>
>> Oh, good grief.
>
>1: indeed
>
>> Another loser Europeon.
>
>2: you could not be more wrong,

Hardly.

>
>> Idiot, no evidence is needed against the *DEAD*.
>
>3: Do you really think they want to use the data on the pbone to catch dead terrorists?

They don't need "evidence", moron. They need *leads*.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:38:30 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> Gave us:

They just released an iOS 9 update and the only thing I saw different
was the privacy policy section.

In other words, if you are fucking around, you could get fucked. If
they suspect that you are fucking around, you could still get fucked.
Better stock up on that slip and slide sex lube.

[Don Y]

On 3/18/2016 4:39 PM, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>
> If Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to
> carry out a government-mandated task.
>
> Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI
> do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to
> participate? If so, under what enumerated power?

What if the "volunteers" have an ulterior motive? E.g., to "accidentally"
corrupt the contents of the phone! Are they then criminally liable
(co-conspirators, after-the-fact) for these acts? Does the FBI have to vet
each applicant?

The discussions/speculations regarding what lies within the device seem
to be incredibly naive. It's not being thought of from the standpoint of
a device DELIBERATELY designed to be secure but, rather, as some sort
of general purpose computer running a "security program".

What if the device was INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED to make these sorts of
changes impractical? Not just by confounding with software but by
actually designing failure modes into the HARDWARE? (comparable to
a glass relocker in a wall safe!)

E.g., imagine the encryption processor has a "key/passphrase REGISTER"
(not some general memory address but a specific REGISTER). The
HARDWARE that implements and interfaces to this register:
- inherently requires a long time for the WRITE to update its contents
- "wears out" after some number of write cycles

There's no need for the interface to be FAST -- it takes considerable
real time for the user to enter the passphrase. If it takes 100ms to
store it in that register, the user will never be the wiser!

There's no need for the register to be *durable* -- how many times
is a user likely to enter the CORRECT passphrase (plus some number
of typographical errors) in the LIFETIME OF THE PHONE? 20 times per day?
365 days per year? 3-5 years before you EXPECT the user to grow tired of
the phone, drop it, lose it, etc.?? What if a nonresettable hardware
counter locks out writes when the number of writes exceeds this value?
What if the inherent fabrication technology ensures this as a side
effect of normal use??

If the key space is sufficiently large wrt to these factors, you could
remove any and all "artificial" (software imposed) constraints on the
process and still end up with a physically uncrackable device -- it
takes too long for an exhaustive search of the keyspace AND the hardware
"wears out" before that sort of attack can succeed, independent of time!

[Keep in mind Apple has made deliberate design choices to make these
sorts of cracking requests harder with which to comply; why wouldn't
they take advantage of their design and market leverage to create
a HARDWARE device that imposes such constraints?? Then, throw up their
arms when asked to expedite the passphrase write time or alter the
maximum number of writes before the device locks? "We'll have to lay
out a new *mask* -- which, of course, won't help you with THIS particular
phone..."]

[bill....@ieee.org]

John Larkin is marginally superior to krw in that John believes stuff from several different conservative propaganda machines, while krw knows exactly what is "true" - anything he happens to believe - and can't imagine that what he believes isn't both true, and universally known to be true, so that anybody who disagrees with him is liar (and - of course - an idiot).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

> Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife killed 14 people. He may have friends
> that plan to kill more.

Better gun control in the US would save a lot more lives than getting excited about imaginary terrorists. But the FBI worries about the terrorists it can imagine, rather than the idiots who own guns and go mad from time to time - most people who own guns and go mad use the guns to kill themselves, but some of them suffer from more florid psychoses and go in for suicide by cop.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Better gun control in the US would save a lot more lives than >getting excited about imaginary terrorists."

Yeah like taking them away from the cops until they learn how to shoot. Fucking 41 rounds for a guy with a knife.

This country was better back when FBI agents were not allowed to carry guns and regular Citizens were. We all had them in the glovebox of our cars. Well maybe half the people.

Y'know, your crime rate did not drop like a rock when they took away your best form of personal defense.

Back when half the people had a gun in their glovebox or under the driver's seat, there were no school shootings. There was also a hell of alot less crime. Know what I think ? I think some of the criminals were afraid of getting shot.

Not long ago a CCW holder blew away an ARMED robber at a Waffle House restaurant. The perp's cousin called for better gun control. I agree, because the other guy got away and was caught later. I he had better gun control he could have blown away both the punks.

See, the problem is that most of you all in the UK and their bailiwick have never been severely threatened. With a gun or otherwise. You do not have the broken social system generating people who will kill you for your shoes. You are civilised.

That is the difference you do not seem to grasp. ut it doesn't matter because the supreme court has spoken. In fact I think they just ruled against a law in Soviet Massachusetts against stun guns.

Question, are you allowed to have stun guns down under ? Or is it that they are dead set, like some here, on making sure you are completely dependent upon Big Brother for protection ? (which he cannot provide of course)

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 4:46:00 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"Better gun control in the US would save a lot more lives than >getting excited about imaginary terrorists."
>
> Yeah like taking them away from the cops until they learn how to shoot. Fucking 41 rounds for a guy with a knife.
>
> This country was better back when FBI agents were not allowed to carry guns and regular Citizens were. We all had them in the glovebox of our cars. Well maybe half the people.

Unlikely.

> Y'know, your crime rate did not drop like a rock when they took away your best form of personal defense.

Whose crime rate, when?

> Back when half the people had a gun in their glovebox or under the driver's seat, there were no school shootings. There was also a hell of a lot less crime. Know what I think ? I think some of the criminals were afraid of getting shot.

In the imagined past when half the population routinely carried a gun in the car (as opposed to the actual past when it was vanishingly rare).

Guns used to be expensive and that kept the number available pretty low. There were still school shootings - the earliest dates back to 1764.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

> Not long ago a CCW holder blew away an ARMED robber at a Waffle House restaurant. The perp's cousin called for better gun control. I agree, because the other guy got away and was caught later. I he had better gun control he could have blown away both the punks.

This has been known to happen Of course the area is promptly inundated with NRA reporters, who spread the story across the entire country. They are less interested in the much more frequent occasions when a concealed carry weapon holder uses their weapon to blow themselves away.

> See, the problem is that most of you all in the UK and their bailiwick have never been severely threatened. With a gun or otherwise. You do not have the broken social system generating people who will kill you for your shoes. You are civilised.

Pull the other leg. Drunks get aggressive all over the world. Life's a bit safer if they aren't carrying a concealed weapon.

> That is the difference you do not seem to grasp. But it doesn't matter because the supreme court has spoken. In fact I think they just ruled against a law in Soviet Massachusetts against stun guns.

Sounds sensible. Stun guns do kill people - not as often a regular firearms, but cardiac arrhythmia can be fatal.

> Question, are you allowed to have stun guns down under ? Or is it that they are dead set, like some here, on making sure you are completely dependent upon Big Brother for protection ? (which he cannot provide of course).

Stun guns are illegal in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/stun-guns-disguised-as-mobiles-20130316-2g7fz.html

I think the attitude is that you are expected to call on help from your neighbours if somebody gets obnoxious. Fewer people end up hurt that way, so the local hospital's emergency department can concentrate on traffic accidents and do-it-yourself gone wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[rickman]

On 3/21/2016 11:50 PM, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> Better gun control in the US would save a lot more lives than getting excited about imaginary terrorists. But the FBI worries about the terrorists it can imagine, rather than the idiots who own guns and go mad from time to time - most people who own guns and go mad use the guns to kill themselves, but some of them suffer from more florid psychoses and go in for suicide by cop.

More than 30,000 per year at last count, more than auto deaths.

--

Rick

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), mako...@yahoo.com wrote:

>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-18/can-fbi-force-apple-workers-to-waive-their-13th-amendment-rights
>
>
>If
> Apple surrenders, Cook would have to assemble a new software team to carry out a government-mandated task.
>
>Now imagine if no Apple employee agreed to join that team. What can the FBI do about it? Can it demand that Tim Cook fire any employee who declines to participate? If so, under what enumerated power?

Updates: dozens blown up in Brussels, and the feds may have found
another way to unlock the phone. With physical access to the flash
chip, I can see how there could be ways. I wonder if the code can be
patched in-place without some checksum failure or something.

[mako...@yahoo.com]

the feds may have found
> another way to unlock the phone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/apple-fbi-hearing-unlock-iphone.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

[John Larkin]

Now this is some heavy-duty irony:


A senior Apple executive, who spoke to reporters on the condition of
anonymity late Monday, said should the government fail to unlock the
phone and continue its fight with the company, Apple would want to
know more about the outside party that has claimed it can break into
the iPhone, in order to learn what methods could circumvent the
company’s security features.

[rickman]

This article says some odd things. "Apple has loudly opposed opening
the iPhone, citing privacy concerns" which may be true to an extent, but
seems to misrepresent the details of the issue. Apple does *not* oppose
opening the phone as far as I know. They oppose being forced to turn
over a hacked copy of their OS which can be used to open *any* of their
related phones.

"The change is a reprieve in the clash that has erupted over how and
when the authorities should use the troves of digital data collected and
stored by tech companies." This is just completely wrong. Apple has
cooperated by sharing the data backed up to the cloud from this phone.
The case in question has *nothing* to do with data Apple collected.

I wonder how much of this story is actually right?

--

Rick

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

there are lots of options

maybe the FBI realized they might lose and didn't want to set a precedent
maybe NSA already had all the info and decide to give it to them
maybe Apple got "an offer they couldn't refuse"

or if the tin foil hat is bit tight: FBI got a tip that if they waited a
day the public might be a bit more on their side

-Lasse

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-03-22, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2016 05:58:31 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> Another loser Europeon.
>>
>>2: you could not be more wrong,
>
> Hardly.

Europe is the other side of the planet from here. how could you be
more wrong?

>>> Idiot, no evidence is needed against the *DEAD*.
>>
>>3: Do you really think they want to use the data on the pbone to catch dead terrorists?
>
> They don't need "evidence", moron. They need *leads*.

you don't say. well you didn't

--
\_(ツ)_

[krw]

On 23 Mar 2016 08:48:47 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>On 2016-03-22, krw <k...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2016 05:58:31 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>> Another loser Europeon.
>>>
>>>2: you could not be more wrong,
>>
>> Hardly.
>
>Europe is the other side of the planet from here. how could you be
>more wrong?

Loser.

>
>>>> Idiot, no evidence is needed against the *DEAD*.
>>>
>>>3: Do you really think they want to use the data on the pbone to catch dead terrorists?
>>
>> They don't need "evidence", moron. They need *leads*.
>
>you don't say. well you didn't

I did. You can't read.