Justice Dept.’s Latest Legal Filing in Apple Case | Hacker News Reader

Justice Dept.’s Latest Legal Filing in Apple Case

nytimes.com

22 pointslucio21 comments

This seems like a well crafted attack on Apple (perhaps the highest profile tech company publicly supporting consumer encryption). The revelation earlier this week that the pass code changed while under government custody seems to point to this being a witch hunt.

The "just this one time" argument doesn't hold up for me. This is a battle over public opinion and government powers. That they picked the San Bernardino case to issue this order on is not a coincidence.

There is essentially no way to win this for privacy. If Apple wins, government will make the case for more funding to break into devices tech companies refuse to assist on. If the government wins this will be the tip of the ice berg on the government compelling corporations to whatever ends.

I've never believed in a conspiracy theory except for this case.

The government clearly wants to hack more than this one phone. The government clearly waited for the next terror attack to launch this attack on privacy and encryption.

It stands to reason not only the federal government will ask for this capability again, seeing as it's the only way around FDE at the moment; but many state, and local governments will ask for this capability, as will foreign governments, national and local.

If the government's position is accepted by the court, I think Apple will have to weigh a future iOS version that requires a passcode to do any software or firmware upgrades, vs an iOS version that requires more complex passcodes. Either of these things would substantially narrow the hole they're being ordered to create.

A future law to inhibit the former (passcode require to update firmware) may withstand scrutiny over the later (longer passcode), so longer passcodes may be in iOS and Android's near future.

The document is fairly easy to parse, even for us non-lawyers. The filing reiterates the government's position, that Apple has unlocked phones in other cases, has the ability to comply with the court order, and Apple's marketing or business concerns or effect on shareholders are irrelevant to the matter.

In reading the document it seemed to me that the outcome may hinge on whether compliance would be considered "burdensome" to Apple. The government asserts that modifying the software (for this one instance and no other) is more or less trivial, therefore Apple really has no grounds for refusal.

Some comments on HN have suggested the software isn't so simple to produce, but not something I know enough about to speculate. Perhaps Apple's reply to the court will shed some light on this aspect. Fascinating to watch this chess match play out.

I'm guessing in the end the court order will stand and Apple will need to comply. Maybe Apple surmises the same. It's reasonable to believe their protests will garner ongoing public sympathy while cooperating with the FBI under compulsion of the court.

For those of us that aren't aware, do you know much about the instances where apple has unlocked phones in the past? I was not aware of this!

It's been reported that Apple unlocked phones 70 times in the past. But all those instances were for phones with older versions of iOS that were pre-encryption.

It's been falsely reported that Apple unlocked phones 70 times in the past. See Matthew Panzarino's article in TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-7...

No matter what kind of program I write, there seems to be some way for unexpected delays to occur.

If Apple were somehow forced to perform this “burdensome” activity, they should take their sweet time and claim one unexpected software/hardware issue after another. Why not? It is entirely plausible (lots of precedence) and since they are by definition building something they did not have before, they could even say they have no experience with what they are trying to build so they can’t know how long it would take. :)

Given how hard both parties are hitting this particular punching bag, it's reasonable it ends up at the Supreme Court. While a 4-4 tie at the Court isn't certain, it makes estimation of how the court of appeals will decide the case more important since that decision would stand if SCOTUS splits.

> that Apple has unlocked phones in other cases

With or without whole system encryption?

Why doesn't Apple simply write some "buggy" software that "accidentally" wipes the contents of the phone?

Because that'd be extremely transparent and cheating the U.S. Government in a legal matter isn't going to help anyone long term. They'd just use it as more evidence that they need more control.

How could they ever prove the difference between a bug and malicious intent? If they want control over the process then don't ask Apple to do it for you.

Also, Apple wouldn't be able to test it well because the custom OS was written to only work on that specific phone (not the model of phone, the defendant's phone).

This does appear to undermine Apple's argument that the Order could have wider security implications. As such Apple is allowed to do what is necessary to retrieve the passcode in-house, and destroy all software/hardware related to the process thereafter. It of course sets a unwelcome precedent, but that appears to be it.

Sounds like if that process were followed a defense attorney would be free to argue that there was no way to prove any evidence produced from the decryption had not been completely invented in the process.

Why would that be? If they are handed the passcode, the device could be decrypted in the presence of the defence, and verified by their experts.

Who exactly is "the defense" right now?

Good point. The defence would be the defence for anyone implicated by the recovered information. The government would be prudent to undertake the decryption in a way that would not permit such a defence to question its authenticity.

So that next time they'll just have to do it all over again.

The precedent is a wider security implication.

I agree, but quite different from the technology actually being in the hands of three letter agencies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com