Hacker News Reader

Comment by multinglets | Hacker News Reader

So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it.

The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance.

If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door already existed.

So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device" and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?

View on HN

1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

> 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk through it, that would not mean houses now have back doors. That would be a very disingenuous way of putting it.

"But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how we intend to survive as a species.

> 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.

Did you read their motion?[1] It is very much part of their argument. It sets a precedent that not only will other US courts compel them to unlock devices, but other countries will as well. Even if you trust the US government to not use the software maliciously, do you trust other governments?

1) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...

What's stopping other governments from compelling then to unlock phones now, given they've effectively said they can.

What's stopping rogue employees from selling that capability - is Apple Computer's internal security good enough to see off espionage by nation states?

They've already asked and Apple has had a strong bargaining position.

"Beijing last year backed off on some proposals that would have required foreign companies to provide encryption keys for devices sold in the country after facing pressure from foreign trade groups."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-valu...

If Apple were to allow this for the US government other governments will want the same.

> If we were talking about a safe somewhere

This has been discussed. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178475

Exactly. The backdoor already exists - what Apple are being asked to create is a specific exploit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com