Posted on 02/23/2016 11:34:59 AM PST by Swordmaker
The Justice Department is pursuing court orders to force Apple Inc. to help investigators extract data from iPhones in about a dozen undisclosed cases around the country, in disputes similar to the current battle over a terrorist's locked phone, according to people familiar with the matter.
The other phones are at issue in cases where prosecutors have sought, as in the San Bernardino, Calif. terror case, to use an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act to compel the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, these people said.
Privacy advocates are likely to seize on the cases' existence as proof the government aims to go far beyond what prosecutors have called the limited scope of the current public court fight over a locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.
Law enforcement leaders, however, may cite the existence of the other cases as evidence that the encryption of personal devices has become a serious problem for criminal investigators in a variety of cases and settings.
(Excerpt) Read more at nasdaq.com ...
I agree...but....
> Where in that sentence does it say Apple gets to KEEP the SUBJECT DEVICE
The original claim made was “the power to break everyone’s phones will remain in the hands of Apple”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3400821/posts?page=99#99
During discussion this morphed to “keep the device”
the 5C uses the A6 chip
http://web.archive.org/web/20131115020122/http://www.apple.com/iphone-5c/specs/
I'll have to plead something similar. Since I have voiced my opinion on the issue, the Freeper contingent of the Apple fan club has verbally assaulted me from every direction. (Not to mention all the Super-Libertarians)
At some point, you just assume anyone attacking you is an @$$, and you just lash out without bothering to find out for sure.
My apologies to you for that.
No worries for that. Like I said, if getting denounced and criticized turns you into a whimpering mass of flesh, then the internet is the wrong place for you. :)
My own particular prejudice is (as i have stated before) that apple should not be compelled into some corporate form of involuntary servitude, not to mention servitude of the type to violate the integrity of a key feature of one of its flagship products.
As I posted earlier, Dan Abrams (GMA legal consultant) addressed this "undue burden" legal issue, and asserted that the courts have been using this test to determine if a court order for cooperation is legal or not.
Apple is trying to argue that this an "undue burden", among other things, so a great deal of the argument is going to revolve around how difficult it is for Apple to comply.
I personally think Apple is lying and their objection is not so much to how difficult it is, (Indeed, I think i've read an admission that they can do it) but to the fact that they can be compelled to do it at all.
But according to Abrams, the court will not see this as an "undue burden" on Apple inc. I interpret this to mean that Apple is likely going to lose this case.
Or the final exasperated method of dealing with nonsensical people. I think you are going to have a meltdown when the court ruling goes against Apple.
The only thing that has any relevance is the Court Order.
A court filing from the FBi has ZERO force. It has ZERO effect on anything.
All it is, is a self-serving argument by the FBI, not even filed under oath. It is a CLAIM. Not evidence.
It is akin to a prosecutor's statement of what they intend to prove in an opening statement, but don't even have to stick close to the truth. Apple has not even presented anything yet explaining its legal case; that's due tomorrow.
Apple cannot rely on anything stated in the FBI filing. No action has been taken by the Court on that filing, nor can any action be taken on that filing until the hearing on March 22nd. In fact, if Apple takes action based on that filing, it would be in violation of the Court's order. . . and subject to sanctions!
-PJ
I thought the motion contained many misrepresentations and omissions which is why it does not matter [to me] what they say about the actual process.
From your posting of the DOJ filing:
To the contrary, the Order allows Apple to retain custody of its sofware at all times, and it gives Apple flexibility in the manner in which it provides assistance. In fact, the software never has to come into the government's custody.
And:
When the government first realized that Apple retained the means to obtain that data from the SUBJECT DEVICE and that due to the way that Apple created the software Apple was the only means of obtaining that data, the government sought Apple's voluntary assistance. Apple rejected the government's request, although it conceded that it had the technical capability to help.
From the Court order itself:
The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility;
So in other words, Apple can retain custody of both the device *and* the software. Easy Peasy.
It represents what the government is asking for. Apple only need to ask the Judge to modify/clarify the court order to restrict it so that it only conforms to these requirements.
Apple's legal staff knows full well that they can do this. The problem is that Apple just does not want to do it.
Once again, Apple has the capability to do this without creating a potential threat to anyone else. They just don't want to.
Did you get my message about Thomas Jefferson’s reliance on Vattel in writing the Declaration of Independence?
No, people who believe in unfettered government power are usually the leftists...
Yes I did. Jefferson made notes in the margins of his copies of Vattel’s book. As far as I can tell the notes referred to other books not the DoI, although some ideas are straight out of Vattel. Since it’s OT I’ll freepmail some detailed info.
The Court Order seems to order that the SIF must run in RAM, and not modify the FLASH SSD in any way. The only problem is that the RAM on the iPhone cannot at all access anything in the Secure Enclave, it is literally impossible. The architecture assures that the Secure Enclave is invisible to the RAM and the A7 processor.
The data inside the Secure Enclave is absolutely necessary to decrypt the encrypted data on the FLASH SSD, but it is locked away from anything that runs in RAM, apps, outside invaders, etc., yet the court order required the HACK to run in RAM. Ignorance runs wild.
And, no, it does NOT exist at this time, and, YES, Apple is being ordered to create it. The order makes a stab at "data integrity" but doesn't spell out what happens if the data integrity is lost.
"6. Although Apple shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity of data on the Subject Device, Apple shall not be required to maintain copies of any user data data as a result of the assistance ordered herein."
Apple is also operating within the parameters of the order:
"7. To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order."
Apple requested a five business day extension and it was granted. That expired tomorrow.
And here all this time I thought a "search warrant" was a fetter. I know the British used this thing called "Writs of Assistance",
But when American law took over the requirement of a "warrant" was regarded as "fetter" on abusive government.
Are you now telling me the requirement of a "warrant" is not a restraint on government abuse?
When did this happen?
And where in the IPhone 5C (which uses the A6 processor) is this secure enclave?
Since when does a search warrant give the government the power to order a third-party to create a new product, whether at their own expense or at the government’s expense, to aid the government in executing the search warrant? And you keep bringing up the issue of the search warrant, but Apple is not subject to the search warrant and it is not at issue in this case. The FBI is trying to use a law called the All Writs Warrant to try to force Apple to do this work. That is the type of government power I cam concerned with - the ability of government to force you to create something for them that does not exist, simply because they think it MAY help them.
Ray76, this is outdated BS for what we are discussing. This Apple document you so fully and accurately quoted from is DATED May 2012, Ray. Did you not notice that came from an archive? That means it is no longer valid data< Ray. It has been superseded by more up-to-date information. Or did you notice and choose to publish on FR anyway to confuse the issues? The technology which had "keys stored on device" has been long since been outdated by much more modern means of doing security.
The iOS your document is referring to is iOS 5.0, introduced with the iPhone 4S, released in September of 2011, THREE YEARS before the iPhone 5C involved in the San Bernardino Terrorism Case! The iPhone 4S would have been one of those in which the Contact list, notes, and many of the other data would NOT have been encrypted and been easily accessed with a mere search warrant akin to the "70 others" from which Apple extracted data. However, The iPhone 4S is one which can be updated to the higher level iOS versions, including iOS 9 which was running on the terrorist's iPhone 5C.
Do you DELIBERATELY LOOK for data that obfuscates the case we are talking about, or is it ignorance that leads you astray? I sincerely hope it's the latter. I think you are desperate to denigrate the truths all of us have been telling you. The KEY is NOT stored on the iPhone 5C. The A7 processor and its chip set on the iPhone 5C is far beyond what was available for the iPhone 4S.
One good thing to learn from this is how secure even these older iPhones were to break-ins, so thanks for that.
Now, try THIS instead:
"The device's unique ID (UID) and a device group ID (GID) are AES 256-bit keys fused (UID) or compiled (GID) into the application processor and Secure Enclave during manufacturing. No software or firmware can read them directly; they can see only the results of encryption or decryption operations performed by dedicated AES engines implemented in silicon using the UID or GID as a key. Additionally, the Secure Enclave's UID and GID can only be used by the AES engine dedicated to the Secure Enclave. The UIDs are unique to each device and are not recorded by Apple or any of its suppliers. The GIDs are common to all processors in a class of devices (for example, all devices using the Apple A8 processor), and are used for non security-critical tasks such as when delivering system software during installation and restore. Integrating these keys into the silicon helps prevent them from being tampered with or bypassed, or accessed outside the AES engine. The UIDs and GIDs are also not available via JTAG or other debugging interfaces.The UID allows data to be cryptographically tied to a particular device. For example, the key hierarchy protecting the file system includes the UID, so if the memory chips are physically moved from one device to another, the files are inaccessible. The UID is not related to any other identifier on the device. Apart from the UID and GID, all other cryptographic keys are created by the system's random number generator (RNG) using an algorithm based on CTR_DRBG. System entropy is generated from timing variations during boot, and additionally from interrupt timing once the device has booted. Keys generated inside the Secure Enclave use its true hardware random number generator based on multiple ring oscillators post processed with CTR_DRBG.
Securely erasing saved keys is just as important as generating them. It's especially challenging to do so on Flash storage, where wear-leveling might mean multiple copies of data need to be erased. To address this issue, iOS devices include a feature dedicated to secure data erasure called Effaceable Storage. This feature accesses the underlying storage technology (for example, NAND) to directly address and erase a small number of blocks at a very low level.
iOS Security White Paper, September 2015
The Passcodes are entangled with the UID, which, again, is hidden in the Secure Enclave:
"PasscodesBy setting up a device passcode, the user automatically enables Data Protection. iOS supports six-digit, four-digit, and arbitrary-length alphanumeric passcodes. In addition to unlocking the device, a passcode provides entropy for certain encryption keys. This means an attacker in possession of a device can't get access to data in specs c protection classes without the passcode.
The passcode is entangled with the device's UID, so brute-force attempts must be performed on the device under attack. A large iteration count is used to make each attempt slower. The iteration count is calibrated so that one attempt takes approximately 80 milliseconds. This means it would take more than 5 1â„2 years to try all combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers.
You mean "recompile an existing product with an extremely tiny modification." If you don't, that's what you ought to mean.
whether at their own expense or at the government’s expense, to aid the government in executing the search warrant?
Ask the Courts. It has been standard practice to insist on cooperation from Telephone companies since the 1900s, and Banks since probably 1788. As I mentioned before, Dan Abrahms of ABC news (legal consultant) says the courts will apply the "Undue Burden" test, and the order to cooperate will end up passing this test. (because it really isn't burdensome for Apple to comply.)
to force you to create something for them that does not exist,
Now see here, you misstated the case again. It should read, "Force them to spend 15 minutes to modify and recompile an existing product."
The courts will decide if this is an "undue burden", and I expect them to declare that it is not.
From what I have been reading, the first use of the A7 processor was on the iPhone 5S. The 5C used the A6 processor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.