Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other

NASDAQ ^ | February 22, 2016, 11:48:00 PM EDT

[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.

[Swordmaker]

I see from one online document somewhere that all A7 processors have secure enclave capability. I also see that IOS 7 runs on A7 processors. If both are true, it still does not necessarily mean that IOS 7 uses the secure enclave. And there are IOS revisions for every major release to consider.

No, in this case, DiogenesLamp is correct, the iPhone 5C runs on a A6 processor. It has a different system than the Secure Enclave, but it does have the secure systems built-in to the Secure Boot system. Apple had not yet moved them to the Secure Enclave for a higher level of security. This is the reason that Apple CAN get around the security on this model of iPhone with defeating the boot systems. . . but those approaches can conceivably also be used on later iPhones as well. However the Apple Signatures and BootID is also written in the BOOT silicon and it is signed to the A6. It's a tell me twice system instead of the tell me thrice system of the A7 and later system which requires all three to be present for everything to be present. For the A6, both have to be present. Remove or alter one, and the system is forced into the DFU mode that requires a FACTORY level reset, erasing all data. See above about low level erasure of data locations. Recall, please, that the iPhone in question is running iOS 9.2, not iOS 7, regardless of the A7 processor.

I also sense that there is a separate legal issue of what the appropriate venue is for resolution. I am not a lawyer but hopefully we will get some timely clarification on that from legal folks.

Did you notice the Court Order from the Magistrate judge was not even signed, but rubber stamped? That indicates it was most likely handled as in administrative nature, probably by the court clerk, just as a matter of routine, in a pile of other documents. It makes me wonder if the judge even reviewed it. She may have grabbed onto a tiger's tail and wondering desperately how she can let go without getting clawed to death.

[sargon]

Now see here, you misstated the case again. It should read, "Force them to spend 15 minutes to modify and recompile an existing product."

No, you're misstating the case.

There is no back door. Apple can't change a few lines of code, recompile, and suddenly have a back door. If they did, their product would have been a reeking pile of shit before the recompile.

Do some research on "strong encryption". If Apple lets the customer generate a component of the key, then there's nothing that Apple can do to suddenly decrypt the data.

Maybe Apple could somehow do something about the "10 retries only" issue, but that's about it.

But the only attack available is a brute force attack, and the 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude.

Other than complying with record requests and the like, the government can't force the Apple into some kind of corporate slavery...

[Swordmaker]

What *I* see, is him repeating himself regarding arguments I have already shown (at least to me) as irrelevant or just plain wrong.

You keep repeating the same tired erroneous claims. Of course I keep rebutting them. . . and I will continue correcting your claims.

I am still waiting for the exact English, Legal words from the Court Order that state that Apple gets to KEEP the SUBJECT DEVICE after it loads the modified operating system to allow the government unlimited brute force passcode tries without erasing the data. You are still stone-walling publishing your answer, claiming you already posted it. You assert it's obvious it does, I state factually there is no such language in the court order and quoted the Court Order verbatim. Prove your assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

[Mark17]

Keep up the good work.

[IncPen]

Since when does a search warrant give the government the power to order a third-party to create a new product, You mean "recompile an existing product with an extremely tiny modification."

If you don't, that's what you ought to mean.

No matter how you try to pretty it up, you are openly advocating that a US company be forced to create a product which diminishes the liberty of not just US citizens, but anyone who owns or uses Apple products. The central hallmark of Apple's position is that their brand relies on the security they provide their customers. These are basic civil rights.

It should read, "Force them to spend 15 minutes to modify and recompile an existing product."

Fifteen minutes, fifteen seconds, fifteen years.

You're a freaking authoritarian Stalinist.

Your twisted 'logic' is the reason we need a 2nd Amendment.

There can be no doubt that you are on the wrong website.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no back door. Apple can't change a few lines of code, recompile, and suddenly have a back door.

I am not going to argue with you over the meaning of the term "back door." Disabling the limited number of tries, and disabling the time delay between tries will allow the phone to be "unlocked" through the "brute force" method, and a D@mn I do not give what people want to call it.

Let's see. To stop a loop from counting to 10? How many instruction changes would that require? How about "1."

To eliminate a time delay between tries? How many instruction changes would that require. Again i'll say "1."

Easy peasy.

[DiogenesLamp]

You see? This is what I mean. It really is a waste of time trying to reason with this sort of person.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry. Wrong link. This is the one.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

May or may not have been posted, Apple’s Motion to Vacate:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722196-Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations.html

[Swordmaker]

The original claim made was “the power to break everyone’s phones will remain in the hands of Apple”

Sigh. Ray, nowhere in the Court Order does it say even that. Again, directly FROM THE COURT ORDER, verbatim:

". . . providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle or other Software image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory ("RAM") and will not modify the i/os on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the devices's flash memory. . . The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode or other applicable mode available to the FBI."

To NOT follow the above protocols outlined in the Court Order, Apple must get the concurrence of the government.

"lf Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.

How many times do we have to repeat that words mean things. In legal terminology they MEAN exactly what they say. They do not waffle, they do not mean something else. "Providing" means that Apple will give this software to the FBI. Later this poorly written documents states that Apple will permit the "government", not just the FBI, but the "government", to have access to the "SUBJECT DEVICE" and it does not say only to the data on that device. Ergo, it means to ALL of that "SUBJECT DEVICE" including what Apple had to add to make it available to the "government". Let me repeat, in legal language, words MEAN THINGS.

lawyers take courses in getting camels through the eyes of needles and straining at gnats. That's why they are paid the big bucks (not male deer). . . because they know how to parse the distance between the rock and the hard place to squeeze everything out of a tight clause so that you squeak when you come out the other side.

Go back, look at the top of the Court Order and note what it says. . . wait, never mind, I'll post it:

Do you see the strike-through of the word "PROPOSED"? It means this was written by the FBI in its totality. It wasn't written by the judge at all. It wasn't a balanced, thought out proposal, it was exactly what the government ignorantly wanted written by people who don't have a clue what they are doing. Apple was not even notified this "All Writs Act" order was being contemplated. It was a blindsided hit when they were already assisting the FBI!

[Swordmaker]

During discussion this morphed to “keep the device”

Are you not aware of the capabilities of the NSA and the government to REVERSE engineer the device if it HAD the new capability on it when it was returned to them? For that reason, people on here and elsewhere were claiming that Apple was going to be allowed to KEEP THE DEVICE, so that could not happen! They were even conflating the fact that Apple would allow the government remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE as evidence that Apple would not have to give the iPhone back. . . even one who is still participating on this thread, who repeatedly quoted that as his proof that Apple would be keeping the iPhone.

[Swordmaker]

Can you guys take your debate off of the ping list, please?

I thought you might be interested. But I won't ping you to this. Sorry.

[Swordmaker]

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.

See Ray, I rest my case that there are some delusional people on this thread who think that means that Apple gets to KEEP the SUBJECT DEVICE, totally ignoring the Court Order's clause that states:

"All evidence preservation shall remain the responsibility of law enforcement agents."

The iPhone 5C, the "SUBJECT DEVICE" is clearly "evidence" yet DiogenesLamp is convinced in his delusional world that Apple will be allowed to retain custody of the "SUBJECT DEVICE".

As I have also pointed out before, if anything is found on the SUBJECT DEVICE that results in an arrest and trial, the software used becomes subject to discovery and will be ordered released to the defense for investigation in the interests of a "fair trial". Those who created it will be subject to cross-examination under oath over how it works, challenging them that they inserted false data on the SUBJECT DEVICE while unlocking it, and it all becomes public record. I cited a similar case where a "secret" method used to unlock Blackberry phones in a kiddie porn case was ordered released by the TRIAL JUDGE because he believed in openness. . . stupid, but a precedent setting case that could be cited. . . because the media wanted to use it.

This is what happens when software specifications are written by ignorant amateurs and read by ignorant amateurs with wishful thinking.

[CA Conservative]

You mean "recompile an existing product with an extremely tiny modification." If you don't, that's what you ought to mean.

Apparently you know very little about software development, cryptography and the like. It is probably technically possible to do what is being asked, but it is a lot more complicated than just recompiling some code with a few tweaks.

Ask the Courts. It has been standard practice to insist on cooperation from Telephone companies since the 1900s, and Banks since probably 1788.

Yes, to use the existing technology to assist. Not to require them to develop something new.

[Swordmaker]

And where in the IPhone 5C (which uses the A6 processor) is this secure enclave?

With the A6, the secure area is in the Boot ROM's Silicon. . . it was not yet named the Secure Enclave. There was also a section of the A6 processor which was walled off, not as secure as it would be later with the Secure Enclave, but if foreshadowed what was coming. iOS 9 takes advantage of those when running on the A6.

[Ray76]

The difference between the diagrams is the presence of the secure enclave. I chose the diagram since the 5c does not have a secure enclave. From the link you've provided: "The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor fabricated in the Apple A7 or later A-series processor." iOS Security White Paper, September 2015]). The 5c uses the A6 processor. The phone in question does not have a secure enclave.

The document you've provided is for iOS9 which does not apply to the phone in question.

The Apple website contains information regarding current products, not discontinued products such as the 5c. This necessitates referring to archives. Discontinued outdated products have discontinued outdated documentation associated with them, they certainly do not have associated with them documentation for hardware they do not contain or software that can not be executed, such as the documentation you are referring to. The block diagram you provided is not relevant to the phone in question.

[Swordmaker]

The document you've provided is for iOS9 which does not apply to the phone in question.

Excuse me, but what part of the iPhone 5C in question is running iOS 9.2 do you FAIL to understand? This has been reported numerous times. It is one of the reasons they are having trouble getting data off of the device.

[Swordmaker]

May or may not have been posted, Apple's Motion to Vacate:

HOOOEEEE! This may take some time to digest. Over 355 pages. That's heavy. I may have indigestion afterwards.

[DiogenesLamp]

Apparently you know very little about software development, cryptography and the like. It is probably technically possible to do what is being asked, but it is a lot more complicated than just recompiling some code with a few tweaks.

Why, does Apple encrypt their code while their coders are writing it? Seems like that would make it D@mn near impossible to get anything done. :)

No, the code is written, than ran through their encryption mess, but at the top level, it is straightforward readable code.

Yes, to use the existing technology to assist. Not to require them to develop something new.

And there you go again with that "develop something new" dodge. Every time they recompile it is "something new."

If you know how to write code, you know that recompiling and creating version "New.x" is nothing.

[Ray76]

> Excuse me, but what part of the iPhone 5C in question is running iOS 9.2 do you FAIL to understand?

How about: “The iPhone 5C in question is running iOS 9.2”