Apple’s Privacy Fight Tests Relationship with White House(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Apple’s Privacy Fight Tests Relationship with White House
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/technology/apples-privacy-fight-tests-relationship-with-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
10 comments
>The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple, instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not help the relationship.
This doesn't seem substantiated by facts. Apple had been discussing the case with the fbi for 2 months (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...). Also Apple wanted the order to unlock it to be kept secret, and the fbi did not (there's another nytimes source on this, can't find it at the moment).
This doesn't seem substantiated by facts. Apple had been discussing the case with the fbi for 2 months (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...). Also Apple wanted the order to unlock it to be kept secret, and the fbi did not (there's another nytimes source on this, can't find it at the moment).
Cook stated this in his interview. The government would say otherwise if that weren't true.
15:12
David Muir: You have talked to the President before on these issues [yes] of privacy and security. Are you disappointed there wasn't more of a dialog with the administration before this swift action from the justice department?
Tim Cook: Yes.
David Muir: You wish there was more done?
Tim Cook: Yes. And I think there should've been... We found out about the filing from the press. And, I don't think that's the way it should be run. And I don't think that something so important to this country should be handled in this way.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook...
15:12
David Muir: You have talked to the President before on these issues [yes] of privacy and security. Are you disappointed there wasn't more of a dialog with the administration before this swift action from the justice department?
Tim Cook: Yes.
David Muir: You wish there was more done?
Tim Cook: Yes. And I think there should've been... We found out about the filing from the press. And, I don't think that's the way it should be run. And I don't think that something so important to this country should be handled in this way.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook...
Hmmm that seems to contradict the source the NYTimes used here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
>Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Both could be true. Like, they discussed it awhile back, Apple asked them to keep it private, and Apple's request was their last communication before the FBI filed. No reason for Cook to lie here, it'd just make the relationship worse.
Yea, that's true. The nytimes source could be a gov't employee, which could want to represent Apple in a less favorable light.
This is a really weird situation where HN is calling for the government to ignore public opinion and seek the input of a giant corporation in crafting legislation: http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...
[1] People have been trying to discount this survey asserting that those polled just don't get it. But support for the FBI's position holds across age groups (even folks 18-29), extends to highly educated people (those with post-grad educations), and is similar whether or not people have heard a lot or a little about the issue.
[1] People have been trying to discount this survey asserting that those polled just don't get it. But support for the FBI's position holds across age groups (even folks 18-29), extends to highly educated people (those with post-grad educations), and is similar whether or not people have heard a lot or a little about the issue.
That poll asked respondents if "Apple should unlock the iPhone", failing to mention that doing so requires that Apple write new software it does not currently possess. Follow-up questions assessing respondents' knowledge of the factual steps required to comply would have brought a lot more clarity IMO.
Sure, but conflicts between public opinion and a corporation's favored policy often involve the public being underinformed about the technical details involved. The irony stands.
I see nothing ironic about me not wanting government backdoors built into my phone. I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion and I don't care about "public opinion". Especially in this case since I find the public opinion somewhat ridicilous and in extreme conflict with my view of the world.
You should never base your opinion on _who_ says stuff, that's childish. It's the content of the message that matters.
You should never base your opinion on _who_ says stuff, that's childish. It's the content of the message that matters.
Sure, but a similar argument is made about the revolving door between the SEC and Wall St.
It's worth chewing on the juxtaposition, just to examine your own assumptions.
It's worth chewing on the juxtaposition, just to examine your own assumptions.
Please explain, I don't understand what you are talking about. What does SEC and Wall Street have to do with me not wanting my phone hacked?
A common public complaint about the SEC is that it is essentially filled with Wall Street insiders, so Wall Street is effectively only regulated by itself. The counterpoint is that experience is necessary to comprehend the technical details, and that outsiders lack that insight.
If the polling is taken at face value [0], the public would like to control Apple, whereas people who know tech are against such regulation.
Both situations are similar - industry autonomy versus unwashed public opinion. All lobbing has this same tension - the entities that stand to profit from something inevitable are the ones who understand it best. Feeling differently about each instance isn't hypocritical, it just means you should ponder the nuances for why.
[0] Modulo leading questions, framing, etc. I, for one, don't have a hard time believing the polls are roughly accurate. Groups of people are hysterical ugly creatures, led simply by scaremongering media.
If the polling is taken at face value [0], the public would like to control Apple, whereas people who know tech are against such regulation.
Both situations are similar - industry autonomy versus unwashed public opinion. All lobbing has this same tension - the entities that stand to profit from something inevitable are the ones who understand it best. Feeling differently about each instance isn't hypocritical, it just means you should ponder the nuances for why.
[0] Modulo leading questions, framing, etc. I, for one, don't have a hard time believing the polls are roughly accurate. Groups of people are hysterical ugly creatures, led simply by scaremongering media.
Agreed 100%.
> requires that Apple write new software it does not currently posses
I'm not American, but how is this different from the demands imposed by CALEA? If the platform did not support wire taps, you would have to put in work on a feature which wasn't there to add wire tap capabilities.
I'm not American, but how is this different from the demands imposed by CALEA? If the platform did not support wire taps, you would have to put in work on a feature which wasn't there to add wire tap capabilities.
And your point is Telecoms do additional work for law and security services - doing a on of build of ios is not a huge amount of work.
there was a time public opinion thought alcohol should be illegal. there was also a long stretch of time where public opinion thought jews and people of irish descent shouldn't have certain jobs.
public opinion is useless. the US is a country of laws, not men (people)
public opinion is useless. the US is a country of laws, not men (people)
Meanwhile there is another poll with a different result http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-poll-idUS...
Yikes. I find the majority support on the second question particularly disturbing.
> second question
The government should be able to look at data on Americans'
smart phones in order to protect against terror threats.
Exactly.
"The government should be able to do anything no matter how egregious and unconstitutional in order to prevent terrorist attacks and keep you safe" would get a whole lot more support than you'd like, too.
It's very important that governments do what is right, not what is popular. The worst of Popularism is all about short term revenge and reprisals.
Mob rule is not democracy, nor should it guide legislation.
Democracy is more or less "mob rule" by definition. Fortunately, it's rare to see democracy implemented in any group with more people than you can fit around a table. To protect against mob rule, we instead use a democratically elected republic as a specific check against emotional and easily influenced mob opinion.
This is highly inappropriate. The argument should be based in principles and philosophies, not in political machinations motivated by a diplomat with a history degree.
Denis McDonough is not qualified or educated to understand what he is arguing against. He is a man standing for the wave of Establishment thinking without ever having offered an original thought of his own.
The idea that the White House could unduly influence Apple on this issue is frightening. The Chief of Staff should not be doing this. He yields ridiculous power; what if the next Tim Cook is weaker or the next Denis McDonough is even more authoritarian.
We should argue from principles and philosophies. This is a dangerous world we are creating. One where individual personalities dominate us and determine our freedom, instead of philosophies derived from reason and analytical thinking.
Truth should be defended with honor, while power blinds those from knowing there was ever such a thing as truth. What is right is not relative, there is only one correct answer here.
Denis McDonough is not qualified or educated to understand what he is arguing against. He is a man standing for the wave of Establishment thinking without ever having offered an original thought of his own.
The idea that the White House could unduly influence Apple on this issue is frightening. The Chief of Staff should not be doing this. He yields ridiculous power; what if the next Tim Cook is weaker or the next Denis McDonough is even more authoritarian.
We should argue from principles and philosophies. This is a dangerous world we are creating. One where individual personalities dominate us and determine our freedom, instead of philosophies derived from reason and analytical thinking.
Truth should be defended with honor, while power blinds those from knowing there was ever such a thing as truth. What is right is not relative, there is only one correct answer here.
I think that's overdramatic. We have a voice in this and if we are loud enough, if we educate people enough, we can make this an election issue. Don't underestimate the power of your voice and vote.
Nobody here should want this to be an election issue. A large block of voters are against apple, are pro-backdoors. If this became an election issue anyone seeking to win (all of them) will adopt a middle ground stance. That middle ground will be something like "backdoors, but only if X Y and Z".
Except trump. He won't be middle ground. He'll probably personally unlock the phone using a gold-plated hammer.
Except trump. He won't be middle ground. He'll probably personally unlock the phone using a gold-plated hammer.
The only way we will have a chance at making change on this issue is by electing representatives who understand technology. One way we can elect them is of the public understands technology. And, one way to educate the public is via making this an election issue and by repeatedly suggesting that if we outlaw encryption, then only two parties will have it- government and criminals. Civilians will be the ones who suffer most.
There is literally no presidential candidate who supports Apple's position.
The Republican field (now that Rand Paul quit) supports the FBI. The Democratic candidates want to strike a balance between giving the FBI what it wants and giving the FBI what it wants.
The Republican field (now that Rand Paul quit) supports the FBI. The Democratic candidates want to strike a balance between giving the FBI what it wants and giving the FBI what it wants.
Agreed. Note though that this has been true for years. There has never been a president who understands technology, or even any congressmen on committees that decide such things. This is why we must find some and vote them in.
It's the hallmark of corrupt, broken governments when the biggest companies are forced to have amicable relationships, or have their principals sent to Siberia in chains.
On doing so, Apple probably gains respect from other countries except the USA.
Myself, from another country is amused that Apple has managed to manipulate 95% of tech community into thinking that they can't do what the FBI wants because that would create a backdoor.
To anyone whose mind is not clouded by ideology it should be clear that the backdoor already exists and that what Apple is resisting is creating an exploit for it.
To anyone whose mind is not clouded by ideology it should be clear that the backdoor already exists and that what Apple is resisting is creating an exploit for it.
If the backdoor exists, let the FBI use it.
Oh, I see. What you're talking about is that they can force Apple to write a crack, etc. Not really a backdoor, but...
That's literally just saying that because it isn't technically impossible, that they can force Apple to do it.
Oh, I see. What you're talking about is that they can force Apple to write a crack, etc. Not really a backdoor, but...
That's literally just saying that because it isn't technically impossible, that they can force Apple to do it.
For the billionth time, a backdoor exists in an outdated hardware infrastructure. It's not clear if this would even be possible on current generation iPhones, but one surefire way to get Apple to create one is by setting a precedent of law enforcement dictating the actions of phone manufacturers.
Stop muddying the issue; we need focus right now to keep this from happening.
Stop muddying the issue; we need focus right now to keep this from happening.
The backdoor exists on new hardware, too; the firmware of the secure enclave can be updated in place by Apple without expunging key material.
Even if you close this one backdoor, others exist; the fact is you can only pick two of:
- Platform DRM.
- Implicit Trust of Vendor-Signed Software & Entitlements.
- Robust Security Ecosystem.
As long as Apple can push applications with arbitrary entitlements to devices, or encrypted OS updates unreadable by 3rd-parties, and no mechanisms exists to verify that it's only ever used responsibility, there are serious, dangerous backdoors.
On the other hand, law enforcement's "backdoor" requires judicial review in the light of day.
I'd take the DoJ's precedent in this case over Apple's any day of the week.
If the DoJ/FBI then tries to shove pre-emptive crypto backdoors from congress, that's a different battle, and one I'm happy to fight. However, siding with Apple now muddies the real issues at stake and may undermine our negotiating position when it comes to the general crypto debate.
Even if you close this one backdoor, others exist; the fact is you can only pick two of:
- Platform DRM.
- Implicit Trust of Vendor-Signed Software & Entitlements.
- Robust Security Ecosystem.
As long as Apple can push applications with arbitrary entitlements to devices, or encrypted OS updates unreadable by 3rd-parties, and no mechanisms exists to verify that it's only ever used responsibility, there are serious, dangerous backdoors.
On the other hand, law enforcement's "backdoor" requires judicial review in the light of day.
I'd take the DoJ's precedent in this case over Apple's any day of the week.
If the DoJ/FBI then tries to shove pre-emptive crypto backdoors from congress, that's a different battle, and one I'm happy to fight. However, siding with Apple now muddies the real issues at stake and may undermine our negotiating position when it comes to the general crypto debate.
The real issue is that I have a fucking right to have my device be secure against the government. It's funny how you can only make sense of your argument when you get down in the weeds and lose sight of the big picture.
I'm not OP, but the gist of his argument is you cannot be secure against the government if you cannot be secure against Apple first. If Apple continues to force people to trust it, the government will subvert this trust via legal means.
I find the argument quite congent. It's not getting lost in the weeeds, but generalizing the problem; instead of just fixing this bug, why not go ahead and fix the whole class of possible bugs?
I find the argument quite congent. It's not getting lost in the weeeds, but generalizing the problem; instead of just fixing this bug, why not go ahead and fix the whole class of possible bugs?
> The backdoor exists on new hardware, too; the firmware of the secure enclave can be updated in place by Apple without expunging key material.
Can you point me to any material documentation of this fact? Because I've been following this whole thing very closely and there's not been one word of this being fact as far as I've seen.
Can you point me to any material documentation of this fact? Because I've been following this whole thing very closely and there's not been one word of this being fact as far as I've seen.
"I have no clue where they got the idea that changing SPE firmware will destroy keys. SPE FW is just a signed blob on iOS System Part" - John Kelley (Embedded Security @ Apple)
https://twitter.com/johnhedge/status/699882614212075520
https://twitter.com/johnhedge/status/699882614212075520
Huh, found this reply only moments later down the stream:
http://i.imgur.com/meUjRmQ.png
Seems even the great John Kelley doesn't seem to know what the fuck is going on.
http://i.imgur.com/meUjRmQ.png
Seems even the great John Kelley doesn't seem to know what the fuck is going on.
The focus should be to prevent the government from denying phone manufacturers the right to build bulletproof encryption into their phones. We want bullet proof encryption because the internet is an open book and people are sick of their privacy being compromised.
Consider this future scenario:
FBI: "Dear Apple, can you help us unlock this iPhone like last time?"
Apple: "No can do. It uses our latest build which is bullet proof. No backdoors possible. We'll give you all the information we have related to the account holder though."
FBI: "Dang. Thanks for info."
And that's how it should be. That's what we should be fighting for. It seems to me by fighting this current issue for Apple's right not to bust open its exploit, we've jumped the gun. It's confusing matters, and now we have polls showing half of voters want Apple to "help fight terrorism rather than not help fight terrorism".
Consider this future scenario:
FBI: "Dear Apple, can you help us unlock this iPhone like last time?"
Apple: "No can do. It uses our latest build which is bullet proof. No backdoors possible. We'll give you all the information we have related to the account holder though."
FBI: "Dang. Thanks for info."
And that's how it should be. That's what we should be fighting for. It seems to me by fighting this current issue for Apple's right not to bust open its exploit, we've jumped the gun. It's confusing matters, and now we have polls showing half of voters want Apple to "help fight terrorism rather than not help fight terrorism".
That's the media's influence/lack of understanding/lack of objectivity, and we don't have any control over that. You're right that we should be able to focus on the right of manufacturers to delivery encryption and privacy to customers and the right of customers to have that, but every time we make that point, Comey and his dregs repeat "it's only for one phone!" So we have to start from there.
For the billionth time? Seriously?
Could I ask for at least 2 examples on HN?
The Apple Force is strong here.
Could I ask for at least 2 examples on HN?
The Apple Force is strong here.
This is not a decent way to behave for honest and competent technologist. You know that you are yourself muddying the issue. I understand why you do it.. but seriously.. doing it this way? What is wrong with you?
I am seriously concerned with the way people are treating this thing. The way I see it is a bit like "I really don't want the feds to be able decrypt data on phones - so I will falsify a bunch of arguments."
Lying never works...long term.
I am seriously concerned with the way people are treating this thing. The way I see it is a bit like "I really don't want the feds to be able decrypt data on phones - so I will falsify a bunch of arguments."
Lying never works...long term.
That is what campaign donations are for. I don't think the White House cares that much. The leadership at the CIA, DoD on the other hand care. That is who will be sour.
Of course the white house cares. Public safety is a top priority. The DOD is telling them that putting back doors on encrypted devices is the only way to keep the public safe when nothing could be further from the truth. It will make us less safe by making sure criminals always have an avenue to our digital data along with the government.
"This was evident at the meeting in January in Silicon Valley."
which meeting?
which meeting?
This nytimes article mentions the talks too but doesn't give details: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...
[deleted]
Only context I could find was the caption photo:
"Denis McDonough, President Obama’s chief of staff. He met with Apple last month."
"Denis McDonough, President Obama’s chief of staff. He met with Apple last month."
rand1012(3)
Seems like the fix is in for Apple.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-lose...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-lose...
[deleted](1)
Can we stop pretending that apple are taking a privacy stand? They are taking walled garden and vendor locking stand. If they lose this - they must create device that even they cannot compromise. After all any device that is secure from apple is not easy to be forced to stay in the apple ecosystem.
Sony cares more about my privacy by not caring about what happens with their device after sale - I can unlock my bootloader, put clean AOSP, put firewall and only use F-Droid apps that I have installed.
Apple fight is about - we want to have total control over our users, but we don't want to share it with USG. Well - that is not how it works.
Sony cares more about my privacy by not caring about what happens with their device after sale - I can unlock my bootloader, put clean AOSP, put firewall and only use F-Droid apps that I have installed.
Apple fight is about - we want to have total control over our users, but we don't want to share it with USG. Well - that is not how it works.
> If they lose this - they must create device that even they cannot compromise
That's the reported plan even if they win.
At any rate, it opens the door for a competitor to offer a secure product. I'd love it if Apple would do this but they can act as they wish, that's their right. For now I'll support what I believe in, the right to privacy, and encourage Apple to give us self signed systems (maybe dual signed?) in the future.
That's the reported plan even if they win.
At any rate, it opens the door for a competitor to offer a secure product. I'd love it if Apple would do this but they can act as they wish, that's their right. For now I'll support what I believe in, the right to privacy, and encourage Apple to give us self signed systems (maybe dual signed?) in the future.
This is false at face value. Anyone who would rather maintain the security of their own device after purchase can do so by choosing a suitable android phone as you have done. There is nothing Apple can do to force users to stay in their ecosystem. Their fight is about maintaining the privacy of people who choose to be their customers.
The "we only allow software signed by us" on iphones is forcing people quite a bit when bought iphones. There are no legal ways for a person to load their OS on the apple devices. Or alternate app stores.
Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone, and the fact that apps must be approved by Apple is not only public, but is a selling point that Apple advertises.
Where is Apple forcing anyone to do anything?
Where is Apple forcing anyone to do anything?
If you buy apple ios hardware you are forced to use apple software. You cannot install lets say Debian. Not because it could not be reversed engineered enough to be built for it, but because apple has the walled garden's keys.
Compare that to macbooks and x86 pc-s in which you could load anything you like. So apple are forcing you to use their software to be able to utilize their iDevices at all.
Compare that to macbooks and x86 pc-s in which you could load anything you like. So apple are forcing you to use their software to be able to utilize their iDevices at all.
How do they force you to buy their hardware?
The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple, instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not help the relationship.
There's not much I see from the government's side attempting to further relations with Apple. The upcoming encryption bill due out in March is another example. How much do you want to bet Apple has not been asked for their input while drafting it?