Daily Archives: February 18, 2016

Edward Snowden defends Apple in fight against FBI

Edward Snowden — the ex-NSA contractor who started this whole privacy debate — has joined the ranks of Apple defenders.
Snowden

On Tuesday, a federal magistrate-judge ruled that Apple must help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. The FBI was unable to figure out the shooter’s passcode, which is the only way to get inside his iPhone.

Apple CEO Tim Cook is furious, saying that the U.S. government is trying to undermine the security of its flagship product.

“The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers,” Cook said.

Apple plans to fight the decision, aided by the ACLU.

On Wednesday, the divide was clear: politicians versus engineers.

“The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around,” Snowden said Wednesday morning on Twitter.

Late Wednesday, Silicon Valley’s powerful tech industry trade group came out in support of Apple too.

“We worry about the broader implications … of requiring technology companies to cooperate with governments to disable security features, or introduce security vulnerabilities,” said the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents Dell, Facebook (FB, Tech30), Google, Hewlett Packard (HPE, Tech30), IBM (IBM, Tech30), Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30), Nokia (NOK) and others.

For years, the FBI has demanded special access into smartphones. Tech companies have refused, instead increasing the security of their customers’ data.

Cryptographers, the scholars who build security into technology, have unanimously warned that special access is a dangerous idea. To them, this isn’t about security competing with privacy. It’s just about security.

The San Bernardino shooter, Syed Farook, used an iPhone 5C. The FBI has been trying to guess his passcode to unlock it. If they guess wrong 10 times, Farook’s iPhone will permanently erase all the data stored inside.

Apple doesn’t hold the keys to his device. But the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of its iOS software that will get loaded onto the phone, circumvent Apple’s security features and let agents hack it.

Dan Guido, who runs the cybersecurity firm Trail of Bits, explained in a blog post Wednesday that this hack is possible. He said it would work on any iPhone 5C or older model, putting them “at risk when they’re confiscated by law enforcement around the world.”

Last year, the world’s top cryptographers issued a joint paper saying this is a bad idea. CNNMoney asked them if this particular San Bernardino case changes their mind. All seven who responded said no.

Matthew Green, who teaches cryptography and computer security at Johns Hopkins University, fears it’s a slippery slope. If Apple complies with the government this time, it’ll be forced to in the future.

“I haven’t seen any guiding principle that would prevent this from getting out of hand. It could easily result in every American becoming less secure,” he said.

Columbia University computer science professor Steven M. Bellovin said that if Apple doesn’t resist the FBI, it’ll soon face the same pressure from authoritarian and repressive governments like China.

“This makes it much easier for others — other police departments, other governments — to demand the same thing,” he said.

Bruce Schneier, one of the world’s top cryptographers, warned that criminals could also use this kind of special access to break into people’s phones to steal messages, photographs and other personal information. If Apple creates a weaker version of its operating system, others will get their hands on it.

Most tech industry executives — who normally tout privacy — remained silent Wednesday. WhatsApp cofounder Jan Koum stood out with this message on Facebook: “We must not allow this dangerous precedent to be set.”

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of the few politicians to rise to Apple’s defense, said “no company should be forced to deliberately weaken its products.”

(Read more: Manhattan DA says Apple makes terrorism cases ‘go cold’)

Other politicians pushed back on that idea Wednesday. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the FBI is “not asking Apple to redesign its product or create a new backdoor to one of their products. They’re simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device.”

Leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump weighed in too, saying, “we have to open it up.” Marco Rubio, who is also vying for the Republican presidential nomination, said Apple should give up its fight and be “a good corporate citizen.”

But even those who support the FBI’s demands say it’s a point of no return. Cyrus Walker teaches at the government-funded Cyber Defense Analysis Center, where he trains federal agents and police how to hack smartphones in criminal cases.

“If Apple demonstrates the ability to get around its own security countermeasures, that bell is rung and can’t be un-rung,” said Walker.

Google CEO Sides With Apple And Tim Cook, Opposes FBI’s Demand For iPhone Backdoor

apple-googleGoogle’s CEO Sundar Pichai has joined a number of other high profile individuals in expressing his opinions on FBI’s request for Apple to provide backdoor access to an iPhone 5c that forms part of the San Bernardino shooting case. A federal judge has ruled that Apple must indeed assist law enforcement in granting access to a seized iPhone 5c that belonged to one of the shooters accused of killing 14 individuals in California. Commenting on the situation via the use of social media, Sundar Pichai called it a “troubling precedent”.

If you weren’t privy to the whole situation, then it’s probably worth noting that Apple’s CEO Tim Cook almost instantly responded to the ruling with a public and open message to Apple’s customers. In addition to providing a little insight into the ruling and how it came about, Cook also took the opportunity to inform the customers that Apple would be contesting the ruling, claiming that the FBI essentially wants Apple’s engineers to create a new version of iOS that comes with the ability to circumvent very specific security features (read: backdoor access). Cook clearly doesn’t want to have to build in a backdoor to the iPhone or iPad.



Google’s CEO didn’t instantly get involved in the situation, but has since posted a series of tweets which show that he sides with Tim Cook and Apple as a whole. Most notably, Pichai’s five tweets on the predicament claimed Apple’s acceptance of the ruling, if that was indeed the company’s stance, “could compromise a user’s privacy”. He also stated publicly that acceptance of a ruling to provide access to data based on valid legal order is “wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data”. It’s difficult to disagree with those views.

Of course, not everyone weighing in with an option on the San Bernardino iPhone situation is fully accepting of Apple’s stance on the ruling. Republic candidate, and general worldwide laughing stock, Donald Trump, predictably doesn’t agree with Tim Cook’s decision to resist the order, stating that he agrees “100 percent with the courts” and calling Apple “Who do they think they are?”.

We’re pretty sure that the public backing of a fellow CEO in the position of Pichai carries a whole lot more importance than the negativity of Mr. Trump.

You can follow us on Twitter, add us to your circle on Google+ or like our Facebook page to keep yourself updated on all the latest from Microsoft, Google, Apple and the Web.

The FBI vs. Apple – thoughts and comments

A_Line_In_The_SandNot trying to provide the full story here, just a few thoughts and directions as to security, privacy and civil rights. (for the backdrop – Apple’s Tim Cook letter explains it best: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/)

From a technical perspective, Apple is fully capable to alleviating a lot of the barriers the FBI is currently facing with unlocking the phone (evidence) in question. It is an iPhone 5C, which does not have the enhanced security features implemented in iPhones from version 5S and above (security enclave – see Dan Guido’s technical writeup here: http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/).

Additionally, when dealing with more modern versions, it is also feasible for Apple to provide updates to the security enclave firmware without erasing the content of the phone.

But from a legal perspective we are facing not only a slippery slope, but a cliff as someone eloquently noted on twitter. Abiding by a legal claim based on an archaic law (All Writs act – originally part of the Judiciary act of 1789) coupled with just as shaky probably cause claim, basically opens up the door for further requests that will build up on the precedent set here if Apple complies with the court’s order.
One can easily imagine how “national security” (see how well that worked out in the PATRIOT ACT) will be used to trump civil rights and provide access to anyone’s private information.

We have finally reached a time where technology, which was an easy crutch for law enforcement to rely on, is no longer there to enable spying (legal, or otherwise) on citizens. We are back to a time now where actual hard work needs to be done in order to act on suspicions and real investigations have to take place. Where HUMINT is back on the table, and law enforcement (and non-LE forces) have to step up their game, and again – do proper investigative work.

Security is obviously a passion for me, and supporting (and sometimes helping) it advance in order to provide everyone with privacy and comfort has been my ethics since I can remember myself dealing with it (technology, security, and privacy). So is national security and the pursuit of anything that threatens it, and I don’t need to show any credentials for either.

This is an interesting case, where these two allegedly face each other. But it’s a clear cut from where I’m standing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Tim Cook and Apple drew a line in the sand. A very clear line. It is a critical time now to understand which side of the line everybody stands on. Smaller companies that lack Apple’s legal and market forces, which have bent over so far to similar “requests” from the government can find solace in a market leader drawing such a clear line. Large companies (I’m looking at you Google!) should also make their stand very clear – to support that line. Crossing that line means taking a step further towards being one of the regimes we protect ourselves from. Dark and dangerous ones, who do not value life, who treat people based on their social, financial, racial, gender, or belief standing differently. That’s not where or who we want to be.

Or at least I’d like to think so.