Comment by rkagerer
4 years ago
What I don't get is what prevented these things from happening last month? Apple controls the hardware, the software, and the cloud services...
Simple: Money.
Their response to any such demands would be (and has been) "we don't have the capability to do what you're asking".
No judge is going to burden them to spend their own dime to build a massive new feature like this and deploy it to every phone out there to comply with a demand arising from a prosecutor of an individual case.
No government is going to pony up the money to reimburse them to do it (not even getting into the PR optics).
That leaves it happening only if 1) they decide to do it themselves, or 2) government(s) legislate they must.
So far #2 hasn't happened. Politicians had no basis of reference to point to and say "Your competitor(s)' doing that, you should too".
But now that #1 occurred, it will normalize this nonsense and pave the way for #2.
Their response to any such demands would be (and has been) "we don't have the capability to do what you're asking".
No judge is going to burden them to spend their own dime to build a massive new feature like this and deploy it to every phone out there to comply with a demand arising from a prosecutor of an individual case.
Government does not care one bit about how much it costs or if it is even possible. They demand the data with an ultimatum: deliver it as we requested by our deadline or we send in our IT people to take it. Sorry (not) if it takes your whole company down while we plugin in our own servers in your datacenter to take your data.
Doesn't work if the data of interest is not there for the taking. And a judge will not compel beyond what they consider reasonable. Having the feature already in place dramatically shifts the bar.
Their response to such demands has not been we are technically incapable of doing what’s requested. The demand from the FBI in the San Bernardino case was a very small change to passcode retry constants, because the terrorist’s device did not have a Secure Element.
Wasn’t that much more? FBI demanded that Apple would give them the signing key, they would do the rest themselves. Basically adding arbitrary code and unlock any device at that time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
No. The reference you provide characterizes it correctly: the FBI wanted Apple to create and sign a one-off build of iOS. The specific request was to allow automated passcode input and remove retry back offs and auto-erase constants.
This is how Apple described the request: “ The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.”
Or in their FAQ:
“Is it technically possible to do what the government has ordered?
Yes, it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to undermine our security features as the government wants.”
1 reply →