Apple Files To Vacate iPhone Unlock Ruling

[HardOCP News]

The unintentional benefits of Apple filing this motion? We won't have to hear about this case for another month. Yay!


Apple has filed its first legal response, after a court ruled it must assist the FBI in unlocking the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone. It will take Apple one month to develop the software the FBI is requesting. Apple listed its legal objections in the filing, setting the stage for a big legal showdown that has garnered mass media attention and attention from other technology giants.

 

[nilepez]

I predict you will hear about this case tomorrow and the next day and the day after that.

 

[Lunas]

as much as i don't like apple or terrorists i am in favor of apple on this... the fbi should just hook up to a computer array and brute force the phone they have supercomputers able to do the job i know there is a line to use it now that they lost the ps3 arrays but exactly how long would it take to crack his password vs putting the screws to apple to make the phones unsecure...

If apple caves what i would like to see them do is turn around give it to them under protest then patch the hole they used so from this point on the tool is worthless and not able to be used...

 

[nilepez]

as much as i don't like apple or terrorists i am in favor of apple on this... the fbi should just hook up to a computer array and brute force the phone they have supercomputers able to do the job i know there is a line to use it now that they lost the ps3 arrays but exactly how long would it take to crack his password vs putting the screws to apple to make the phones unsecure...

If apple caves what i would like to see them do is turn around give it to them under protest then patch the hole they used so from this point on the tool is worthless and not able to be used...

I don't know what type of PW he had activated on the phone, but if it's 4 digits, then there's only 10k possible, which would take very little time, even if they had to enter it by hand, but I'm not sure how htey'd handle it if they just had a raw dump of the encrypted file. Someone in another thread indicated it'd take years.

Ultimately, it sounds like everyone is saying, if Congress passes a modern law, they'd have fewer (no?) complaints. Honestly, I don't see how this is a good thing for Apple. I suspect that Android could easily use external encryption to get around it.

 

[Lunas]

I don't know what type of PW he had activated on the phone, but if it's 4 digits, then there's only 10k possible, which would take very little time, even if they had to enter it by hand, but I'm not sure how htey'd handle it if they just had a raw dump of the encrypted file. Someone in another thread indicated it'd take years.

Ultimately, it sounds like everyone is saying, if Congress passes a modern law, they'd have fewer (no?) complaints. Honestly, I don't see how this is a good thing for Apple. I suspect that Android could easily use external encryption to get around it.

well from what i know the phone was a company issued owned by the county of san bernardino. In their own attempt to unlock it reset the password but did not have access to the secure email that the link got sent to. Apple had said that if they had not done this all it would have taken was a court order and they were willing to help but since they had done that it now requires a more complex procedure that involves writing a signed os update without a key set of security files. And honestly i say if apple closed this ability it would be a bit better it is not something that can be closed they can make it so it can only be used the one time but what happens next time it happens i new court order to sign the tool again...

 

[Deleted member 245375]

as much as i don't like apple or terrorists i am in favor of apple on this... the fbi should just hook up to a computer array and brute force the phone they have supercomputers able to do the job i know there is a line to use it now that they lost the ps3 arrays but exactly how long would it take to crack his password vs putting the screws to apple to make the phones unsecure...

If apple caves what i would like to see them do is turn around give it to them under protest then patch the hole they used so from this point on the tool is worthless and not able to be used...

Most of what you just said makes basically no sense: if the FBI had all the computer processing power on the Earth today it wouldn't matter because they can't just hook up to the phone and do anything which is the point here. If you haven't actually read the court order to Apple from the FBI/DOJ then you're not really understanding what's being requested/demanded of them to do - it has nothing to do with "unlocking the phone" to be honest, it's gone far far beyond that now with that court order.

As for Apple caving in, there are already rumors floating around that the next big iOS release along with the next iPhone's hardware may once and for all make it so that nobody - not even Apple - will ever be able to get into an iPhone in any way, shape, or form without the passcode, period.

I'm all for such devices myself, but where this current situation goes with the iPhone 5c the FBI has in its possession is going to be a long road ahead because it just has too many potential ramifications on too many things.

This has long since stopped being about just one iPhone. If you folks are going to continue to comment on this situation it might do you well to actually read the court order - it's not in severe legalese and easy to comprehend for most anyone - and also learn why this is a big hassle and why Apple just might not technically be able to help:

- the iPhone 5c could have been penetrated if it was still running iOS 8 but it's not: it's got iOS 9 on it which changes things
- the fact that someone from the FBI - not San Bernardino County - issued a password reset on the iPhone 5c which now removed the original passcode was their fault, not Apple's
- there is a very small possibility, incredibly small, that Apple might be able to do what the FBI/DOJ are asking which is create a custom version of iOS for that iPhone 5c which will bypass the 10 passcode entry limit before the secure wipe happens (so the FBI can try as many passcodes as they want without the wipe happening) and also remove the time delay between entries (so the FBI can automate the passcode entry process to speed things up)

Apple is not being asked, commanded, instructed, or ordered to unlock the iPhone 5c - that's where all the news and media outlets, journalists and posters all over the place keep getting this wrong.

This has gone far far beyond just one iPhone - it's now a potential threat to the privacy of every smartphone and every device, period.

 

[evilsofa]

Also from Apple's motion: "Finally, given the government’s boundless interpretation of the All Writs Act, it is hard to conceive of any limits on the orders the government could obtain in the future. For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing."

 

[Lunas]

Most of what you just said makes basically no sense: if the FBI had all the computer processing power on the Earth today it wouldn't matter because they can't just hook up to the phone and do anything which is the point here. If you haven't actually read the court order to Apple from the FBI/DOJ then you're not really understanding what's being requested/demanded of them to do - it has nothing to do with "unlocking the phone" to be honest, it's gone far far beyond that now with that court order.

As for Apple caving in, there are already rumors floating around that the next big iOS release along with the next iPhone's hardware may once and for all make it so that nobody - not even Apple - will ever be able to get into an iPhone in any way, shape, or form without the passcode, period.

I'm all for such devices myself, but where this current situation goes with the iPhone 5c the FBI has in its possession is going to be a long road ahead because it just has too many potential ramifications on too many things.

This has long since stopped being about just one iPhone. If you folks are going to continue to comment on this situation it might do you well to actually read the court order - it's not in severe legalese and easy to comprehend for most anyone - and also learn why this is a big hassle and why Apple just might not technically be able to help:

- the iPhone 5c could have been penetrated if it was still running iOS 8 but it's not: it's got iOS 9 on it which changes things
- the fact that someone from the FBI - not San Bernardino County - issued a password reset on the iPhone 5c which now removed the original passcode was their fault, not Apple's
- there is a very small possibility, incredibly small, that Apple might be able to do what the FBI/DOJ are asking which is create a custom version of iOS for that iPhone 5c which will bypass the 10 passcode entry limit before the secure wipe happens (so the FBI can try as many passcodes as they want without the wipe happening) and also remove the time delay between entries (so the FBI can automate the passcode entry process to speed things up)

Apple is not being asked, commanded, instructed, or ordered to unlock the iPhone 5c - that's where all the news and media outlets, journalists and posters all over the place keep getting this wrong.

This has gone far far beyond just one iPhone - it's now a potential threat to the privacy of every smartphone and every device, period.

I have read various things to keep up with this story. And i know what apple was asked to do. They were asked to open the phone after the fbi tried resetting the password to gain access. Apple said they were able to help had they not reset the passcode but now it was impossible. After more pressing apple said it is theoretically possible for them to push an update directly to the phone from a lab machine that did not have the security preventing them from getting into the phone. Apple said they were not willing to even make the modified os as it violates them morally and they felt the customers would also be violated by this.

Humm after reading yours what is preventing the fbi from making a clone of the phone and using brute force as they want on virtual images...

And while not unlimited the fbi does have a few extra resources that can be used... They should be able to crack a phone without apples assistance...

And yes i know the implications on this means passwords and encryption would be useless going forward as the govt could just take this tool and open any phone they want. And heaven forbid it gets into the wild... Honestly the fbi should be seeing more public outcry and more support on apple's side. The best thing the fbi could do at this point is to step down from this and try a different route...

 

[Deleted member 245375]

Because the virtual image doesn't work with the crytographic signature of that one specific iPhone 5c, that's why. You can't duplicate those UDIDs, especially not in a virtualized manner - if that was possible at all in any degree whatsoever anybody anywhere would be able to just image a device and have at it as much as they damned well please. That wouldn't do much for security would it? The iPhone itself is responsible for the actual decryption of the data that's encrypted on the phone - it cannot be virtualized, you can't copy it to some other device (not even another iPhone 5c running iOS 9), and so on because the device is responsible for it all. The only thing the FBI can do is do the brute forcing but that means a piece of software that sends random passcodes to the iPhone itself because the iPhone has to do the decryption.

That is why what the FBI/DOJ/courts are attempting to order Apple to do is create that custom iOS which removes the 10 passcode entry limit + remove the time delay - the FBI apparently already has software ready to do the automated passcode entries as needed, they're just not capable of using it because after the 10th mistaken entry the device will wipe itself. Who knows how many attempts they've already made anyway.

In a perfect situation - an iPhone 5c running iOS 8.x and with no reset done to the iCloud account - Apple would more than likely be able to comply with the given order (and again, it's about the specific court order they've received and nothing else) but unfortunately it's not an iPhone 5c running iOS 8 that hasn't had the password on the iCloud account reset. Note that I did not say they would comply, I said they would more than likely be able to which is an entirely different thing.

But that's not the case now because it's an iPhone 5c running iOS 9 that has had a password reset request on the iCloud account initiated and now there is a very very small chance that Apple will be able to comply with the order as requested even if they decide to do so. Apple's position is that they should not be forced into creating a tool that doesn't exist, could fail, and could actually do more damage to the particular iPhone in question than the FBI/DOJ/courts are capable of comprehending.

If that happens Apple then would find itself at the mercy of a court/legal system that doesn't have a clear understanding of the technology at all (this entire situation is proof of that) trying to figure out what would be a just punishment for whatever they think Apple may have or may not have done.

The FBI has done pretty much everything they can so far to fuck this whole situation up with the iPhone itself and now they're doing everything they can with the DOJ and the courts to fix the shit they broke. As Tim Cook has pointed out, if they had just gone to Apple at the moment the iPhone 5c was discovered in that car Apple might have been able to help and was willing to do so - but the FBI took it upon themselves and their so-called technical experts to take their crack at the device and they flat out fucked things up horrendously in the process.

Apple has ground to stand on at this point, the FBI/DOJ/courts actually don't but they're going to keep at it and push things as far as they possibly can.

 

[Lunas]

Not to nitpick but can't things like the uuid be read this copied with specialized hardware the issue stems from certain bits not being publicly available.

The thing is I know the iPhone can and has been emulated. The pertinent disk structure is encrypted but they should be able to make a blind bit copy perhaps not sure what hardware level tools they have to directly read a phone...

As this is a terrorist investigation they might have higher priority than say if it was a lesser...

The orginal thing at least on the surface that they want is the contents of the phone to find other members of a larger terrorist cell. The guy who did this and his wife are dead. So there is nothing real to gain by the phones contents.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Not to nitpick but can't things like the uuid be read this copied with specialized hardware the issue stems from certain bits not being publicly available.

The thing is I know the iPhone can and has been emulated. The pertinent disk structure is encrypted but they should be able to make a blind bit copy perhaps not sure what hardware level tools they have to directly read a phone...

They can pull the NAND chip out and do a bit for bit copy, yes. But the user data in that chip are encrypted with a secret key that only exists in write-only memory inside the processor of the phone. There is no way to get to it, and it would take more time than exists in the universe to guess what it is. So even if they were to set up an emulator with all the right bits set to make it look like the original phone and attached the image to it, they would still be missing the most critical part.

Their best hope was to gain access to the iCloud account and hope that a recent backup was performed. That way they could have grabbed a new clean iPhone and restore all the data to it. But it looks like they screwed that up for themselves. So now they have to force a company to build a tool for them.

 

[cycy]

This is what I would like to see. -------> As for Apple caving in, there are already rumors floating around that the next big iOS release along with the next iPhone's hardware may once and for all make it so that nobody - not even Apple - will ever be able to get into an iPhone in any way, shape, or form without the passcode, period.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Apple could bring the phone back to their lab and modify it, and even change the device password to be 0000 and send it back. I really do not see any problem here... This is a PR battle they are NOT going to win as joe public sees it as

Terrorist phone, give the FBI what they want.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

It's not nearly that simple (just change the passcode). They built the iPhones (the iPhone 5c in question could have been utilized if it had not been updated to iOS 9 but it was) and iOS 9 so that kind of simplistic attack - even by Apple itself - isn't a possibility, and again people really should focus on what this court order is trying to force them to do which is where the basis for their refusal to comply and go into the appeal process happens to be.

 

[lcpiper]

Most of what you just said makes basically no sense: if the FBI had all the computer processing power on the Earth today it wouldn't matter because they can't just hook up to the phone and do anything which is the point here. If you haven't actually read the court order to Apple from the FBI/DOJ then you're not really understanding what's being requested/demanded of them to do - it has nothing to do with "unlocking the phone" to be honest, it's gone far far beyond that now with that court order.

As for Apple caving in, there are already rumors floating around that the next big iOS release along with the next iPhone's hardware may once and for all make it so that nobody - not even Apple - will ever be able to get into an iPhone in any way, shape, or form without the passcode, period.

I'm all for such devices myself, but where this current situation goes with the iPhone 5c the FBI has in its possession is going to be a long road ahead because it just has too many potential ramifications on too many things.

This has long since stopped being about just one iPhone. If you folks are going to continue to comment on this situation it might do you well to actually read the court order - it's not in severe legalese and easy to comprehend for most anyone - and also learn why this is a big hassle and why Apple just might not technically be able to help:

- the iPhone 5c could have been penetrated if it was still running iOS 8 but it's not: it's got iOS 9 on it which changes things
- the fact that someone from the FBI - not San Bernardino County - issued a password reset on the iPhone 5c which now removed the original passcode was their fault, not Apple's
- there is a very small possibility, incredibly small, that Apple might be able to do what the FBI/DOJ are asking which is create a custom version of iOS for that iPhone 5c which will bypass the 10 passcode entry limit before the secure wipe happens (so the FBI can try as many passcodes as they want without the wipe happening) and also remove the time delay between entries (so the FBI can automate the passcode entry process to speed things up)

Apple is not being asked, commanded, instructed, or ordered to unlock the iPhone 5c - that's where all the news and media outlets, journalists and posters all over the place keep getting this wrong.

This has gone far far beyond just one iPhone - it's now a potential threat to the privacy of every smartphone and every device, period.

Bullshit !

The only reason this is in the news at all is that Apple is trying to stop the government from being able to force them to comply with court orders under the All Writs Act in relation to extracting data and unlocking phones.

First issue, Apple doesn't want to do this but at it's core, they don't even have an ethical reason not to comply. The owner of the phone says it's ok, the FBI says they need it, and the user is dead.

I don't care how much smoke and trash Apple wants to throw up into the air to justify not assisting the FBI with extracting the data from this phone, the only reason Apple is stalling, is that they are hoping that the Judge in the New York case rules that the All Writs Act can't be used to force Apple to unlock the phone in that case. If so, that ruling will extend this issue much farther along and keep Apple from really having to do anything for years. Apple is stalling in California and trying to raise as much public support as they can just so they don't have to comply with these unlock orders in the courts. That's all there is to it. The rest is all bullshit. The All Writs Act might be old but it has frequently been used and is not some ancient law that they dredged up. It's the same law the government always has used in these cases and they have been using it for this purpose since they first started asking companies for help unlocking phones. They use it for other reasons as well. Laws against murder are far older but that doesn't make them invalid today.

All of this hinges on what Judge Orenstein in New York has to say. If he rules the All Writs Act stands then well see if Apple accepts it and caves. If Orenstein rules against the All Writs Act and say the law does not empower the courts to demand this kind of assistance from businesses then Apple get's a breather and we'll see how far up the court system this goes before his ruling is either upheld or someone overthrows his ruling. I think it's important to realize that Judge Orenstein was questioning the power of the All Writs Act before Judge Pym decided to back the FBI's use of it in this case. Either Pym doesn't care to keep up with such things or believes that the situation is different enough that a ruling from Orenstein against the use of the All Writs Act in his case should have no bearing on her own.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

Apple isn't being asked to unlock the phone, for the umpteenth fucking time.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Apple isn't being asked to unlock the phone, for the umpteenth fucking time.

uh, pretty close to it as they are being asked to remove the 10 try limit. would have been easier for them to just say OK send us the phone and we will reset the credential for you. No one would even be talking about this now if they had just complied.

Now there is a very REAL possibility of Apple and some of their senior management getting to know what is like to get the full body cavity search with no rubber gloves and no lube.

FBI is bringing all of their friends to this party and the nest one to show up imho is the IRS.

 

[lcpiper]

Also from Apple's motion: "Finally, given the government’s boundless interpretation of the All Writs Act, it is hard to conceive of any limits on the orders the government could obtain in the future. For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing."

This is a false argument. The All Writs Act is what validates the government's power to demand assistance from individuals and businesses when they need it. But it has nothing at all to do with whether what assistance being requested is legal or not. They can't use it do demand help doing something that is illegal.

There was a senior law enforcement officer in New York that said no documents, records, or data should be beyond the reach of the government under a valid Court Order. I agree with only one exception which is if the action will be effectively the same as making an accused person testify against themselves and that should be the only shelter there is.

 

[lcpiper]

Apple isn't being asked to unlock the phone, for the umpteenth fucking time.

I'll call your attention to this part of the order.

4. If 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.

First off, Apple is being ordered to assist the FBI.
The document specifies how as recommendations, but allows that Apple may come up with another way and that they may submit that alternative to the court for consideration.

This is what Apple must do by the order;

2. Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish
the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or
disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;
(2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE
for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth,
Wi?Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it
will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT
DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully
introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what
is incurred by Apple hardware.

This is the opening statement where the end result of what assistance the government is requesting is defined.

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone, Apple make: iPhone 5C, Model: A1532,
on the Verizon Network, (pursuant to a warrant of this Court by providing
reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in
obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.

Apple has made claims that they can not unlock an iPhone running iOS9. Therfore it is not unreasonable to see the FBI's next course of action be to ask Apple to make it possible to brute force the phone.

Somewhere along the line in the New York case, Apple claimed they can't do this, and later Apple recanted and admitted they can. In this case, the FBI is asking the court to compel Apple to do what Apple has admitted they can do.

If Apple can simply unlock this phone and extract the data I would suggest they do it. The more Tim Cook wiggles and tries to refuse, the tougher the government will get with them. Tim Cook is going to put himself in a corner that he can't get out of and he's going to get himself and maybe us hurt.

As long as the government has the high road on this Apple will lose. And worse, if Apple doesn't lose, the law makers will start looking for how they can in turn, force the phone makers to make their phones vulnerable to data extraction under court order. They will not allow people or businesses to keep data perfectly secured from warranted legal access. As I have said before, you better rethink your ideas on this. If you only think this issue will impact us in a Government vs the Citizen aspect your missing the rest of the picture.

 

[nilepez]

Most of what you just said makes basically no sense: if the FBI had all the computer processing power on the Earth today it wouldn't matter because they can't just hook up to the phone and do anything which is the point here. If you haven't actually read the court order to Apple from the FBI/DOJ then you're not really understanding what's being requested/demanded of them to do - it has nothing to do with "unlocking the phone" to be honest, it's gone far far beyond that now with that court order.
<snip>

This has gone far far beyond just one iPhone - it's now a potential threat to the privacy of every smartphone and every device, period.

I think most know this and it's been discussed in this thread and/or other threads.

 

[LazN]

Most databases I know of will let you play back transaction logs.. So if it was about the data the FBI could have asked Apple to just restore the old iCloud DB password (or replace it with a matching hash) and let the iPhone backup to iCloud and have the data.

Or they could have asked Apple to just "give us the data, we don't care how" but they didn't. They asked for a tool that once they have in their grubby hands they could easily use on any iPhone of that era.

And a president via law that lets them use Judicial Writs to command anyone to do anything, even create things that didn't exist before the writ was wrote that they want.

(FBI wants the Hope Diamond? just write a writ forcing Apple to pay a thief to steal it for them, they technically can do it as they have enough money to pay for that thief, what are you some kind of anti government terrorist that wants the FBI to not have that pretty blue freedom fighting tool?)

 

[nilepez]

Bullshit !

The only reason this is in the news at all is that Apple is trying to stop the government from being able to force them to comply with court orders under the All Writs Act in relation to extracting data and unlocking phones.

First issue, Apple doesn't want to do this but at it's core, they don't even have an ethical reason not to comply. The owner of the phone says it's ok, the FBI says they need it, and the user is dead.

I've changed my mind. I'm with you. I think Apple should agree to do write the s/w for this specific device for the low price of 100 Billion dollars. Subsequent requests will be performed for 50 billion each.

All of this hinges on what Judge Orenstein in New York has to say. If he rules the All Writs Act stands then well see if Apple accepts it and caves. If Orenstein rules against the All Writs Act and say the law does not empower the courts to demand this kind of assistance from businesses then Apple get's a breather and we'll see how far up the court system this goes before his ruling is either upheld or someone overthrows his ruling. I think it's important to realize that Judge Orenstein was questioning the power of the All Writs Act before Judge Pym decided to back the FBI's use of it in this case. Either Pym doesn't care to keep up with such things or believes that the situation is different enough that a ruling from Orenstein against the use of the All Writs Act in his case should have no bearing on her own.

This is going to the SCOTUS.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

This is going to the SCOTUS.

Well thanks to the Republicans that means this will get to SCOTUS oh probably late 2017 if we're lucky 'cause right now it could end up a complete draw.

 

[Putz]

all they are asking apple to do is remove the wipe after 10 failed attempts so they can brute force it, would laugh is apple bricks the phone when they are forced to do this int he end. Opps we tried, look its so secure it wiped itself anyways, its a screw you to the FBI and some probono publicity on apple "security"

 

[nilepez]

Well thanks to the Republicans that means this will get to SCOTUS oh probably late 2017 if we're lucky 'cause right now it could end up a complete draw.

It always takes time, even if there's a full court. Technically, there's no reason that a 4/4 court can't hear the case if it got there and they were inclined to take the case.

 

[lcpiper]

I've changed my mind. I'm with you. I think Apple should agree to do write the s/w for this specific device for the low price of 100 Billion dollars. Subsequent requests will be performed for 50 billion each.



This is going to the SCOTUS.

If they can back up the dollar amount as reasonable then it'll fly. The court will have to choose if it's worth the cost.


From the Court Order;

5. Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of
providing this service.

 

[lcpiper]

Most databases I know of will let you play back transaction logs.. So if it was about the data the FBI could have asked Apple to just restore the old iCloud DB password (or replace it with a matching hash) and let the iPhone backup to iCloud and have the data.

Or they could have asked Apple to just "give us the data, we don't care how" but they didn't. They asked for a tool that once they have in their grubby hands they could easily use on any iPhone of that era.

And a president via law that lets them use Judicial Writs to command anyone to do anything, even create things that didn't exist before the writ was wrote that they want.

(FBI wants the Hope Diamond? just write a writ forcing Apple to pay a thief to steal it for them, they technically can do it as they have enough money to pay for that thief, what are you some kind of anti government terrorist that wants the FBI to not have that pretty blue freedom fighting tool?)

Nope, they did not ask for a tool. They asked Apple to help them by writing a tool, if needed, or whatever other smart way they can come up with so that they can assist the FBI with breaking into the phone. Apple can make other suggestions on how they want to do this.

See this is more of Apple neglecting to talk about the wiggle room built into the court order. instead Apple just wants to pick out parts of it ans scream how unfair it is.

read it yourself, it's not that hard to figure out.

 

[lcpiper]

This is going to the SCOTUS.

Maybe, if Judge Orenstein in New York decides that the All Writs Act doesn't give him the power to do what's being asked in his case, it might. But if he rules instead that he does have the All Writs Act does give him the power to demand Apple unlock the phone in his case, it may not go anywhere.

 

[LazN]

yes they did ask for a tool read it:

EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney
PATRICIA A. DONAHUE
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, National Security Division
TRACY L. WILKISON (California Bar No.
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section
ALLEN W. CHIU (California Bar No. 240516)
Assistant United States Attorney
Terrorism and Export Crimes Section
1500 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-0622/2435
Facsimile: (213) 394-3601
Email: [redacted by the Internet Patrol
so as to not facilitate spam]

Attorneys for Applicant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZED DURING
THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH
WARRANT ON A BLACK LEXUS IS300,
CALIFORNIA LICENSE PLATE
35KGD203

-------------

ORDER COMPELLING APPLE,
INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH

-------------

This matter is before the Court pursuant to an application
pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, by Assistant United
States Attorneys Tracy Wilkison and Allen Chiu, requesting an order
directing Apple Inc. ("Apple") to assist law enforcement agents in
enabling the search of a digital device seized in the course of a
previously issued search warrant in this matter.

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone,
Apple make: iPhone 5C, Model: A1532, P/N:MGFG2LL/A, S/N:FFMNQ3MTG2DJ,
IMEI:358820052301412, on the Verizon Network, (the "SUBJECT DEVICE")
pursuant to a warrant of this Court by providing
reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in
obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.

2. Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish
the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or
disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;
(2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE
for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth,
Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it
will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT
DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully
introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what
is incurred by Apple hardware.

3. Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is.
not limited to: 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 iOS on the
actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the
device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique
identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute
on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware
Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode
available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF
will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The
SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government
facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter,
Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT
DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode
recovery analysis.

4. If 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.

5. Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of
providing this service.

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 as a result of the
assistance ordered herein. All evidence preservation shall remain
the responsibility of law enforcement agents.

7. To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this
Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to
this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the
Order.

Signed: SHERI PYM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: FEB 16, 2016

That is not asking for the data, that is asking for a tool to get the data, they do reference the data, but the actual order is ordering Apple to provide them a tool.

 

[nilepez]

Maybe, if Judge Orenstein in New York decides that the All Writs Act doesn't give him the power to do what's being asked in his case, it might. But if he rules instead that he does have the All Writs Act does give him the power to demand Apple unlock the phone in his case, it may not go anywhere.

Apple will absolutely appeal. Most of the important tech companies are filing an amicus brief backing Apple. It only takes 4 justices to put it on the docket, so I think it's going to happen.

 

[BinarySynapse]

3. Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is.
not limited to: 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 iOS on the
actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the
device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique
identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute
on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware
Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode
available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF
will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The
SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government
facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter,
Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT
DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode
recovery analysis.

So they want a full blown (but modified) OS running on the phone without installing it?

 

[lcpiper]

Now show me Mr Comprehension, where does it say that Apple must give the "tool" to the FBI?

Paragraph 2 states what Apple must help the FBI accomplish.

Paragraph 3 is a recommended course of action that the FBI believes would satisfy Paragraph 2.

Paragraph 4 says if Apple thinks there is a better way, tell us what it is and we'll discuss it.


Or do you see another meaning for paragraph 4?

 

[lcpiper]

Apple will absolutely appeal. Most of the important tech companies are filing an amicus brief backing Apple. It only takes 4 justices to put it on the docket, so I think it's going to happen.

Can't appeal it yet, they aren't to that part of the process yet, Apple asked for more time to consider their reply and the judge consented. Now Apple filed this motion to vacate so the Judge has to do something with that before Apple will have to reply to the Court Order with an initial response.

And at least as many tech companies are either siding with the government or saying that Apple is probably not going win this as there are ready to file Amicus briefs. This isn't a one sided show you know.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Now show me Mr Comprehension, where does it say that Apple must give the "tool" to the FBI?

Paragraph 2 states what Apple must help the FBI accomplish.

Paragraph 3 is a recommended course of action that the FBI believes would satisfy Paragraph 2.

Paragraph 4 says if Apple thinks there is a better way, tell us what it is and we'll discuss it.


Or do you see another meaning for paragraph 4?

The only part of paragraph 3 that is a recommendation is that Apple provide an image file. The remainder of that paragraph requires that whatever assistance Apple does provide must run in ram and cannot modify the original contents of the device (iOS, system settings, or user data), has to be tied only to the device specified, and has to allow the government direct or remote access to the device so the government can do the passcode analysis.

Paragraph 4 says whatever alternative Apple thinks of has to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3.

 

[lcpiper]

So they want a full blown (but modified) OS running on the phone without installing it?

No.

3. Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is.
not limited to:

May include but is not limited to: Paragraph 3 amounts to a suggestion of how the FBI thinks Apple can do what they want.

Paragraph 2 says what they want from a general point of view and it outlines what Apple must help them accomplish.

2. Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish
the following three important functions:

(1) it will bypass or
disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;

(2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE
for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth,
Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and

(3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT
DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully
introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what
is incurred by Apple hardware.

Now let's go out on a limb and say that Apple comes back and says they can do this better by just modifying the OS so the Phone Locking Code doesn't execute at all,
in short, they flash the phone and the phone reboots and it just never locks again.

Furthermore, (still out on the limb here), Apple also says they can do this from Paragraph 3.

The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE.

And lastly;

2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter,
Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode
recovery analysis.

So Apple essentially unlocks the phone from their own lab and invites the government over while they extract the data using an Apple computer, the FBI walks out with the data, Apple bricks the phone and destroys the custom OS code if they wish.


The whole point is, Apple has room to decide how they are going to comply with this order. They just don't want to so they are stalling. You sure don't see Apple admitting that they have the option to do this in another way, instead they just seize on how the FBI said it could be done and try and make it sound completely unreasonable.

 

[lcpiper]

The only part of paragraph 3 that is a recommendation is that Apple provide an image file. The remainder of that paragraph requires that whatever assistance Apple does provide must run in ram and cannot modify the original contents of the device (iOS, system settings, or user data), has to be tied only to the device specified, and has to allow the government direct or remote access to the device so the government can do the passcode analysis.

Paragraph 4 says whatever alternative Apple thinks of has to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3.

Read it again.

But look up the definition of functionality first.

But mostly understand that Apple hasn't replied, and in truth, Apple can negotiate this as long as Apple is agreeing to assist. But Apple is not agreeing to assist are they? No, Apple is instead refusing publicly while stalling in the courtroom and in the meantime they are making all the noise they can and trying to rack up all the support they can.

 

[LazN]

Now show me Mr Comprehension, where does it say that Apple must give the "tool" to the FBI?

Paragraph 2 states what Apple must help the FBI accomplish.

Paragraph 3 is a recommended course of action that the FBI believes would satisfy Paragraph 2.

Paragraph 4 says if Apple thinks there is a better way, tell us what it is and we'll discuss it.


Or do you see another meaning for paragraph 4?

Paragraph 2 says give me a tool to shred the 4th amendment (even though in this case it doesn't but if it is ever used in a different case it would, and once they have the tool you can't Indian give it)

Paragraph 4 says: you can give me those tools in a pink or blue box, but it still has to be a tool that shreds the 4th amendment.

Paragraph 4 in no ways says you don't have to do what Paragraph 2 and 3 ask for, it just says "if we weren't devious enough in how we worded it, you still have to give me it"

 

[BinarySynapse]

Definition of functionality: the quality or state of being functional, especially: the set of functions or capabilities associated with computer software or hardware or an electronic device


So what is the functionality of Paragraph 3?

1) Doesn't modify the flash memory
2) Only runs on the device specified
3) Provides the government direct or remote access to the device so that passcode analysis can be performed.



If any solution Apple provides (alternative or otherwise) does any of the following:
modifies the flash memory,
made so that it run on any other device,
does not allow the government to brute force the passcode

then it's not a functional solution that satisfies the court order as required by Paragraph 4.

 

[Lunas]

all they are asking apple to do is remove the wipe after 10 failed attempts so they can brute force it, would laugh is apple bricks the phone when they are forced to do this int he end. Opps we tried, look its so secure it wiped itself anyways, its a screw you to the FBI and some probono publicity on apple "security"

Then they get hit with evidence tampering and obstruction charges...

 

[lcpiper]

Paragraph 2 says give me a tool to shred the 4th amendment (even though in this case it doesn't but if it is ever used in a different case it would, and once they have the tool you can't Indian give it)

Paragraph 4 says: you can give me those tools in a pink or blue box, but it still has to be a tool that shreds the 4th amendment.

Paragraph 4 in no ways says you don't have to do what Paragraph 2 and 3 ask for, it just says "if we weren't devious enough in how we worded it, you still have to give me it"

The "tool" is supposed to be coded so it can only run on that one phone. If that is impossible then it's up to Apple to show that. Then they can argue over the import.

Has nothing at all to do with the 4th, it's all over the news and more than enough agree. this is not about the 4th, only about paranoia.

Paragraph 4 says you must do what's outlined in 2, and you must skin the cat in 3, if there is a better way to skin the cat, we'll discuss it.

And again, Apple hasn't actually replied yet, they filed this motion to vacate instead.

But let me remind you of the bigger picture again. The government is not going to allow Apple to win on this, no way in hell. I don't want Apple to win on this either, all you see is your phone, I see every business in America and the Government using this same excuse to engineer a way to never ever have to pony up records and data that incriminates them or can be used to hold them accountable.

This phone is a government owned phone. What if the data on the phone wasn't related to a mass murder, what if this County Health Inspector had instead been taking bribes to allow restaurants in San Bernadino County to avoid meeting Health Codes, and there are 14 people dead from Salmonella, and they want to know if the County's Head of the Health Department, maybe even the Commissioner were in on it?

Oh, and your wife is one of the dead people.

Now think this the fuck through and stop closing your eyes to the other side of the coin. Anything absolute will be abused.