If the object is to change the attitude of Apple, all the government has to do is issue an order saying Apple products cannot be purchased, and all existing apple products will be cleaned of data and sold for $1 when replaced.
1
Crackers crack safes, crack passwords, crack encrypted devices, crack encrypted documents and messages, crack hard problems.
A hack is a quick and dirty alteration of existing code for a specific, limited purpose.
A software crack differs from a software hack in that the former is an exploitation of a security weakness. A crack is not the same as a hack; a cracker is not the same as a hacker.
A hack is a quick and dirty alteration of existing code for a specific, limited purpose.
A software crack differs from a software hack in that the former is an exploitation of a security weakness. A crack is not the same as a hack; a cracker is not the same as a hacker.
5
This is actually barking up the wrong tree. Most tradecraft now involves social media, especially gaming forums and things like Snapchat. You can set up what appears to be an innocuous FB page, and as long as you avoid words them phrases that are going to get flagged by a filter, you can communicate with perfect security. If you have to, you can shut that page down and set up a new one in a matter of minutes. A real terrorist isn't really going to bother storing info on their iPhone.
2
Basically blackmarket always holds tons of iOS hacks that could very well already sold to much worse clients than a heavily regulated government agency who only cares to protect people's lives. People only care to block heavily regulated government agency to unlock a known terrorist phone while their iPhones are already vulnerable to criminals.
1
Why do the same people who say the Constitutional right to own guns is inviolate say that the Constitutional right to privacy is optional?
9
This article said nothing that wasn't already know. It is not just Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sun couldn't pay enough money to have people report serious bugs and exploits because hacking company always pay more. The $100,000 prize means nothing as those hacking company are willing to pay a lot more to buy and repackage the hack and sell them to governments. Consider the budget of intelligence agencies, the pittance the rewards pay means nothing.
Government agencies are always interested in breaking commercial encryption to they can monitor communications and private company continues to improve encryption to keep the government out.
Government agencies are always interested in breaking commercial encryption to they can monitor communications and private company continues to improve encryption to keep the government out.
4
I'd say you configured out that schematic plotline pretty well, George. If I were Gracie, this is where you'd ask me to say good night, nurse! This story is so over done it needs a saw bones to cut the crust!
The airwaves are a public utility - at least they're supposed to be. As such, the public has a right to prevent crimes from being facilitated through them. The notion that being secure in your person extends to an unbreakable, warrant-proof box which is primarily a transmitter and receiver of communications via those same public airwaves is a crock.
8
Does this mean the security of the world, dependent as it is on the inviolability of terrorist iPhones, has now been compromised beyond redemption?
4
give all due responsibility to the intervention of the Russian Orthodox St.Snowden
1
Why doesn't NYTimes report what Israeli papers and Ars Technica have been reporting for the past week— that Cellebrite, a Sun Company subsidiary that helps law enforcement all over the world break into all things cyber, bragged last week it could open the phone, and the next thing you know, the FBI starts backing down.
7
Yes, I have read about this as well. As a matter of fact, in the piece I saw they gave some rough details of the ”procedure” this company is supposed to use. The basics seemed rather simple.
2
Must be re-election season. They all give each other mulligansin the character department when they are up against Real Data. Time to leak a little bit'o backyard brushwork to polish the Big Keesters, buster.
General Cartwheel ought to be rolling out in one, tow missile, three...
General Cartwheel ought to be rolling out in one, tow missile, three...
1
Who knew that the FBI worked with and encouraged criminals to evade any clumsy adherence to legal niceties regarding reasonable suspicion and due process probable cause requiring a judicial hearing and a search warrant to take down Americans presumed innocent?
Working from a building named after it's infamous corrupt criminal bigoted closeted founder director John Edgar Hoover one should expect lawless incompetence. See Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr, Fred Hampton, Malcolm X, La Cosa Nostra, COINTELPRO
Big Brother Obama has asserted the right to monitor all American communications without regard to reasonable suspicion or due process probable cause. I do not trust Uncle Sam including the White House, USDOJ or the FBI or Congress or the judiciary to "defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States" for the benefit of me and my people or we and those people.
I trust and respect Ed Snowden and Tim Coo to be more in my corner than my government.
They need to change the name of the FBI building.
John Brown? Reverend Doctor Martin L. King,Jr ? Malcolm X?
Working from a building named after it's infamous corrupt criminal bigoted closeted founder director John Edgar Hoover one should expect lawless incompetence. See Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr, Fred Hampton, Malcolm X, La Cosa Nostra, COINTELPRO
Big Brother Obama has asserted the right to monitor all American communications without regard to reasonable suspicion or due process probable cause. I do not trust Uncle Sam including the White House, USDOJ or the FBI or Congress or the judiciary to "defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States" for the benefit of me and my people or we and those people.
I trust and respect Ed Snowden and Tim Coo to be more in my corner than my government.
They need to change the name of the FBI building.
John Brown? Reverend Doctor Martin L. King,Jr ? Malcolm X?
6
they need to change that building's name DEFINITELY. I lived in Chocolate City for 41 years... The FBI building's name is a disgrace...
3
With all that is now known about the blackmailing and other criminal activities of J. Edgar Hoover, it seems incredible that his name is still on the FBI building.
4
When the FBI suit was filed, John McAfee, the of McAfee Security software, very publicly offered to have his staff hack the iPhone in question as a way to avoid the possibility that Apple would be forced to craft a backdoor into their phones. He feared that once created, it would inevitably be accessed by bad actors of all kinds. I wonder if McAfee is the entity that is now working on the phone. Perhaps someone at the Times should ask him.
4
I remember that, too, but I thought the FBI was looking for a writ
younger than 1789.
It would then be able to get a court order to open any device.
younger than 1789.
It would then be able to get a court order to open any device.
1
The government can up the ante against companies like Apple by establishing its own reward program that allows hackers to expose security breaches in modern devices. This way the government gets to keep these security holes secret and exploit them to their advantage.
2
Governments already do and so it is the military industrial complex (war is not just bullets now) and one reason why the tech sector are so weary of government intrusion into their security apparatus.
There are companies out there paying handsomely for bugs and exploits they can fully investigate and repackage to sell to government and criminal groups.
The government haven't been on the right side of the security debate for a long time. NSA and GCHQ have been caught purposely weaking NIST's encryption protocol to ease hacking. NIST's protocol is what keep Internet traffic secure with all the banking info and so on.
There are companies out there paying handsomely for bugs and exploits they can fully investigate and repackage to sell to government and criminal groups.
The government haven't been on the right side of the security debate for a long time. NSA and GCHQ have been caught purposely weaking NIST's encryption protocol to ease hacking. NIST's protocol is what keep Internet traffic secure with all the banking info and so on.
1
Apple just released an iOS update. It publishes the security content, which lists the fixes made and credits the reporter. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206166
A common theme for the cause of the potential security problem is "memory corruption", "input validation", and other technical reasons.
The downside of a security flaw overweighs the cost of a few million computer cycles added to mitigate the issue. I would think that Apple could address some of the weakness in their code with automated tools that would, for instance, identify or add the requisite additional logic to prevent the problems caused by inadequate checks for the common problems. The fiendishly clever exploits will require experts.
A common theme for the cause of the potential security problem is "memory corruption", "input validation", and other technical reasons.
The downside of a security flaw overweighs the cost of a few million computer cycles added to mitigate the issue. I would think that Apple could address some of the weakness in their code with automated tools that would, for instance, identify or add the requisite additional logic to prevent the problems caused by inadequate checks for the common problems. The fiendishly clever exploits will require experts.
What's always been perplexing to me about this case is the very high probability that the NSA has always been capable of cracking the phone (four digit password? Come on, that's a cakewalk for the NSA). I wouldn't necessarily say that they are the third party (thank you, hackers!) but it seemed doubtful to me that the government was incapable of breaking into the phone without Apple's assistance, so it looks like the FBI was looking to set a precedent in this case. That's something I do support: when foreign corporations like Apple come here to do business they must obey our laws and our courts. Once, Apple was an American company, but thanks to tax inversions that is no longer the case, and therefore they no longer deserve any kind of special treatment.
11
Whether or not the NSA has that capabilty, I'd presume that the NSA does not casually share its technological capabilities, nor any other information, with other federal agencies. It is an interesting legal question whether for purposes of obtaining a mandatory injunction (i.e., one compelling affirmative acts on the part of a third party) and specifically the showing of need such injunctions require, whether the FBI is somehow charged with the capabilities of other agencies. Moreover, even if such a rule applied to agencies that deal with less sensitive matters than the NSA, I doubt that a court would be anxious to compel the NSA to disclose the full scope of its technological capabilties to other federal agencies. The FBI took the position in their pleadings that they were not required to essentially canvas distinct federal agencies to see if they had the technological capacities they lacked. Even more clearly, it is hard to imagine that a state enforcement agency would be charged with the technical knowledge of any federal agency.
2
How is Apple a foreign company? Talk about rhetoric...
1
Ah, paranoia abounds.
Most Americans do not realize that tech companies know more about them than the USA government ever will.
It is utter folly to think that these tech firms care anything about your privacy.
It is all about money. Mining your data and digital behavior and monetizing it.
Pure and simple.
I have never bought anything other than Apple products yet I hope Tim Cook loses this battle.
Most Americans do not realize that tech companies know more about them than the USA government ever will.
It is utter folly to think that these tech firms care anything about your privacy.
It is all about money. Mining your data and digital behavior and monetizing it.
Pure and simple.
I have never bought anything other than Apple products yet I hope Tim Cook loses this battle.
13
Yes. It is all about money and the tech companies definitely know lots about the general user. It's all about money. Always has been. Always will be.
1
Apple doesn't mine your data as Apple isn't selling ads. It is one reason why Apple products are more expensive because unlike Google, Apple isn't subsidizing the cost of product through Google AdSense.
1
What? A third-party hacker becomes the hero of this story?
Apple's stupidity apparently exceeds its arrogance.
Apple's stupidity apparently exceeds its arrogance.
5
Those you are calling Heros may have cashed in on your last operating system and also its collateral damage. I bet you didn't know one satellite entertainment service hacked another's box card codes and gave them out on the internet to kill their competition's bottom line? Great ratings, just no happy returns, ITV. But good work on Downton, old chips.
GCHQ cracked BlackBerry's compression technology in 2011, and look at what happened to BB...kicked the filling right out of her. I bet BB'd like to have filed charges, but to whom and how could they reverse them? Curse those crack fed bureaucrats!
GCHQ cracked BlackBerry's compression technology in 2011, and look at what happened to BB...kicked the filling right out of her. I bet BB'd like to have filed charges, but to whom and how could they reverse them? Curse those crack fed bureaucrats!
1
Five Guys sat down in the Banker's Club to establish the western states' oil infrastructure before it was even born from no-bid contracts on government reserves, Buena Vista.
Think there were enough seats at this plug butt assembly? What are they calling themselves now? I hope they know Outfit and Commission are so yesterday, Blown Domers. And Council is about as reliable as a Vito to a Costello.
When the lid blew off, they Five scuried back to their proverbial spider holes and waited to see it the fall out would abate.
Abate says come on home, the competition has surrendered to the Organization of the Official Skim! SECURITY!
Think there were enough seats at this plug butt assembly? What are they calling themselves now? I hope they know Outfit and Commission are so yesterday, Blown Domers. And Council is about as reliable as a Vito to a Costello.
When the lid blew off, they Five scuried back to their proverbial spider holes and waited to see it the fall out would abate.
Abate says come on home, the competition has surrendered to the Organization of the Official Skim! SECURITY!
1
It is important to keep track of a fundamental issue here: Apple is not an organization of divinely chartered angels working to bring us peace on earth; rather, they are a phenomenally profitable corporation. The Government is not the devil incarnate out to steal everyone’s most private secrets; the Feds often go too far in collecting data, but their motives are good: they really do wish to prevent the kinds of attacks that occurred in San Bernadino, Brussels, and far too many other places.
Apple feels that by spinning themselves as a protector of privacy they will win friends, and more importantly, paying customers. Reality is more nuanced than Tim Cook would have us believe. For example, when one buys or upgrades a Mac, the software goes to great lengths to sign us on to iCloud, and download our data to Apple servers; opting out is difficult. Once our data is entrenched in the Apple “ecosystem,” we are more likely to buy additional Apple products. Who knows what Apple does with all that data and associated metadata stored on Apple servers. One thing is clear: they already have willingly handed it over to the Feds when legally required (which is probably a good thing).
A wise person will be wary of overzealous surveillance by Big Government. But a prudent individual should also show skepticism towards the Apples, Googles, Microsofts, and Amazons of the world when they also surreptitiously collect our data; their intent is unlikely to be altruistic.
Apple feels that by spinning themselves as a protector of privacy they will win friends, and more importantly, paying customers. Reality is more nuanced than Tim Cook would have us believe. For example, when one buys or upgrades a Mac, the software goes to great lengths to sign us on to iCloud, and download our data to Apple servers; opting out is difficult. Once our data is entrenched in the Apple “ecosystem,” we are more likely to buy additional Apple products. Who knows what Apple does with all that data and associated metadata stored on Apple servers. One thing is clear: they already have willingly handed it over to the Feds when legally required (which is probably a good thing).
A wise person will be wary of overzealous surveillance by Big Government. But a prudent individual should also show skepticism towards the Apples, Googles, Microsofts, and Amazons of the world when they also surreptitiously collect our data; their intent is unlikely to be altruistic.
11
Apple is fighting also for the right not to be conscripted by the government for the purpose of compromising its own product. That the cause is a commercial one makes it no less noble.
3
Well-written and completely true. Most folks would rather give up their personal details to Apple, or Microsoft, or Google, or Amazon (think email "accounts", "targeted advertising" via cookies and all the other things that compromise one's ability to be "secure") without even thinking about it. Hey, it just works so I don't care what it really does!
LOL. Some people think hacking the phone will 'prevent' an attack or a crime.
That's the first problem since it isn't true.
The second problem is, the FBI, etc have probably had for sometime the ability to hack that phone and or others. 3rd party or not. As far as I'm concerned this is a ruse, and many Ars Technica commenters see the government trying to set precedent, not hack the phone, which they probably have done already.
That's the first problem since it isn't true.
The second problem is, the FBI, etc have probably had for sometime the ability to hack that phone and or others. 3rd party or not. As far as I'm concerned this is a ruse, and many Ars Technica commenters see the government trying to set precedent, not hack the phone, which they probably have done already.
8
While we're clarifying the rules of this wild west interest, who gets slected services over their secreted servers?
I see we were happy to retrieve emails from Hillary's wiped server regarding her service to this country. But...
Do we know Justice OK'd Brits overlooking same style sole server of a known US hacking corporation executive by handing over only the grunts' server WITHOUT the executive's server? Sold their soldiers down the river to protect the corporation, folks.
That helped NewsCorp avoid $2 billion in fines for paying UK defense employees for secrets to publish for profit and a kickback in the social media, Balls.
I call it Fox in the Brit's Coop, but Justice calls it Foreign Corrupt Practices. Apparently it is convenient for Justice to overlook executive practices while scrubbing the bums off reporter's sources.
I see we were happy to retrieve emails from Hillary's wiped server regarding her service to this country. But...
Do we know Justice OK'd Brits overlooking same style sole server of a known US hacking corporation executive by handing over only the grunts' server WITHOUT the executive's server? Sold their soldiers down the river to protect the corporation, folks.
That helped NewsCorp avoid $2 billion in fines for paying UK defense employees for secrets to publish for profit and a kickback in the social media, Balls.
I call it Fox in the Brit's Coop, but Justice calls it Foreign Corrupt Practices. Apparently it is convenient for Justice to overlook executive practices while scrubbing the bums off reporter's sources.
1
Apple needs to pay the bill for America to protect Apple customers from terrorists going dark on their apple phones.
1
So, the emperor has no clothes. Apple pretends to be concerned about the privacy of their users, but chooses not to use and benefit from services that search for and find vulnerabilities to that privacy.
1
Not a big Apple user (I have an old ipod shuffle and that is it), but I've been more on their side in this argument. I do not believe it has the right to demand a non-conspiring company to reveal its secrets unless it pays it under eminent domain rules. Given how fast technology changes, that is not desirable. If a third party can figure the key out with respect to the one phone (and this isn't clear to me), then the gov't should be able to do it with an appropriate warrant. But if it renders the rest of Apple's phones vulnerable to gov't surveillance, we do not want this. Among other reasons it violates constitutional protections regarding eminent domain and chills free speech. I'm in favor of a lot of things to defeat terrorism, but not everything.
6
"I'm in favor of a lot of things to defeat terrorism, but not everything."
The best way to defeat terrorism is to kill as many terrorists as we can as fast as we can.
The best way to defeat terrorism is to kill as many terrorists as we can as fast as we can.
2
Apple is not part of the United States. They are a corporation that uses inexpensive labor in China and banks their profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They exist to create profits for their executive suite and shareholders. All the United States is good for is having enough of a market of people who are willing to pay for their high priced products.
11
I can't be the only person who's pretty sure that the intials of the helpful third party are N.S.A., right? That they could have done this any time they wanted? There's no such thing as uncrackable crypto.
4
I am surprised at the continued posting of comments that assume the FBI is right and has said and done things it hasn’t.
At the start Mr. Comey lied and manipulated the American people. From the carefully crafted oddly specific demand made in court to his false assertions about short term & long term goals and uses.
At each step of the way when they have been shown to lie, they do not admit it and provide an excuse to justify the new facts.
Watch Mr. Comey and his henchmen John Miller and a couple of other people from government agencies or private firms speak on the matter they prevaricate and obscure with nearly every word. Nothing is specific, everything is apocryphal doom and gloom. The only solution is to give them more power to invade our privacy.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin Founding Father of the USA
At the start Mr. Comey lied and manipulated the American people. From the carefully crafted oddly specific demand made in court to his false assertions about short term & long term goals and uses.
At each step of the way when they have been shown to lie, they do not admit it and provide an excuse to justify the new facts.
Watch Mr. Comey and his henchmen John Miller and a couple of other people from government agencies or private firms speak on the matter they prevaricate and obscure with nearly every word. Nothing is specific, everything is apocryphal doom and gloom. The only solution is to give them more power to invade our privacy.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin Founding Father of the USA
8
"manipulated"? Open your eyes, brother.
Here is how I'm reading this non-story.
FBI: "Apple! Decrypt that phone!"
Apple: "No."
FBI: "No really. Help us decrypt that phone."
Apple: "Well... If anybody asks, tell them we're not helping you. It's, like, bad for business."
FBI: "OK. We'll act annoyed and be, like, really amazed at how impossible it is to get into an iPhone. 'Oh wow! These iPhones are, like, impossible to break into!'"
Apple: "And we'll act all offended and such, like we can't believe you are even asking, 'How dare you! As if!?!' and such, but we'll, like, help you out, like, by communicating with you using, like, backchannels and so on."
FBI: "Sounds good to us. It's a win-win. We get into the iPhone, and you, like, get the reputation for being, like, really secret and stuff."
Apple: "Yeah. Cool. It's, like, impossible to get into an iPhone... unless we secretly tell you how to do it 'n such."
Am I being too conspiratorial?
FBI: "Apple! Decrypt that phone!"
Apple: "No."
FBI: "No really. Help us decrypt that phone."
Apple: "Well... If anybody asks, tell them we're not helping you. It's, like, bad for business."
FBI: "OK. We'll act annoyed and be, like, really amazed at how impossible it is to get into an iPhone. 'Oh wow! These iPhones are, like, impossible to break into!'"
Apple: "And we'll act all offended and such, like we can't believe you are even asking, 'How dare you! As if!?!' and such, but we'll, like, help you out, like, by communicating with you using, like, backchannels and so on."
FBI: "Sounds good to us. It's a win-win. We get into the iPhone, and you, like, get the reputation for being, like, really secret and stuff."
Apple: "Yeah. Cool. It's, like, impossible to get into an iPhone... unless we secretly tell you how to do it 'n such."
Am I being too conspiratorial?
8
Nope. Right on!
So the FBI embraced counter-culture talent before Apple formerly of steve-jobs-dropping acid fame ?
So Tim Cook can stop bragging about the unbreakable iPhone and start actually making a new product now, it has been only 5 years since the Steve Jobs' death that nothing new has come out of what is nothing more than a supply chain bureaucracy.
So Tim Cook can stop bragging about the unbreakable iPhone and start actually making a new product now, it has been only 5 years since the Steve Jobs' death that nothing new has come out of what is nothing more than a supply chain bureaucracy.
2
For all the steps Apple has taken to encrypt customers’ communications and its rhetoric around customer privacy, security experts said the company was still doing less than many competitors to seal up its systems from hackers. And when hackers do find flaws in Apple’s code, they have little incentive to turn them over to the company for fixing....
[ I am astonished. This article is a revelation to me, since I had thought my Apple products were far more software secure than competing products but the matter may have been there were so few announcements of problems with Apple software.
Could this really be correct? ]
[ I am astonished. This article is a revelation to me, since I had thought my Apple products were far more software secure than competing products but the matter may have been there were so few announcements of problems with Apple software.
Could this really be correct? ]
4
Take the comment in the article with a grain of salt. It's very vague: security experts said the company was still doing less than many competitors to seal up its systems from hackers. What experts? What competitors? What do they mean by "seal up its systems?" What do they mean by "systems" for that matter? Does that mean their products or their own servers or their software? If they are doing less than many companies, why the hue and cry about their unbreakable security? Having been a journalist, I recognize a "fudged" sentence like the one above. The devil is in the details.
2
Much of this article is sourced from people who MAKE A LIVING from trading in back doors and hacks. Absolutely take it with a grain of salt:
-“Especially with the stakes being as high as they are, if Apple wants to continue to compete in the modern world, they have to modernize their approach,” said Katie Moussouris, a chief policy officer at HackerOne....
AND PAY
Zerodium, which sells flaws to governments and corporations, announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who would turn over an exploit in Apple’s iOS 9 mobile operating system
SO THEY CAN SELL IT
Apple has waited so long that the black market for its flaws has become extremely lucrative, perhaps making any bug bounty program the company would create seem late to the game. RIGHT, AND THINGS WOULD NOT CHANGE IF THEY OFFERED MORE MONEY -RIGHT
...said Jay Kaplan, a former N.S.A. analyst and co-founder of Synack, a company that deploys hackers to weed out vulnerabilities in clients’ systems.
MORE FUD
-“Especially with the stakes being as high as they are, if Apple wants to continue to compete in the modern world, they have to modernize their approach,” said Katie Moussouris, a chief policy officer at HackerOne....
AND PAY
Zerodium, which sells flaws to governments and corporations, announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who would turn over an exploit in Apple’s iOS 9 mobile operating system
SO THEY CAN SELL IT
Apple has waited so long that the black market for its flaws has become extremely lucrative, perhaps making any bug bounty program the company would create seem late to the game. RIGHT, AND THINGS WOULD NOT CHANGE IF THEY OFFERED MORE MONEY -RIGHT
...said Jay Kaplan, a former N.S.A. analyst and co-founder of Synack, a company that deploys hackers to weed out vulnerabilities in clients’ systems.
MORE FUD
1
according to other news elsewhere, it is a some subsidiary of SUN corp of japan in Israel called Cellebrite.
What if instead of referring to these free agents as "hackers", they were characterized simply as "technology consultants"? Then maybe Apple wouldn't have such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that it's not infallible, and instead help it and its customers get a more worthwhile product. Maybe Steve Jobs' vision of the future is not exactly what the rest of the real world envisions, nor should it be; he was only one guy with a superiority complex, and certainly not a god.
I am not sure the author appreciates how macro-economics works.
High prices offered for Apple 'bugs' on the black market does not suggest that Apple is falling down by not building up a hacker-for-hire ethos to detect those bugs.
It suggests that those bugs are rare and valuable for their rarity.
High prices offered for Apple 'bugs' on the black market does not suggest that Apple is falling down by not building up a hacker-for-hire ethos to detect those bugs.
It suggests that those bugs are rare and valuable for their rarity.
3
We used the Active Bomb method to justify torturing terrorist suspects. “If he knows where the bomb is that’s going to go off, are we allowed to torture him for that information?” Now let’s apply that to unlocking Apple’s cell phone. If there’s an active nuclear bomb hidden in the San Francisco bay area (which is close to Apple’s offices in Cupertino), do you think Apple might help the FBI search that phone?
We do not have anything so secret in our phones that the security of the United States cannot take precedence. Our government must continue to be allowed access to all communications.
We do not have anything so secret in our phones that the security of the United States cannot take precedence. Our government must continue to be allowed access to all communications.
I think this article is a little naive. I think it extremely unlikely that the "third party" is really some random individual or group. The "third party" is almost certainly the NSA. I work in the tech industry. I am not prone to conspiracy theories. I have talked to colleagues and the NSA being the mysterious "third party" is the overwhelming consensus opinion.
3
Legality (FBI) is looking for illegality (hackers) to attain the objective. An ethic issue very close to a paradox.
1
I understand taking a possible bug to those with the biggest rewards and I understand the glory of being first to discover some bug but it seems to me many hackers wouldn't take their wares to the FBI because breaking the iPhone's security to aid the government isn't something I'd think hackers wound find appealing.
According to a Reuters article the FBI is getting assistance from an Israeli company. So much for this article built entirely on speculation.
5
NewsCorp to me. They seem particular to Germany when in need of a Pirate assist.
1
I would hate to think that information related to the Brussel attackers might be on the iPhone that Apple refuses to help decrypt. Hopefully the third party will break the encryption, the FBI will get its data and Tim Cook will fume over the fact that Apple has been shown to not only be second rate but also puts profits over National Security. Shame on him and his engineers for refusing to help America. And shame on him for wanting information on the third party that was able to do it. What hubris.
1
It's an old conservative ploy to identify the government as America. It ain't. As an American, I want ways to protect myself from the prying eyes of the government, esp the security services that have far too often shown their willingness (eagerness?) to act in unAmerican ways. I'm not nearly as afraid of terrorists as I am of apparatchiks in govt agencies who are so eager to "protect" me.
1
As a software architect, I draw a large distinction between Apple's "bug policy" and the actual issue at stake in this legal battle: The "right" to securely distribute the compiled code that Apple itself writes. The FBI asked for a hacked version of the O/S that would allow them (FBI or any party) to download any modified code to an iOS device.
Would Boeing consent to allow anyone to overwrite the flight control system code for a 747? Neither would the FAA.
No software company and it's engineers want to go back to the 90's when users installed new programs or devices from 3rd party sources on their computers that regularly overwrote components in the core O/S. There was a phrase for that, "DLL hell". "Bug fixing" back then was telling the hapless user to "reinstall the O/S".
I sincerely doubt that any Apple engineer "leaked" a hack to the FBI, short of purposefully wanting to destroy the company; which goes way beyond objecting to their bug handling philosophy.
As we approach trillions of computer devices, it's abundantly clear to every s/w engineer, that if you can't absolutely guarantee what you wrote is running on a machine, it will be impossible to fix it at that scale.
On this articles subject of bug fixing, note that when companies cross-licence code from other manufacturers, things can get very complicated.
Would Boeing consent to allow anyone to overwrite the flight control system code for a 747? Neither would the FAA.
No software company and it's engineers want to go back to the 90's when users installed new programs or devices from 3rd party sources on their computers that regularly overwrote components in the core O/S. There was a phrase for that, "DLL hell". "Bug fixing" back then was telling the hapless user to "reinstall the O/S".
I sincerely doubt that any Apple engineer "leaked" a hack to the FBI, short of purposefully wanting to destroy the company; which goes way beyond objecting to their bug handling philosophy.
As we approach trillions of computer devices, it's abundantly clear to every s/w engineer, that if you can't absolutely guarantee what you wrote is running on a machine, it will be impossible to fix it at that scale.
On this articles subject of bug fixing, note that when companies cross-licence code from other manufacturers, things can get very complicated.
6
Remember that the iPhone is not the only way to communicate with encryption. There are many other ways that are easier/cheaper, from using disposable phones or hostages' phones (i.e., ISIS in Europe) to using freely available encryption apps. There are also low-tech techniques like whispering or using old fashion cypher code. Law enforcement is never going to be able to listen to and understand every conversation that takes place among criminals and terrorists!
2
If Apple will not pay for information on vulnerabilities, how do those who find/develop them monetize their results? Those companies that are mentioned, or individuals.
1
Karma - its whats for lunch.
5
Steve Jobs ego finally has negative consequences for Apple. It's not the refusal to help the FBI, its the refusal to accept that an outsider can be of any help with "their" code.
1
In my humble opinion, Apple's corporate interests need not mesh so perfectly as to conceal the mercenary ambitions of ISIS fighters hiding in every nook and cranny on the face of this earth.
1
apple is going after th terrorist demo
dont you know anything about marketing ?
dont you know anything about marketing ?
Marketing. Helping Apple sell iPhones.
4
Is it really such a good idea for Apple to have developed an operating system that is believed beyond the ability of its creator to control due to the encryption of its components?
Isn't this one of the nightmare scenarios of the future, humans vs robots, our cinema artists are warning us about?
We've already created Frankenstein Corporations, legal people, potentially immortal and rich beyond measure, who control nearly everything already.
Isn't this a bit troubling to anyone?
Isn't this one of the nightmare scenarios of the future, humans vs robots, our cinema artists are warning us about?
We've already created Frankenstein Corporations, legal people, potentially immortal and rich beyond measure, who control nearly everything already.
Isn't this a bit troubling to anyone?
9
It really is, however they are too powerful to be stopped.
Good point...I just flashed back on Hal from "2001 A Space Odyssey".
1
Instead of calling themselves hackers, couldn't these outside agents simply be referred to as "technology consultants"? No reason then for anyone's corporate pride to feel that it's being wounded.
1
Good to know - especially if your credit card is linked to your apple account or you e-file your tax returns and check your email on your phone or bank online ...
1
Except for politics, I seldom fall for conspiracy theories, but the timing of hacker offers to help open the Iphone and resolve the FBI/Apple standoff surely invites one. Not much of a stretch to imagine an FBI/Apple agreement to break the phone, claiming an outsider pulled it off.
3
My own conspiracy theory is that NSA decided to help its Federal brethern.
3
You know who else helped the FBI? Lucky Luciano and his A Team. They kept an eye on the waterfront...like they owned it. Especially after the Normandie rolled over, rovers. Justice is not the only juker to employ the squeeze bag, taggers. So will hostage takers.
1
Reportedly the Italian Mafia also helped pave the way for the 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily.
I found a future Merck exec as a general suspect re-establishing Sicily's drug industry as swiftly as possible until the word got around the skimming pool, so they had to make it a French Connection out of Corsica. Of course I could be wrong about that one, accordion to TwoFace.
2
so why can't they protect Macs from ransom hackers?
3
"Apple has said it will fight to know more about the flaw in the software or hardware that the third party has presented to law enforcement." So.... Apple wants the information without paying for it like others have with their bug bounty programs? I don't get that. Apple has a lot on money, why not pay for the information?
4
Apple should be opening this phone on the quiet side. Period.
As fellow travelers in this journey of life, Apple executives should have realised their duty over their self promoting refusal to help.
Just imagine if it had been an Apple Office where tragedy struck, just imagine your own families, bloodied and destroyed.
Apple owes it to each and every citizen,we demand justice.
As fellow travelers in this journey of life, Apple executives should have realised their duty over their self promoting refusal to help.
Just imagine if it had been an Apple Office where tragedy struck, just imagine your own families, bloodied and destroyed.
Apple owes it to each and every citizen,we demand justice.
12
Oh please. If you're going to post something be sure you know what you are talking about. Apple is trying to protect people around the world from having their personal information stolen and abused. Period. We are spending 100's of BILLIONS on national security. The security organizations should be using the resources they already have to fight terrorism. We all should not be forced to give up our freedoms and right to privacy so that they have an easier time doing their jobs. If they can't do their jobs with the resources they have then it's time to find competent leaders who can.
3
Sorry, I can't agree with you. If your privacy tops National Interests don't put it in your phone. Remember this phone was City property, not some guy strolling down the street minding his own business. So of privacy is your main concern - don't write it down. Besides what are you doing that is so special?
1
FreeRange doesn't have to justify his right to privacy. It's his right. The point in all of this is to find a balance. What Apple was asking for was legislation to clearly define where the limits are rather than random grabs by agencies like the FBI (which many people suspect manufactured this crisis to get a free backdoor into your phone when and if they want it.) Do you think Chinese companies or North Korean companies should be able to compel companies to help them to spy on dissidents? It's the same principle.
Justice has played this like Dewey! Way to come out stinking like Huey, Baby!
I bet this "tech firm" will gain traction in the Jackson department...and legitimacy, see? That's why we let off the mob to cover the waterfront for us in WWII, True Crime.
I bet this "tech firm" will gain traction in the Jackson department...and legitimacy, see? That's why we let off the mob to cover the waterfront for us in WWII, True Crime.
1
'That is a far cry from what hackers can expect if they sell an Apple flaw on the thriving underground market where a growing number of companies and government agencies are willing to pay hackers handsomely.'
I see, so it's better to go for the filthy lucre instead of doing the right thing? Quite sad.
I see, so it's better to go for the filthy lucre instead of doing the right thing? Quite sad.
2
One wonders if Apple's refusal to go along with law enforcement is more of a public relations ruse than a principled position. Apple (and other tech companies) has routinely assisted law enforcement in the past. Now it turns out that Apple's security isn't that great after all. Surprise, surprise.
8
ROFLOL - another poster who has no clue what they are talking about. Please people, educate yourselves fully on the subject. It is fact the DOJ that pushed this into the public arena, not some Apple PR stunt. Further, it has been made quite clear that Apple has provided significant support and technical help in this case when asked by the DOJ. However, they drew a line in the sand when they were asked to build a backdoor to their operating system thus weakening the security of hundreds of millions of phones.
3
Just a question here.
Has the ubiquity of digital technology actually made the world, all things considered, a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago?
Has the ubiquity of digital technology actually made the world, all things considered, a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago?
4
No one seems to be asking the question: if the FBI did acquire an iOS exploit from a third party hacker did they pay for it? Would doing so mean aiding and abetting criminal activity? Certainly it seems to be in ethically challenged territory as doing so would almost certainly violate Apple's own terms of service and circumvent Apple's clearly stated position.
1
So the other party that has come forward to assist the FBI with their iPhone "problem": Rather than pay them for their hacking assistance, what's stopping the government from using the All Writs Act on this other party? If someone has the expertise to hack iPhones, don't they have a patriotic duty to hand that info over to our government to help stop the Terrorists? If they don't, surely that party should be charged with treason.
3
Long ago, I learned that the first law of computers was GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I propose as a second law, the idea that anything one person puts into a computer, another person can take out.
I propose as a second law, the idea that anything one person puts into a computer, another person can take out.
5
Apple wants to market to everyone, "Terrorists are customers too, my friend" seems to be their mantra.
6
This may very well be a bluff by the FBI. They are going to look ridiculous if these third party hackers cant crack the code on the phones. The FBI should have kept up the court battle and never divulged the existence of another course of action.
2
So, the FBI will now cooperate with cyber-criminals in order to break encryption.
But they hate Snowden.
I get it.
But they hate Snowden.
I get it.
4
In fairness, they paid Snowden for years while he committed espionage against them and have absolutely nothing good to show for it. At least these criminals are more honest and helpful than Snowden.
1
What would you expect from an organization that still honors J. Edgar Hoover, the biggest government blackmailer in history.
2
Third party steps forward to assist FBI
Given the competitiveness of the industry and the state of industrial espionage I can see the difficulty the FBI might have encountered getting a third party to step forward. Imagine a hacker steeping out of the shadows to help the FBI. I imagine the third party is a patriot from the flourishing after market Iphone repair business.
I am still wondering about what this pseudo-event is really about. Could it be that Iphone sales were down and Tim Cook needed to sell more phones?
Given the competitiveness of the industry and the state of industrial espionage I can see the difficulty the FBI might have encountered getting a third party to step forward. Imagine a hacker steeping out of the shadows to help the FBI. I imagine the third party is a patriot from the flourishing after market Iphone repair business.
I am still wondering about what this pseudo-event is really about. Could it be that Iphone sales were down and Tim Cook needed to sell more phones?
1
Well, don't I feel smart for skipping this stupid cell pwn fad?
2
Every criminal and terrorist must love Apple's stand on not allowing our legal government to access a known terrorist's phone. Way to go Apple: protect your customers' bank account information while aiding those intent on harming people and our society.
4
Let's jump over the obvious quirk from the fact our government pays pirates to help them crack code and move on to the more valuable issue, who's servers get special treatment under government scrutiny and whose do not. I'm talking mutiny.
Take NewsCorp's, PLEASE! When an executive was arrested on suspicion of corruption and other crimes, her server was NEVER trespassed upon. It was a Hillary's style sole server fit only for her BlackBerry, but still considered a company phone. Her company gave police ten years of emails on her underlings paying government sources for stories, but there was apparently an agreement to stop searching for the big fish as it was estimated to cost NewsCorp $2 Billion if the inquiry proceeded into the executive suite. FCPA fines.
So I KNOW all the big muckities have been searching for more security so they can continue to roll you and me from their own special gallery while we suffer their standard operating procedures.
Gonna be hard to prove Justice hasn't perverted evidence in a world where one turns to mercenaries to attack their own industries.
Bet you bucks to donuts it's the "A Team" team who cracked this executive's BlackBerry so as to remove Cameron's corrupted email and insert it's Tempora file into her cell phone. No content.
Ask BlackBerry about how they did after GCHQ claimed to have cracked their compression code to NSA in 2011. But who can they sue when you know who won't say which pirate he hired to crack up justice.
Take NewsCorp's, PLEASE! When an executive was arrested on suspicion of corruption and other crimes, her server was NEVER trespassed upon. It was a Hillary's style sole server fit only for her BlackBerry, but still considered a company phone. Her company gave police ten years of emails on her underlings paying government sources for stories, but there was apparently an agreement to stop searching for the big fish as it was estimated to cost NewsCorp $2 Billion if the inquiry proceeded into the executive suite. FCPA fines.
So I KNOW all the big muckities have been searching for more security so they can continue to roll you and me from their own special gallery while we suffer their standard operating procedures.
Gonna be hard to prove Justice hasn't perverted evidence in a world where one turns to mercenaries to attack their own industries.
Bet you bucks to donuts it's the "A Team" team who cracked this executive's BlackBerry so as to remove Cameron's corrupted email and insert it's Tempora file into her cell phone. No content.
Ask BlackBerry about how they did after GCHQ claimed to have cracked their compression code to NSA in 2011. But who can they sue when you know who won't say which pirate he hired to crack up justice.
3
OMG, now it's the A Team?
Justice needs to wipe their operating system and start over refreshed. Dealing with hackers to make Apple give up the recipe to security is way over the top, gangsters.
Justice needs to wipe their operating system and start over refreshed. Dealing with hackers to make Apple give up the recipe to security is way over the top, gangsters.
2
Maybe the "third party" is someone from Apple itself, just doing it on the QT to maintain its original front and not to be seen as cooperating with the FBI.
Well, once we practice deceit in the pursuit of justice, aren't we all hanging by a thread? I learned long ago to see Iago in most authority certificates. Like why have I got so many from CHINA, SONY?
1
This was a two year old phone. The new ones are more secure, and I am sure Apple will continue beefing up security.
If the FBI is able to break in, this would be the best of both worlds -- it would require some serious effort to break into a phone, so in the few issues rising to national security level, the FBI can just do it, while keeping ordinary hackers and criminals at bay.
If the FBI is able to break in, this would be the best of both worlds -- it would require some serious effort to break into a phone, so in the few issues rising to national security level, the FBI can just do it, while keeping ordinary hackers and criminals at bay.
1
Or perhaps Apple simply doesn't care to divulge all their outside resources for bug detection?
How theyvconduct their business is after all their business....on their product's efficacy and this
pursuit for info by the FBI, isn't the heart of the matter really about setting precedent fot the future
for out government's ability to access our private info indiscrimently whenever they choose to do so?
That would mean all companies not just Apple's would be vulnerable?
How theyvconduct their business is after all their business....on their product's efficacy and this
pursuit for info by the FBI, isn't the heart of the matter really about setting precedent fot the future
for out government's ability to access our private info indiscrimently whenever they choose to do so?
That would mean all companies not just Apple's would be vulnerable?
3
Apple iPhone - The phone recommended by 4 out of 5 terrorists.
2
It is curious that Apple is attacked for refusing the ridiculous government demands that will allow them to easily create a boondoggle to monitor everyone's communications. It has known that the people who stage these attacks don't use encryption but use throw-away phones. Why not ban those? Oh no can't do that, it would impact some corporation bottom line. The San Bernadino attackers said exactly what they would do on Facebook, in the open. Analysis and investigation is hard and nobody makes billions.
3
This is a rather self serving article. "many in the security industry say" is in the first line, yet the "security" experts quoted are those who run Hacker companies that Apple doesn't use.
And if there is a bounty of a million dollars to discover one crack in Apple's OS, that tells me the security is pretty good, considering hackers are always trying to break in.
The fact that the government didn't listen to Apple when they told them how to get into the phone to get the most up-to-date cloud backup—the phone hadn't been backed up in a month—and that they don't really understand what gets backed up, insisting that there must be something else on the phone, tells me the boss Feds calling the shots have no idea how the technology actually works.
In addition, Comey says this is one case and one phone, but this is nonsense. Regional FBI offices have been trying to force Apple to do this over and over again for drug cases, etc. So no, it's not just once exceptional case. They aren't telling the truth.
And if there is a bounty of a million dollars to discover one crack in Apple's OS, that tells me the security is pretty good, considering hackers are always trying to break in.
The fact that the government didn't listen to Apple when they told them how to get into the phone to get the most up-to-date cloud backup—the phone hadn't been backed up in a month—and that they don't really understand what gets backed up, insisting that there must be something else on the phone, tells me the boss Feds calling the shots have no idea how the technology actually works.
In addition, Comey says this is one case and one phone, but this is nonsense. Regional FBI offices have been trying to force Apple to do this over and over again for drug cases, etc. So no, it's not just once exceptional case. They aren't telling the truth.
2
Hmm.
Rebekah Brooks BB hadn't been backed up in a month. When it came out of lengthy police custody and the images were downloaded, Cameron's email was characterless. No content. The geeks all freaked when this came out at trial, like how the hack did THAT happen?
Smells like a Tempora file to me. One month old emails in GCHQ's hands? We hadn't learned how Tempora works at the time of that trial, but it would have been easy to see if the timing weren't so proprietary.
Rebekah Brooks BB hadn't been backed up in a month. When it came out of lengthy police custody and the images were downloaded, Cameron's email was characterless. No content. The geeks all freaked when this came out at trial, like how the hack did THAT happen?
Smells like a Tempora file to me. One month old emails in GCHQ's hands? We hadn't learned how Tempora works at the time of that trial, but it would have been easy to see if the timing weren't so proprietary.
1
" They aren't telling the truth."
Does the government, 10% corrupt politicians and 90% useless, parasitic bureaucrats, ever tell the truth?
Does the government, 10% corrupt politicians and 90% useless, parasitic bureaucrats, ever tell the truth?
2
Depends on what the meaning of truth is, Pilate.
This is when Colbert would break into a song from JCSS, but what would Mary have done? I don't know how to love these security racketeers, but I bet they will try to find a way to break me.
This is when Colbert would break into a song from JCSS, but what would Mary have done? I don't know how to love these security racketeers, but I bet they will try to find a way to break me.
The Washington Post is reporting it's an Israeli company that's going to be helping the FBI break into the iPhone. From the 3/23 online Post site:
"An Israeli company that provides mobile forensic software is helping the FBI unlock one of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, a Tel Aviv newspaper reported. “If Cellebrite succeeds, then the FBI will no longer need the help of Apple Inc, the Israeli daily said, citing unnamed industry sources,” according to Reuters. “Apple is engaged in a legal battle with the U.S. Justice Department over a judge’s order that it write new software to disable passcode protection on the iPhone used by the shooter.”"
"An Israeli company that provides mobile forensic software is helping the FBI unlock one of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, a Tel Aviv newspaper reported. “If Cellebrite succeeds, then the FBI will no longer need the help of Apple Inc, the Israeli daily said, citing unnamed industry sources,” according to Reuters. “Apple is engaged in a legal battle with the U.S. Justice Department over a judge’s order that it write new software to disable passcode protection on the iPhone used by the shooter.”"
1
For decades, elements of the federal government in the US have fought against encryption which may leave federal agencies unable to read communications. The current effort by the FBI is a bit of a tempest in a tea pot in view of the evolving technical capabilities available to all.
There are two levels-transmission over networks and storage on private devices such as mobile phones. In the first instance, encryption of data transmission is now possible in an unbreakable format to almost anyone in the world. Another level open to criminals and terrorists is the use of burner phones-cheap enough to purchase by the dozens for one-time usage. Being able to access storage devices seems like a lower level of ability for the FBI. Apple and others can produce cheaper phones which will not allow any probing of the pin code without wiping storage. Not only is the FBI behind Apple and others but they are behind the hackers of the world in technical ability. America cannot seem to prevent hackers from breaking into federal government systems, including defense department computers. I doubt that pursuing legal avenues to force tech companies to allow government access to devices is the most fruitful route to follow.
There are two levels-transmission over networks and storage on private devices such as mobile phones. In the first instance, encryption of data transmission is now possible in an unbreakable format to almost anyone in the world. Another level open to criminals and terrorists is the use of burner phones-cheap enough to purchase by the dozens for one-time usage. Being able to access storage devices seems like a lower level of ability for the FBI. Apple and others can produce cheaper phones which will not allow any probing of the pin code without wiping storage. Not only is the FBI behind Apple and others but they are behind the hackers of the world in technical ability. America cannot seem to prevent hackers from breaking into federal government systems, including defense department computers. I doubt that pursuing legal avenues to force tech companies to allow government access to devices is the most fruitful route to follow.
2
"Not only is the FBI behind Apple and others but they are behind the hackers of the world in technical ability. America cannot seem to prevent hackers from breaking into federal government systems, including defense department computers. I doubt that pursuing legal avenues to force tech companies to allow government access to devices is the most fruitful route to follow."
Even the big government worshiping NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to impose or increase, has said on numerous occasions that "government is always inefficient and often corrupt".
Even the big government worshiping NYTs, that never saw a tax that it did not want to impose or increase, has said on numerous occasions that "government is always inefficient and often corrupt".
1
Most likely Apple gave one of its employees a leave of absence to help the FBI. Einstein not needed here.
I heard on NPR a kid got $30K just for finding the backdoor open, zero dayz. Why do we send kidz to school when they can just steal the best ideas?
2
If this 3rd party were based in China or Russia, I mean IF, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
1
So basically Apple has painted a huge target on its and every Apple user's back.
Years ago there were good guys and bad guys. You knew some of the bad guys were sociopaths, like Al Capone.
Now, it is hard to tell who are the sociopaths and who are the good guys. The FBI, the hackers, Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, are these the pilars of society or the dregs of humanity?
Now, it is hard to tell who are the sociopaths and who are the good guys. The FBI, the hackers, Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, are these the pilars of society or the dregs of humanity?
1
I hear you, why, and that's why YouTube shoots me the latest in great mob histories. OMG, can we even fathom what they've stolen since everything is so much easier to hack into online, Hole in the Walls?
1
"...Apple, which has had relatively strong security over the years..."
In a tech world rife with hackers, victims of hackers, and purported rescuers of hacking victims, the above statement would likely be quite mystifying.
In a tech world rife with hackers, victims of hackers, and purported rescuers of hacking victims, the above statement would likely be quite mystifying.
5
When the mafia was establishing itself in the extortion rackets in American mining towns, they used to send an elder statesmen type among the immigrant targets who they then grew to trust. Then when they got a letter from the Black Hand asking for extortion money or ransom in a language unknown to them, didn't they know where first to run? He always advised them to pay..until the day they died.
2
Couldn't Apple unlock the phone for the government, give them the decrypted data, but keep the "key"? It seems like such an obvious answer I wonder why no one has mentioned it. Is there a reason why not?
3
This WOULD have been an option IF the Justice Department hadn't triggered it's self destruct mechanism trying to hack it, and THEN they asked Apple to come fix their mess. They want more than access, they want to crack the final safety feature that protects you and me, and without it it makes the iPhone a BlackBerry,
4
Merely doing so creates the doorway and the potential for unwanted access; the existence of an unlock "key" implies a lock that will not be impenetrable to these hackers who will put everything to get to the available data
1
I'm annoyed by Apple. If I did not have contracts tied to my iPhones I would have already switched brands. The Apple image seems to be a lot more important then our safety... Nice Mr. Cook. I'm glad the government found some smart hackers. And hope more come forward to help our government. What Cook feared has just manifested. If he would have just cooperated the public would never had known that iPhones were hackable. Not very smart move. Jobs must be turning in his grave.
23
as i said in a post elsewhere: everybody needs to understand that both sides in this dispute do not want the public to know the actual limitations of commercially available digital encryption.
apple, because they want it to be a brand attribute, and will oversell it.
the government, because the want to continue to hack it, and will obscure the facts.
this article, while based on conjecture, uses conjecture to report on a segment of the software universe that impinges on encryption issues. it could dig deeper.
as i've also said before: anyone who thinks encryption will protect their "privacy" has the same mentality as someone who thinks a firearm will protect their liberty.
technology cannot replace or supersede the rule of law.
apple, because they want it to be a brand attribute, and will oversell it.
the government, because the want to continue to hack it, and will obscure the facts.
this article, while based on conjecture, uses conjecture to report on a segment of the software universe that impinges on encryption issues. it could dig deeper.
as i've also said before: anyone who thinks encryption will protect their "privacy" has the same mentality as someone who thinks a firearm will protect their liberty.
technology cannot replace or supersede the rule of law.
18
The real story is that the FBI flat-out lied about Apple being the only entity able to unlock the iPhone. That's the real story. When Congressman Issa suggested a method to unlock the iPhone to FBI's Comey during Comey's hearing, and Comey said he didn't know whether it would work, it was clear that the FBI didn't try to contact other entities (NSA included) before brining this case against Apple.
Further, forensic technologists stated on twitter that the FBI stopped talking to them after the initiation New York iPhone case. This suggests that the FBI purposely avoided entities who could contradict their purported ignorance of other possible solutions. It would be better to report these facts, and perhaps reflect on how easily the FBI can commit perjury (14 times in their legal briefs they stated Apple was the only entity that could open the phone) with no repercussions or even questions. Finally, reporting these facts, it would be interesting to reflect upon each company's strategies and how they will pursue them in the coming years.
Further, forensic technologists stated on twitter that the FBI stopped talking to them after the initiation New York iPhone case. This suggests that the FBI purposely avoided entities who could contradict their purported ignorance of other possible solutions. It would be better to report these facts, and perhaps reflect on how easily the FBI can commit perjury (14 times in their legal briefs they stated Apple was the only entity that could open the phone) with no repercussions or even questions. Finally, reporting these facts, it would be interesting to reflect upon each company's strategies and how they will pursue them in the coming years.
27
"reflect on how easily the FBI can commit perjury (14 times in their legal briefs they stated Apple was the only entity that could open the phone) with no repercussions or even questions."
So only "ordinary" people can be punished for perjury, but the FBI can not. Some useless, parasitic bureaucrats should loose their jobs and pensions for this perjury.
So only "ordinary" people can be punished for perjury, but the FBI can not. Some useless, parasitic bureaucrats should loose their jobs and pensions for this perjury.
1
Isn't paying extortion or blackmail illegal? It seems to me that the terrorists (hackers) are saying, "give me money or I will hurt you". I am sure APple, like many tech companies, hires hackers to protect their phones.
According to identify force: Unfortunately, keeping things “open” is also what keeps Android more vulnerable. Android-based phones are more widely used across the world, and studies have shown that a much larger percentage of mobile malware targets Android over iOS. Although both Android and iOS have their flaws, Apple’s iOS has still proved to be a safer bet in terms of security. Apple runs a tight ship which can feel constricting to users, but ultimately, it’s to keep their customers as safe as possible. Yes, hackers have started to poke holes in the Apple OS — but they have only managed to target jailbroken iPhones and a miniscule portion of apps within the App Store.(https://www.identityforce.com/blog/ios-vs-android-security-which-one-wil...
According to identify force: Unfortunately, keeping things “open” is also what keeps Android more vulnerable. Android-based phones are more widely used across the world, and studies have shown that a much larger percentage of mobile malware targets Android over iOS. Although both Android and iOS have their flaws, Apple’s iOS has still proved to be a safer bet in terms of security. Apple runs a tight ship which can feel constricting to users, but ultimately, it’s to keep their customers as safe as possible. Yes, hackers have started to poke holes in the Apple OS — but they have only managed to target jailbroken iPhones and a miniscule portion of apps within the App Store.(https://www.identityforce.com/blog/ios-vs-android-security-which-one-wil...
2
As far as a bounty program goes, it's a matter of tapping into the wisdom of the masses that makes it wise. Better late than never.
9
Many unscrupulous people supply firearms and explosives to Terrorists, while Apple is the exclusive supplier of secure communications to Terrorists who have and are making war against the United States. Indite Apple for Espionage.
5
Stop being so greedy. Your nation needs you Apple!
13
“ but it’s never going to be able to compete with what is going on behind the scenes in the black market,” said Jay Kaplan"
The biggest, most profitable company in the world can't afford to pay outsiders who find security flaws in its product!
Seems a bit of a contradiction with Mr. Cooks statements about privacy.
I'd suggest that it might have more about arrogance.
The biggest, most profitable company in the world can't afford to pay outsiders who find security flaws in its product!
Seems a bit of a contradiction with Mr. Cooks statements about privacy.
I'd suggest that it might have more about arrogance.
63
“Apple can embrace security researchers, or try to facilitate programs that will secure its operating system, but it’s never going to be able to compete with what is going on behind the scenes in the black market,”
Ahhh, capitalism.
Ahhh, capitalism.
7
When I read about the third-party offer to help the F.B.I., I immediate wondered why the "hacker" did not turn over his discovery to Apple. I am assuming that the hacker's workaround took a while to come up with and most likely predates the recent controversy so it was not a question of the hacker being in sympathy with the government's position. If my assumption is correct, all is now explained by Apple's policy. I can only assume that the government will be providing some remuneration to the hacker.
Apple seems to be the only tech giant with this seemingly shortsighted policy. It should encourage anyone who has found a flaw in its products to come forward. It should also understand that hackers do not accidentally find flaws; they expend considerable energy looking for them. Some do it so that they can exploit their findings for illegal gains. Some do it for the intellectual pleasure. These individuals might gladly turn over their findings to Apple wanting nothing other than a pat on the head, but they are probably few in number. The rest are hoping for a reward in addition to the recognition.
If the hacker figured out the workaround after the controversy came up, then he is either in sympathy with the government's position or money means more to him than the larger principles involved. But regardless of when the hack was done, he is preventing the wheels of justice from following its legal course.
Apple seems to be the only tech giant with this seemingly shortsighted policy. It should encourage anyone who has found a flaw in its products to come forward. It should also understand that hackers do not accidentally find flaws; they expend considerable energy looking for them. Some do it so that they can exploit their findings for illegal gains. Some do it for the intellectual pleasure. These individuals might gladly turn over their findings to Apple wanting nothing other than a pat on the head, but they are probably few in number. The rest are hoping for a reward in addition to the recognition.
If the hacker figured out the workaround after the controversy came up, then he is either in sympathy with the government's position or money means more to him than the larger principles involved. But regardless of when the hack was done, he is preventing the wheels of justice from following its legal course.
3
Very cool. Cook thought he was above the law.
If the hacker is successful, the methodology will stay secret -- from Apple. But there are hundreds of iPhones in police custody for which warrants authorizing access have been issued. I expect the FBI will assist the other law enforcement agencies in opening those iPhones as well.
Apple's concern has always been its image, and the hit to its bottom line should the FBI prevail in court. This will hit massively.
If the hacker is successful, the methodology will stay secret -- from Apple. But there are hundreds of iPhones in police custody for which warrants authorizing access have been issued. I expect the FBI will assist the other law enforcement agencies in opening those iPhones as well.
Apple's concern has always been its image, and the hit to its bottom line should the FBI prevail in court. This will hit massively.
47
I have enjoyed Apple products over the last thirty years, including my first personal computer - the old Mac Plus I believe it was called.
Now, a devoted iPhone user since the second released version - 3G in 2008. I upgrade every two years.
But the company has always seemed insular with a know it all attitude and superiori even condescending posture toward the rest of the tech world. Also a sort of patronizing stance with public desires - don't question our design or feature choices, we know what's best for you. You don't realize what you want.
Maybe it's culture is infused by the famously self assured way of its founder, the often arrogant Steve Jobs, as he's been described. Maybe something about the DNA of the corporate ethos, carried over year after year.
The vibe is - trust our positions, we're your friends, not a corporation that, like any other, makes self-serving, sometimes dubious (and duplicitous) decisions in this world.
Again, my consumer experience with Apple products has been quite positive, from products I prize to excellent customer service (maybe the best anywhere).
But this is not a comforting article and Apple's vaunted concern with user security seems compromised. Is their "don't question our decisions" attitude blinding them to risks to customers?
I can only hope all our security with our useful, pleasing iPhones isn't equally suspect.
Now, a devoted iPhone user since the second released version - 3G in 2008. I upgrade every two years.
But the company has always seemed insular with a know it all attitude and superiori even condescending posture toward the rest of the tech world. Also a sort of patronizing stance with public desires - don't question our design or feature choices, we know what's best for you. You don't realize what you want.
Maybe it's culture is infused by the famously self assured way of its founder, the often arrogant Steve Jobs, as he's been described. Maybe something about the DNA of the corporate ethos, carried over year after year.
The vibe is - trust our positions, we're your friends, not a corporation that, like any other, makes self-serving, sometimes dubious (and duplicitous) decisions in this world.
Again, my consumer experience with Apple products has been quite positive, from products I prize to excellent customer service (maybe the best anywhere).
But this is not a comforting article and Apple's vaunted concern with user security seems compromised. Is their "don't question our decisions" attitude blinding them to risks to customers?
I can only hope all our security with our useful, pleasing iPhones isn't equally suspect.
41
Before you confirm sainthood on other tech companies, Paul, I should remind you that the attribute that you have bestowed on Apple are attributes of other tech companies. But companies do make products that they want people to buy, otherwise they go out of business.
There is no guarantee that paying hackers will be a successful strategy for information assurance. What you want to say is that there has to be a successful way way to undertake penetration testing of a companies products. Maybe third party hackers are a part of this, maybe not. People feel that hackers are a part of information assurance, but that's just a feeling. If a large number of people are involved in trying to penetrate a system, then there is a larger probability that the system will be penetrated, obviously.
You assume that paying the hackers yields results, but the results have to be there. It's romantic, but in the end products are attacked anyway, despite paying hackers for results. Someone else could find a flaw in a system and not report it.
What you want to say is that tech companies need to have an overarching information assurance strategy. It's a work in progress for all companies.
There is no guarantee that paying hackers will be a successful strategy for information assurance. What you want to say is that there has to be a successful way way to undertake penetration testing of a companies products. Maybe third party hackers are a part of this, maybe not. People feel that hackers are a part of information assurance, but that's just a feeling. If a large number of people are involved in trying to penetrate a system, then there is a larger probability that the system will be penetrated, obviously.
You assume that paying the hackers yields results, but the results have to be there. It's romantic, but in the end products are attacked anyway, despite paying hackers for results. Someone else could find a flaw in a system and not report it.
What you want to say is that tech companies need to have an overarching information assurance strategy. It's a work in progress for all companies.
1
Isn't it possible that the FBI is exaggerating (or making up) the claim that they have a way to unlock the iPhone? The FBI (and other spy agencies) would benefit from sowing doubt about the security of iPhones.
9
Or the FBI was afraid they'd lose the court case and wanted to save face.
Undoubtedly though, some hacker somewhere believes they can crack the iPhone and if successful, can expect to be paid handsomely for the job. The FBI et al get their backdoor pass to open iPhones in the future at least until Apple figures it out and patches it.
So, crime does pay.
Undoubtedly though, some hacker somewhere believes they can crack the iPhone and if successful, can expect to be paid handsomely for the job. The FBI et al get their backdoor pass to open iPhones in the future at least until Apple figures it out and patches it.
So, crime does pay.
3
When the story about Apple refusing to unlock the terrorist's phone broke, I commented on the Times that the idea of an "uncrackable" phone was ludicrous, and that all the government needed to do was hire some smart hackers to do it. Looks like that might come to pass. Hackers are extremely smart, love the challenge and seem to have lots of time on their hands to hack.
9
Do these hackers get paid in crypto-coin?
4
This development underscores why Apple should cooperate with duly processed warrants.
If Apple's argument had been about a flaw in due process, they would not have divided the community. But it was not. Consequently, they have sacrificed an opportunity to galvanized support for longstanding legal matters such as reforms of ECPA and CALEA, the overturning of FISA and termination of FISA courts, and fixing of the ambiguity gaps in the USA-Patriot Act which government has taken advantage of since its passage in 2001.
It's not too late to do that, whether Apple chooses only to double-down on this one case or not. It is not a matter of technical security, but the essentials of citizenship.
If Apple's argument had been about a flaw in due process, they would not have divided the community. But it was not. Consequently, they have sacrificed an opportunity to galvanized support for longstanding legal matters such as reforms of ECPA and CALEA, the overturning of FISA and termination of FISA courts, and fixing of the ambiguity gaps in the USA-Patriot Act which government has taken advantage of since its passage in 2001.
It's not too late to do that, whether Apple chooses only to double-down on this one case or not. It is not a matter of technical security, but the essentials of citizenship.
12
There is no warrant here. Apple has been ordered under the All Writs Act. Apple is not a witness being subpoenaed nor a defendant served with a warrant. Apple was not a party to the original case, and prior to the issue of that order was not able to provide testimony or any arguments whatsoever. None of this is tied to FISA or the PATRIOT Act etc so Apple can't raise any arguments on those issues. This is all about the All Writs Act (as amended in 1911).
The government is ordering Apple to create NEW custom software (against Apple's will) solely for the FBI to crack into Apple's products. For this to work, Apple also must sign this software with it's personal crypto-key as valid and secure Apple Software. Apple argues this violates it's first amendment rights (software is speech)
Apple has complied with all other court orders in this case, and was specifically helping the FBI get into iCloud (where Apple holds the keys). This is a very different request - the government is trying to compel a non-charged third party and it's employees to write custom intelligence software for the US government. The entire purpose of this proposed software is to compromise a specifically marketed feature of Apple's key product, the iPhone. Apple sold $180 BILLION of iDevices last year - to think that they shouldn't fight that is crazy.
Unfortunately, we now live in a world where the head of the NSA lied UNDER OATH to Congress about performing bulk data collection on American citizens.
The government is ordering Apple to create NEW custom software (against Apple's will) solely for the FBI to crack into Apple's products. For this to work, Apple also must sign this software with it's personal crypto-key as valid and secure Apple Software. Apple argues this violates it's first amendment rights (software is speech)
Apple has complied with all other court orders in this case, and was specifically helping the FBI get into iCloud (where Apple holds the keys). This is a very different request - the government is trying to compel a non-charged third party and it's employees to write custom intelligence software for the US government. The entire purpose of this proposed software is to compromise a specifically marketed feature of Apple's key product, the iPhone. Apple sold $180 BILLION of iDevices last year - to think that they shouldn't fight that is crazy.
Unfortunately, we now live in a world where the head of the NSA lied UNDER OATH to Congress about performing bulk data collection on American citizens.
11
I believe that the F.B.I. does have a warrant, based on consent of the owner of the phone. Even if that were not the case, the circumstances of this criminal investigation are textbook Fourth Amendment under criminal procedure.
The more important point is the mashing of larger privacy concerns into this one case. Long a privacy advocate and being on record for calling for reforms since 2001, I think that mashing is a serious mistake. This country desperately is in need of reforms noted in original post. To conflate and confuse those reforms with this one case divides the community, dilutes the message, and allows transgressions on the part of government to continue to take place.
It has long been time for people in this country to get very serious about privacy in the age of the Internet. That will require education on everyone's part, not only about technology, but also the law. Rallying around Apple could be an important start to that national conversation, so long as people are committed to understanding the facts, but it is hardly the appropriate end point.
The more important point is the mashing of larger privacy concerns into this one case. Long a privacy advocate and being on record for calling for reforms since 2001, I think that mashing is a serious mistake. This country desperately is in need of reforms noted in original post. To conflate and confuse those reforms with this one case divides the community, dilutes the message, and allows transgressions on the part of government to continue to take place.
It has long been time for people in this country to get very serious about privacy in the age of the Internet. That will require education on everyone's part, not only about technology, but also the law. Rallying around Apple could be an important start to that national conversation, so long as people are committed to understanding the facts, but it is hardly the appropriate end point.
1
"Unfortunately, we now live in a world where the head of the NSA lied UNDER OATH to Congress about performing bulk data collection on American citizens."
At the bare minimum, Clapper should have lost his job and pension because of his perjury. Ideally, he should have been imprisoned or even better executed for government misconduct.
At the bare minimum, Clapper should have lost his job and pension because of his perjury. Ideally, he should have been imprisoned or even better executed for government misconduct.
1
In their article for The Times dated March 5, 2016, "Competing Interests on Encryption Divide Top Obama Officials,” Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger detailed the signigicant policy differences on the desirability of robust phone encryption that were publicly expressed early this month by by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and FBI director James B. Comey Jr. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/us/politics/competing-interests-on-enc...
In light of that divide, it wouldn't strain credulity if the "third-party" - who conveniently appeared at the last possible moment - was not only a deus ex machina, but a phantom, that would simulataneously afford the government the ability to initially withdraw from the field in a face-saving fashion and thereafter maintain that it had had the means to access whether or not that was the case. Indeed, as Apple has set forth in its court filings - which The Times was kind enough to post - no information from a phone can be used in any actual criminal proceeding unless all technical details of the data extraction are made available to defense counsel. And assuming DOJ is unwilling to part with source code related data, any information obtain could only be used to "thwart further attacks," which is what the NSA is presumably doing already.
As such, the government may well maintain that it has what it needs (with the implication that that iPhone is not as secure as believed) but we will never know.
In light of that divide, it wouldn't strain credulity if the "third-party" - who conveniently appeared at the last possible moment - was not only a deus ex machina, but a phantom, that would simulataneously afford the government the ability to initially withdraw from the field in a face-saving fashion and thereafter maintain that it had had the means to access whether or not that was the case. Indeed, as Apple has set forth in its court filings - which The Times was kind enough to post - no information from a phone can be used in any actual criminal proceeding unless all technical details of the data extraction are made available to defense counsel. And assuming DOJ is unwilling to part with source code related data, any information obtain could only be used to "thwart further attacks," which is what the NSA is presumably doing already.
As such, the government may well maintain that it has what it needs (with the implication that that iPhone is not as secure as believed) but we will never know.
14
We have basically moved from a gold standard to a digital standard. The entire financial system from you buying a latte to international banking is now electronic.
The phone is a multi-use computer that transmits everything.
So, it is not a privacy issue. Snowden talks to NSA staffers looking at your nude photos and laughing.
It is a financial security issue that is far more serious than privacy.
The phone is a multi-use computer that transmits everything.
So, it is not a privacy issue. Snowden talks to NSA staffers looking at your nude photos and laughing.
It is a financial security issue that is far more serious than privacy.
4
Were I a hacker I would aid my country, you know, the one that provides security, safety, infrastructure, and everything else that enables my good life instead of promoting some branding ideology or some intractable, unyielding mantra.
54
Maybe the 3rd party in question wanted to aid law enforcement in securing the country from terrorists.
46
Maybe they want to add this to a LONG list of services they do for anybody with the green. That sounds like professional hacking to me.
4
Hiring their own qualified techs is what the FBI should have done all along.
Instead, the FBI attempted to proclaim a wholly new, non-existent, federal law enforcement power. Unless that unconstitutional blind alley is decisively closed up, the FBI's next reach may be to issue writs to homeowners forcing them to pave or repair streets vital to law enforcement vehicles. The old-fashioned notion of a division between Federal and State power will clearly have to fall.
Instead, the FBI attempted to proclaim a wholly new, non-existent, federal law enforcement power. Unless that unconstitutional blind alley is decisively closed up, the FBI's next reach may be to issue writs to homeowners forcing them to pave or repair streets vital to law enforcement vehicles. The old-fashioned notion of a division between Federal and State power will clearly have to fall.
7
FBI already has a career track in "Cyber/Information Technology" which undoubtedly includes some units which focus on decrypting criminal communications. NSA has had a sophisticated decryption capability since its inception and it presumably shares some of its findings with FBI.
The problem here is one of resources and culture. As government agencies, FBI and NSA are constrained to pay their "qualified techs" from the same wage scale other government employees are paid. As you can read in this article, hackers who find the holes in IOS 9 are expecting to get one-time payouts of $1M or more. The government does not pay such salaries or bonuses to even its most talented employees. Also, government work environments do not align very well with the typically libertarian hacker culture; like most 9-5 jobs, government employees are assigned specific work areas, and are not given leave to investigate a single problem for as long as it takes to solve.
The problem here is one of resources and culture. As government agencies, FBI and NSA are constrained to pay their "qualified techs" from the same wage scale other government employees are paid. As you can read in this article, hackers who find the holes in IOS 9 are expecting to get one-time payouts of $1M or more. The government does not pay such salaries or bonuses to even its most talented employees. Also, government work environments do not align very well with the typically libertarian hacker culture; like most 9-5 jobs, government employees are assigned specific work areas, and are not given leave to investigate a single problem for as long as it takes to solve.
16
Maybe it is time for the government to change its "culture" if it wants to attract the most qualified people.
1
If you're suggesting that "qualified techs" are somehow less qualified than those who would be hired following the FBI's impeccable system of recruiting, I would suggest that you are less qualified to comment on this than you think.
The FBI might just be a deranged institution that cannot comprehend that the solution to their problem doesn't come from being a right-thinking lad like J Edgar instead of being able to simply process the problem at hand rationally.
On the other hand, it wasn't clear what you were suggesting. Care to clarify?
The FBI might just be a deranged institution that cannot comprehend that the solution to their problem doesn't come from being a right-thinking lad like J Edgar instead of being able to simply process the problem at hand rationally.
On the other hand, it wasn't clear what you were suggesting. Care to clarify?
So, how long until this method gets into the mainstream, de-securing my phone and data?
3
White-hat hackers may rise to help the law enforcement agencies and may brighten the meaning and connotation of "hacker". The people we call hackers are essentially highly motivated, knowledgeable, inquisitive, and problem solving individuals. All hacking may be good until it is used for malicious purposes, like any criminal activity. Whomever this individual or group may be, they are doing some favor to us all, FBI and Apple included.
6
The rule about digital security is: if its digital, its not secure.
34
I suppose there is the argument that users should be very selective of what personal (icluding financial) information they store on electronic devices. I'm an old man and have little to store anywhere. Key and critical infornmation is hard-copy in a filing cabinet or a SDepo Box. I would NEVER put stuff like that on my Macs or phones. No way.
My aging iPhone5 is used for an occasional telcall, and a way to check the weather and what the overall stock market looks like.
But I am an exception; a very big exception and I know it.
As for data security achieved by wondrously complex code, the observation that the hackers are often a step or so ahead is very, very true.
Naf 86 NavyVet
My aging iPhone5 is used for an occasional telcall, and a way to check the weather and what the overall stock market looks like.
But I am an exception; a very big exception and I know it.
As for data security achieved by wondrously complex code, the observation that the hackers are often a step or so ahead is very, very true.
Naf 86 NavyVet
9
You're not alone. I limit what I store on my iPhone, and what I use it for. Basically I'm forced to treat it like a $800 dumb phone, and that really annoys me.
In my case it's because I spent 10 years designing the world's first B2 TCSEC secure (for 3 letter federal agencies) DBMS. Then 10+ years in both pattern recognition, and machine learning; then 15 years (to the present) designing and monitoring secure international IP data networks.
My reaction to Snowden's revelations, was only that he was the first guy to go public with what all of us in Telecommunications knew was going on.
It's depressing to think that after 40+ years in computer science I will die, before we have any full rational public discussion of digital and data privacy.
In my case it's because I spent 10 years designing the world's first B2 TCSEC secure (for 3 letter federal agencies) DBMS. Then 10+ years in both pattern recognition, and machine learning; then 15 years (to the present) designing and monitoring secure international IP data networks.
My reaction to Snowden's revelations, was only that he was the first guy to go public with what all of us in Telecommunications knew was going on.
It's depressing to think that after 40+ years in computer science I will die, before we have any full rational public discussion of digital and data privacy.
So, now the top law enforcement agency of the United States government rewards industrial espionage by internet hacker thugs. I am sure that J. Edgar is smiling in his grave.
12
How is this different from paying criminal and foreign government informants for information? This has always been a standard law enforcement practice; pretty clearly, many of these informants have been thugs of one sort or another. In the real world, counteracting criminal activity is not neat and clean, and Hoover was very much a part of this world.
2
Lucky's feeling pretty fortunate, too.
Do we not understand most of our most admirable civil rights stands came from Mafia with the best lawyers money could buy negotiating the boundaries of liberty? Theirs and JP Morgans'!
Take immigration. Kennedy had illegal immigrant Marcello of NOLA dropped into Guatemala by helicopter, and HE STILL CAME BACK!
Do we not understand most of our most admirable civil rights stands came from Mafia with the best lawyers money could buy negotiating the boundaries of liberty? Theirs and JP Morgans'!
Take immigration. Kennedy had illegal immigrant Marcello of NOLA dropped into Guatemala by helicopter, and HE STILL CAME BACK!
1
J. Edgar Hoover, the biggest government blackmailer in US history.
1