damn_registrars's Journal: Has Apple said if they are able to crack the encryption?

First, I will say that I support Apple not complying with the orders to crack the encryption on the iPhone in question, primarily because of the slippery slope that it sets up if they were to do so. This question simply pertains to what Apple is - or is not - actually capable of doing. I have heard plenty of people saying that Apple will not crack the encryption. I have not heard anyone say that Apple can not crack it.

Of course, for certain value of can, various companies or people can do just about anything they want with modern technology. I'm more questioning if Apple does have a backdoor in the iPhone of some sort - I could see them doing that as a "customer service" matter to recover semi-bricked phones.

I wouldn't expect Apple to admit to the existence of such a back door - particularly given the current situation - but I haven't heard them deny it either.

Of course they have one

[fustakrakich]

It is simply naive to believe otherwise. With all the secrecy it is illogical to assume anything but the worst. Everything is compromised, especially when dealing with people/institutions this big. It's the nature of power/wealth, it craves more. But nobody cares, just give them the latest gizmo to keep them happy and compliant. Business, politics, show me the difference...

Re:

[mcgrew]

They may or not have one, but it's certain that with enough work they could make one. But they shouldn't have to! If I build an uncrackable safe they can order me to crack it? That's as insane as a Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett novel (both writers' work I love). And code is speech, is the 1st amendment null and void?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

is the 1st amendment null and void?

In many ways... but they say it's for our own good :-/

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that they can. At that point, why would the government go about using the courts to get them to crack the encryption? We've seen other people get information out of large companies like Apple through various social engineering hacks, why wouldn't the government use those tactics to get what they want? If they believe there is terrorist-related information on this phone (in the specific case of the San Bernardino shooter) they likely wouldn't adhere much to the law do

Re:

[fustakrakich]

It's advertising on both sides. A public relations battle for hearts and minds against privacy, to make it look suspicious. If they can reduce the demand for 'secure' phones, the companies will have less incentive to develop them, which reduces the need for future hypocritical (in the U.S.) laws prohibiting them. They're still selling the war.

It's built into the hardware.

[BarbaraHudson]

It's easier to build hardware that will fry itself from any attempt to break it, than one that will fry itself from any attempt from anyone other than yourself. Who knows? If it isn't hack-proof now, it darn well sure will be in the next iteration.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

If it isn't hack-proof now, it darn well sure will be in the next iteration.

Well, that's the story they'll want to run with to keep some customers happy, but if they do make one, the government will treat it like a machine gun and you won't have it. There is insufficient demand for private peer to peer communications. Too many people side with the authorities.