Apple A Message to Our Customers

First topic message reminder :

February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. 
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If Apple can unlock the phone without creating new software, why don't they just do it?

Alternatively, there must be hackers out there who can do it - they seem to get into everything else!

I read that the cloud password had been reset or something after the phone was siezed, but I didn't understand that either.

there is a lot of things that don`t make sense about this to be honest i suspect there is a lot we are not being told
especially when you concider the NSA have been intercepting all calls since around 9/11 that`s what there big new data centre was for

Yes. I don't know if it helps if one has an iphone, which I don't, but it's all a bit techie for me anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:If Apple can unlock the phone without creating new software, why don't they just do it?

Where did you hear that?  I don't recall veya saying the software exists already.  If Apple makes the software, you can bet it will get out.  Did you ever see the film Jurassic Park?  Remember the employee sneaking out the back door with the DNA?  There's money in secrets like that.

Raggamuffin wrote:Alternatively, there must be hackers out there who can do it - they seem to get into everything else!

There are.  Several companies have come forward and offered.  The problem is if you go around breaking patents, imagine the consequences.

...actually, if a court can throw out patents willy-nilly, I think we've just discovered a progressive solution to eliminate expensive medicines...free for all!!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If Apple can unlock the phone without creating new software, why don't they just do it?

Where did you hear that?  I don't recall veya saying the software exists already.  If Apple makes the software, you can bet it will get out.  Did you ever see the film Jurassic Park?  Remember the employee sneaking out the back door with the DNA?  There's money in secrets like that.

Raggamuffin wrote:Alternatively, there must be hackers out there who can do it - they seem to get into everything else!

There are.  Several companies have come forward and offered.  The problem is if you go around breaking patents, imagine the consequences.

...actually, if a court can throw out patents, I think we've just discovered free medicines for all!!

It was just something Korban said.

i do not believe for one second apple can not unlock the phone i unlock iphones all the time

I don't know if Apple can unlock it or not.

I suppose it's not really a good idea to encourage hackers. I'm just concerned that they might be missing some important info on that phone and some potential terrorist activity might be missed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Where did you hear that?  I don't recall veya saying the software exists already.  If Apple makes the software, you can bet it will get out.  Did you ever see the film Jurassic Park?  Remember the employee sneaking out the back door with the DNA?  There's money in secrets like that.



There are.  Several companies have come forward and offered.  The problem is if you go around breaking patents, imagine the consequences.

...actually, if a court can throw out patents, I think we've just discovered free medicines for all!!

It was just something Korban said.

i do not believe for one second apple can not unlock the phone i unlock iphones all the time

I don't know if Apple can unlock it or not.

I suppose it's not really a good idea to encourage hackers. I'm just concerned that they might be missing some important info on that phone and some potential terrorist activity might be missed.

people are getting stuck on this unlocking business and what he FBi want the two things are not the same

look at it this way guys would you please supply me with account numbers list of your contacts and pins for your account that you May keep on your phone in the apps you use ....No ....ok i will just use this back door and get them my self

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was just something Korban said.



I don't know if Apple can unlock it or not.

I suppose it's not really a good idea to encourage hackers. I'm just concerned that they might be missing some important info on that phone and some potential terrorist activity might be missed.

people are getting stuck on this unlocking business and what he FBi want the two things are not the same

Well that's what the FBI says it wants. If Apple knows different, and they can unlock it, they can just tell the court that.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was just something Korban said.



I don't know if Apple can unlock it or not.

I suppose it's not really a good idea to encourage hackers. I'm just concerned that they might be missing some important info on that phone and some potential terrorist activity might be missed.

people are getting stuck on this unlocking business and what he FBi want the two things are not the same

look at it this way guys would you please supply me with account numbers list of your contacts and pins for your account that you May keep on your phone in the apps you use ....No ....ok i will just use this back door and get them my self

That's if anyone builds the back door.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
people are getting stuck on this unlocking business and what he FBi want the two things are not the same

Well that's what the FBI says it wants. If Apple knows different, and they can unlock it, they can just tell the court that.

The Fbi want the ability to unlock any phone any time remotely and decrypt its contents  .......built in to the OS that`s what where talking about  not simply "unlocking" the phone

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
people are getting stuck on this unlocking business and what he FBi want the two things are not the same

look at it this way guys would you please supply me with account numbers list of your contacts and pins for your account that you May keep on your phone in the apps you use ....No ....ok i will just use this back door and get them my self

That's if anyone builds the back door.

i suspect there are ones already i used to work with programmers and in software development and software testing 
and its not unusual for development code (testing routines) to still be part of the core code

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's what the FBI says it wants. If Apple knows different, and they can unlock it, they can just tell the court that.

The Fbi want the ability to unlock any phone any time remotely and decrypt its contents  .......built in to the OS that`s what where talking about  not simply "unlocking" the phone

Even if they don't build it into the OS, they could have it as a patch. The point is there is no such thing as unlocking a single phone. You create a key for one, you can use the same key to open any of them. And then the key is leaked, and everyone has it.

The whole order is full of problems. Military secrets could be exposed (yes, the military uses Apple products). Government files. No end to what such a key will unlock.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
The Fbi want the ability to unlock any phone any time remotely and decrypt its contents  .......built in to the OS that`s what where talking about  not simply "unlocking" the phone

Even if they don't build it into the OS, they could have it as a patch.  The point is there is no such thing as unlocking a single phone.  You create a key for one, you can use the same key to open any of them.  And then the key is leaked, and everyone has it.

The whole order is full of problems.  Military secrets could be exposed (yes, the military uses Apple products).  Government files.  No end to what such a key will unlock.

i completely agree
unfortunately that`s where we are heading in 30 years or less everybody will be tracked emails scrutinised contacts and friends in a huge cross referenced data base for assessment and .....chilly thought

What cost...loss of privacy? Without private thoughts, there is only totalitarianism.

from what i understand they want to login 'as the user' as opposed to just data access, why exactly I don't know. Like KD said it doesn't really make sense
 
what i suspect apple has done is less techie, and more human error or cost cutting and not kept records of a variable they need to decrypt the phone. I can think of several ways they could have made the encryption where it would be quite a hassle to keep these records and would greatly decrease the security of the phone, (if someone got those records they could probably unlock any iphone) it just makes sense from a pure profitability perspective for apple to do something like that.

Original Quill wrote:What cost...loss of privacy?  Without private thoughts, there is only totalitarianism.

already lost
just not the CIA but to Google, Apple and Facebooks advertisement divisions

Google already has all that info it has been building that Database for years now
the age of personalised Advertisements has already arrived and for it to exist in needs that database.

Original Quill wrote:What cost...loss of privacy?  Without private thoughts, there is only totalitarianism.

Ever since we invented the internet privacy has been eroded in ways you can`t even imagine and its in its infancy ,wait till they can track you in real time anywhere on the planet,access all your communication`s as routine
hell the way we are going you might as well just watch the TVseries and movie minority report
(tom cruise lady`s ) to see the upshot of that kind society

To be honest many of us tech heads saw this coming many years ago hence the small web footprints

veya_victaous wrote:from what i understand they want to login 'as the user' as opposed to just data access, why exactly I don't know. Like KD said it doesn't really make sense
 
what i suspect apple has done is less techie, and more human error or cost cutting and not kept records of a variable they need to decrypt the phone. I can think of several ways they could have made the encryption where it would be quite a hassle to keep these records and would greatly decrease the security of the phone, (if someone got those records they could probably unlock any iphone) it just makes sense from a pure profitability perspective for apple to do something like that.

From what I can glean from the news, the user invents the password himself--I guess the first time he uses it--and thereafter he keeps it to himself.  The FBI already has, and wants to use a program that randomly applies millions of passwords until one of them works.  However, the Apple iphone has in it a program routine that only permits ten tries, and then a fail-safe kicks in and automatically commands the phone to erase all user data...a kind of Doomsday routine.

The FBI wants Apple to write a program that turns off the doomsday function.  Whether that is more elementary, or it adds to what you know, I don't know.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:from what i understand they want to login 'as the user' as opposed to just data access, why exactly I don't know. Like KD said it doesn't really make sense
 
what i suspect apple has done is less techie, and more human error or cost cutting and not kept records of a variable they need to decrypt the phone. I can think of several ways they could have made the encryption where it would be quite a hassle to keep these records and would greatly decrease the security of the phone, (if someone got those records they could probably unlock any iphone) it just makes sense from a pure profitability perspective for apple to do something like that.

From what I can glean from the news, the user invents the password himself--I guess the first time he uses it--and thereafter he keeps it to himself.  The FBI already has, and wants to use a program that randomly applies millions of passwords until one of them works.  However, the Apple iphone has in it a program routine that only permits ten tries, and then a fail-safe kicks in and automatically commands the phone to erase all user data...a kind of Doomsday routine.

The FBI wants Apple to write a program that turns off the doomsday function.  Whether that is more elementary, or it adds to what you know, I don't know.

As KD already pointed out that alone is not much of a challenge
they must want more than that.

it is not possible to keep a password to "yourself" apple must know it, in order to know you got it correct when you put it in. this is kept 'invisible' through the use of algorthms to enrypt the data. 
 the password you enter is only one variable in the algorithm as i suggested I don’t think Apple are keeping record of all the variables.  probably what the FBI want is a way to reverse engineer that password from the lock(algorithm) but a single user entered variable is a very simple lock and apple advertises more advanced security one way to do this would be to have a semi randomised 'password' as a second variable that is unique to each handset.
 
In a world of perfect corporate accountability Apple would Store all these 'Handset variables' (although that storage becomes a honey pot for hackers, one of numerous reasons they would avoid storing it if they could)

Seemingly the fbi want to be able to disable the ten password entered maximum
At the moment if you try to "brute force" ie enter multiple passwords on the device to unlock it an apple security feature kicks in that encrypts all the users data  

As veya pointed out there is/was an algorithm that apple had that could decrypt this data

But they claim the have deleted it and cant access it any more this was done on purpose according to apple so that the data is secure even from them

And its that ability to decrypt the data that the fbi want ,because Jonny criminal only has to enter his password wrong 10 trys to protect the data contacts, phone numbers emails ect from the authority`s

kind of reminds me of the 1992 film sneakers "NO MORE SECRETS"

veya wrote:As KD already pointed out that alone is not much of a challenge
they must want more than that.

Yes, I agree that is no challenge.  Also, I agree that the FBI wants more.

But what they want is the undoing of the whole product. A decryption routine would ruin the security provision, not just for a single phone, but for the entire product.  The FBI should not have the right to ruin some private company's $-billion product, particularly on speculation that it will yield evidence on someone who is already dead and presumably will not be prosecuted.

http://www.apple.com/uk/privacy/government-information-requests/

What we’re most commonly asked for and how we respond.

The most common requests we receive for information from law enforcement are in relation to devices and/or accounts. Device Requests generally seek information in relation to Apple devices, such as an iPhone, iPad or Mac. Account Requests generally seek information in regard to an Apple ID account and/or related Apple services or transactions. We also respond to emergency requests worldwide where Apple believes in good faith that an emergency involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires immediate disclosure.
All content requests require a search warrant. Only a small fraction of requests from law enforcement seek content such as email, photos and other content stored on users’ iCloud accounts. National security–related requests are not considered Device Requests or Account Requests and are reported in a separate category.
On devices running iOS 8 and later versions, your personal data is placed under the protection of your passcode. For all devices running iOS 8 and later versions, Apple will not perform iOS data extractions in response to government search warrants because the files to be extracted are protected by an encryption key that is tied to the user’s passcode, which Apple does not possess.

Information Requests
94 %  
Device Requests
Law enforcement seeking a stolen device.
6 %  
Account Requests
Law enforcement seeking personal information.
Read Apple’s transparency reports
Read Apple’s guidelines for law enforcement requests
US EMEIA Japan and APAC
Device Requests
The vast majority of the requests Apple receives from law enforcement come from an agency working on behalf of a customer who has requested assistance locating a stolen device. We encourage any customer who suspects their device is stolen to contact their respective law enforcement agency.
Account Requests
Responding to an Account Request most often involves providing information about a customer’s iCloud account. If we are legally compelled to divulge any information for an Account Request, we provide notice to the customer when allowed and deliver the narrowest set of information possible in response. Not only are a minuscule number of accounts actually affected by information requests, but our stringent review meant Apple only disclosed content in response to 27 per cent of the total US account requests we received during the period from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015.

Less than 0.00673% of customers have been affected by government information requests.

National Security Orders from the US government.

A tiny percentage of our millions of accounts is affected by national security–related requests. In the first six months of 2015, we received between 750 and 999 of these requests. Though we would like to be more specific, by law this is the most precise information we are currently allowed to disclose.
from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
In its latest “Who Has Your Back?” report, once again the EFF awarded Apple 5 out of 5 stars “commend[ing] Apple for its strong stance regarding user rights, transparency, and privacy.”

We’re always working for greater transparency and protections on behalf of our customers.

We believe transparency and dialogue are the best ways for finding solutions to the overarching impact from surveillance laws and practices. We are continuing to engage with the White House, government regulators, legislators and courts around the world regarding the importance of protecting customer data and security.

----------------------------------------------------0
This is  from the apple web site and  seems to indicate they already comply with certain requests for access to devices however that one highlighted bit
makes it clear something else is going on with this

PGP has always been a pain in the ass for the authority`s i think they tried to ban its use once as well ?

I'm also a bit confused about what Apple is being asked to do, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't override a personal password if they wanted to. What if someone hacked into their own system and changed the passwords? They'd want to reset them then wouldn't they? What if someone forgot their password for their phone and couldn't get into it? Are they just told by Apple - well that's tough, you'll just have to lose all your data?

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm also a bit confused about what Apple is being asked to do, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't override a personal password if they wanted to. What if someone hacked into their own system and changed the passwords? They'd want to reset them then wouldn't they? What if someone forgot their password for their phone and couldn't get into it? Are they just told by Apple - well that's tough, you'll just have to lose all your data?

i Explained above

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm also a bit confused about what Apple is being asked to do, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't override a personal password if they wanted to. What if someone hacked into their own system and changed the passwords? They'd want to reset them then wouldn't they? What if someone forgot their password for their phone and couldn't get into it? Are they just told by Apple - well that's tough, you'll just have to lose all your data?

i Explained above

I still don't get it. They keep saying they don't possess the password, but that's not the issue - the issue is overriding the password. How do they get into other phones when they're asked to via a court warrant?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i Explained above

I still don't get it. They keep saying they don't possess the password, but that's not the issue - the issue is overriding the password. How do they get into other phones when they're asked to via a court warrant?

They don't.  Phones of this variety are only recently developed and sold.  The Apple iphone is the latest in technology, so it's an issue of first impression I would assume.

Raggamuffin wrote:I find it hard to believe that they couldn't override a personal password if they wanted to.

You are not being asked to believe that, because it isn't true.  Any competent, advanced programmer, with proper information about the system, could probably override it.  The issue isn't 'could they', but 'would they'?

The FBI is getting close to lying to the public about this.  FBI Director James Comey said in a letter that "no other phones are affected."  Then why does he need Apple's cooperation?  They've got the phone...and a hammer and a hacksaw. Let the FBI break into the phone themselves, and leave Apple alone.

With all due respect guys  your getting your self confused with what the actual FB! request is (not veya)(not that we know all the details) and the different levels of acsess needed 

This has more to do with the PGP encryption in
that 10 failed attempts of the password will encrypt the users data

to de encrypt that information you need TWO things the user password and the apple password these two strings make the password to de encrypt the information





 

And without a technical basic understanding on the subject re encryption,PGP,programming,security protocols

sorry guys with all due respect as i know its unfamiliar territory

its much like explaining quantum physics to ducks

korban dallas wrote:With all due respect guys  your getting your self confused with what the actual FB! request is (not veya)(not that we know all the details) and the different levels of acsess needed 

This has more to do with the PGP encryption in
that 10 failed attempts of the password will encrypt the users data

to de encrypt that information you need TWO things the user password and the apple password these two strings make the password to de encrypt the information





 

And without a technical basic understanding on the subject re encryption,PGP,programming,security protocols

sorry guys with all due respect as i know its unfamiliar territory

its much like explaining quantum physics to ducks

I don't think I'll ever follow it really.

You did say though that you didn't believe Apple couldn't unlock the phone, and that's basically what the FBI wants them to do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:With all due respect guys  your getting your self confused with what the actual FB! request is (not veya)(not that we know all the details) and the different levels of acsess needed 

This has more to do with the PGP encryption in
that 10 failed attempts of the password will encrypt the users data

to de encrypt that information you need TWO things the user password and the apple password these two strings make the password to de encrypt the information





 

And without a technical basic understanding on the subject re encryption,PGP,programming,security protocols

sorry guys with all due respect as i know its unfamiliar territory

its much like explaining quantum physics to ducks

I don't think I'll ever follow it really.

You did say though that you didn't believe Apple couldn't unlock the phone, and that's basically what the FBI wants them to do.  

From what i am reading as its PGP encryption apple cant do what they are asking as they say they dont have the second part of the PGP authenticator code, as that`s embedded with in the software out of even there reach according to apple

however that said i think its bull shit i suspect apple can do exactly what they want  not hat we know all the real details
but quite rightly apple have drawn a line in the sand this far and no more

good for them

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:With all due respect guys  your getting your self confused with what the actual FB! request is (not veya)(not that we know all the details) and the different levels of acsess needed 

This has more to do with the PGP encryption in
that 10 failed attempts of the password will encrypt the users data

to de encrypt that information you need TWO things the user password and the apple password these two strings make the password to de encrypt the information





 

And without a technical basic understanding on the subject re encryption,PGP,programming,security protocols

sorry guys with all due respect as i know its unfamiliar territory

its much like explaining quantum physics to ducks

I don't think I'll ever follow it really.

You did say though that you didn't believe Apple couldn't unlock the phone, and that's basically what the FBI wants them to do.  

No
apple can unlock the phone with a master key that`s not the problem this only unlocks the device


The data on the cloud /phone is not unlocked

this is because the encryption algorithm is made of two parts

user password
encryption algorithm

both together form a unique key  that allow the decryption
the skeleton key although it will unlock a device per say it wont unlock the encrypted data stored on the cloud or device


PGP encryption uses a serial combination of hashing, data compression, symmetric-key cryptography, and finally public-key cryptography; each step uses one of several supported algorithms. Each public key is bound to a user name and/or an e-mail address. The first version of this system was generally known as a web of trust to contrast with the X.509 system, which uses a hierarchical approach based on certificate authority and which was added to PGP implementations later. Current versions of PGP encryption include both options through an automated key management server.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

korban dallas wrote:With all due respect guys  your getting your self confused with what the actual FB! request is (not veya)(not that we know all the details) and the different levels of acsess needed 

This has more to do with the PGP encryption in
that 10 failed attempts of the password will encrypt the users data

to de encrypt that information you need TWO things the user password and the apple password these two strings make the password to de encrypt the information




And without a technical basic understanding on the subject re encryption,PGP,programming,security protocols

sorry guys with all due respect as i know its unfamiliar territory

its much like explaining quantum physics to ducks

KD, I don't think you've pointed out any mistakes in our posts.  Like you, we are trying to disabuse the thinking that you can unlock just a phone.  Attempts to try different passwords will trigger the locking, which is a whole routine that the FBI is trying to get around. We don't need to discuss the details of algorithms.

We can wrap that whole thing up and call it decrypting or unlocking, but the situation isn't changed.  There is a doomsday element involved, in which trying to enter will lock the phone tighter.  Perhaps you didn't understand what the doomsday metaphor was about.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:With all due respect guys  your getting your self confused with what the actual FB! request is (not veya)(not that we know all the details) and the different levels of acsess needed 

This has more to do with the PGP encryption in
that 10 failed attempts of the password will encrypt the users data

to de encrypt that information you need TWO things the user password and the apple password these two strings make the password to de encrypt the information




And without a technical basic understanding on the subject re encryption,PGP,programming,security protocols

sorry guys with all due respect as i know its unfamiliar territory

its much like explaining quantum physics to ducks

KD, I don't think you've pointed out any mistakes in our posts.  Like you, we are trying to disabuse the thinking that you can unlock a phone.  Attempts to try different passwords will trigger the locking, which is a whole routine that the FBI is trying to get around.

Now we can wrap that whole thing up and call it decrypting or unlocking, but the situation isn't changed.  There is a doomsday element involved, in which trying to enter will lock the phone tighter.  Perhaps you didn't understand what the doomsday metaphor was about.

they are not mistakes Q they are perhaps,  with all due respect misconceptions born from an unfamiliarity with the technology and terminology

decrypting and unlocking are fundamentally different things and that`s where the confusion lies i think

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

KD, I don't think you've pointed out any mistakes in our posts.  Like you, we are trying to disabuse the thinking that you can unlock a phone.  Attempts to try different passwords will trigger the locking, which is a whole routine that the FBI is trying to get around.

Now we can wrap that whole thing up and call it decrypting or unlocking, but the situation isn't changed.  There is a doomsday element involved, in which trying to enter will lock the phone tighter.  Perhaps you didn't understand what the doomsday metaphor was about.

they are not mistakes Q they are perhaps,  with all due respect misconceptions born from an unfamiliarity with the technology and terminology

decrypting and unlocking are fundamentally different things and that`s where the confusion lies i think

I admit to that. But that's why lawyers are used to developing metaphors that translate technical language into lay understanding.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
they are not mistakes Q they are perhaps,  with all due respect misconceptions born from an unfamiliarity with the technology and terminology

decrypting and unlocking are fundamentally different things and that`s where the confusion lies i think

I admit to that.  But that's why lawyers are used to developing metaphors that translate technical language into lay understanding.

Yes lawyers !!!!

ok

imagine your phone is a locked door ,you could get a locksmith to come and open the door for you by using a skeleton key
that the iphone "unlocking"

imagine behind that door is a safe
if you had used the correct password instead of a skeleton then the safe would be open
but you used a skeleton key and the safe knows this because its not the key it was needing decrypt the data in the safe

decrypting
not the same thing even metophoricaly speaking (i may be being pedantic but the distinction is important to the underlying motive )

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I admit to that.  But that's why lawyers are used to developing metaphors that translate technical language into lay understanding.

Yes lawyers !!!!

ok

imagine your phone is a locked door ,you could get a locksmith to come and open the door for you by using a skeleton key
that the iphone "unlocking"

imagine behind that door is a safe
if you had used the correct password instead of a skeleton then the safe would be open
but you used a skeleton key and the safe knows this because its not the key it was needing decrypt the data in the safe

decrypting
not the same thing even metophoricaly speaking (i may be being pedantic but the distinction is important to the underlying motive )

Good on you.  Exlnt description.  Except you left out that the "safe", when it recognizes the key was wrong, goes into lock-down mode on the user data.  Nobody can get to it. That is what the FBI is trying to defeat.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Yes lawyers !!!!

ok

imagine your phone is a locked door ,you could get a locksmith to come and open the door for you by using a skeleton key
that the iphone "unlocking"

imagine behind that door is a safe
if you had used the correct password instead of a skeleton then the safe would be open
but you used a skeleton key and the safe knows this because its not the key it was needing decrypt the data in the safe

decrypting
not the same thing even metophoricaly speaking (i may be being pedantic but the distinction is important to the underlying motive )

Good on you.  Exlnt description.  Except you left out that the "safe", when it recognizes the key was wrong, goes into lock-down mode on the user data.  Nobody can get to it.  That is what the FBI is trying to defeat.

Thank you
Mmmmmm No sorry your going to hate me

the safe is all ways in lock down mode ie encrypted that`s the point


what the FBI want is a back door that circumvents that PGP encryption so they can look in the safe from anywhere at any time

Meanwhile, there could be all kinds of twats plotting terrorist attacks whilst they're fiddling with the locks.

Raggamuffin wrote:Meanwhile, there could be all kinds of twats plotting terrorist attacks whilst they're fiddling with the locks.

LOl

i am sure there are

they claim its for the greater good but at what cost

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin,

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Yes lawyers !!!!

ok

imagine your phone is a locked door ,you could get a locksmith to come and open the door for you by using a skeleton key
that the iphone "unlocking"

imagine behind that door is a safe
if you had used the correct password instead of a skeleton then the safe would be open
but you used a skeleton key and the safe knows this because its not the key it was needing decrypt the data in the safe

decrypting
not the same thing even metophoricaly speaking (i may be being pedantic but the distinction is important to the underlying motive )

Good on you.  Exlnt description.  Except you left out that the "safe", when it recognizes the key was wrong, goes into lock-down mode on the user data.  Nobody can get to it.  That is what the FBI is trying to defeat.

Thank you
Mmmmmm No sorry your going to hate me

the safe is all ways in lock down mode ie encrypted that`s the point


what the FBI want is a back door that circumvents that PGP encryption so they can look in the safe from anywhere at any time

For KD


Sorry Quill
it's not quite how it works KD is right it is stored in the encypted form, that is the one part of the 'safe' analogy that doesn't really match.
Imagine the Safe is also a rubiks cube that is all mixed up and has to be put back into the right position before opening otherwise what you open will be all scambled up.

veya_victaous wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Thank you
Mmmmmm No sorry your going to hate me

the safe is all ways in lock down mode ie encrypted that`s the point


what the FBI want is a back door that circumvents that PGP encryption so they can look in the safe from anywhere at any time

For KD


Sorry Quill
it's not quite how it works KD is right it is stored in the encypted form, that is the one part of the 'safe' analogy that doesn't really match.
Imagine the Safe is also a rubiks cube that is all mixed up and has to be put back into the right position before opening otherwise what you open will be all scambled up.

Oooo rubiks cube good analogy


ps and imagine that cube has a million million  faces per side

korban dallas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


For KD


Sorry Quill
it's not quite how it works KD is right it is stored in the encypted form, that is the one part of the 'safe' analogy that doesn't really match.
Imagine the Safe is also a rubiks cube that is all mixed up and has to be put back into the right position before opening otherwise what you open will be all scambled up.

Oooo rubiks cube good analogy


ps and imagine that cube has a million million  faces per side

I know, right? Made sense right outta the gate.