FBI Calls End-to-End Encryption 'Deeply Concerning' as Privacy Groups Hail Apple's Advanced Data Protection as a Victory for Users

[fatTribble]

Law enforcement can access your house with a warrant. So it’s not comparable.

I think you made me understand more clearly how I feel about this. I definitely want privacy. But if the FBI has a warrant I’m happy for them to search my iPhone. It’s the same as every other belonging in my house. But to me (and I know this is unpopular) it doesn’t seem right that the FBI can get a warrant to search my house but I can tell them not to look in the shoebox in the closet because that’s where I keep my secret stuff.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

The FBI’s actions of late should concerning.

 

[steve09090]

I’ll admit my take on this was a bit different. I want law enforcement to be able to stop terrorist attacks. I want them to be able to prosecute criminals. If every bad person ensures their communications are all done on encrypted devices that does seem like it would make them much harder to catch.

So while I definitely welcome any advancement in privacy, at a minimum I have to acknowledge the downside as this article does. Other than financial data I’m not sure what I have on my iPhone that I’m all that concerned about. If anyone wants to read my texts and look at my pictures they’d likely just yawn but worse case they’d laugh and point.

I would agree, but this is more about reducing the ability of bad actors/hackers accessing your data.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Will it really also roll out for users in China? I have serious doubts.

 

[t0rqx]

In the meantime they have full access with or without Apple knowledge. This is pure marketing for Apple. FBI is granted access with a warrant, but this news article needs to put out to not have any image damage for Apple. See you guys when this news breaks out in 5 years.

 

[CarAnalogy]

FBI is still able to break the privacy... physically.

Exactly. I do have respect for the FBI and its work, the vast majority of it is good and not politically motivated. But ever since at least 2001 law enforcement has been unable to resist the lure of the power of databases. There has to be a careful balance.

If bad guys can read the messages, so can the FBI with enough effort. A common tactic seems to be starting a fake fight near the suspect while his phone is unlocked, and then just grabbing it when the suspect is distracted. Good old fashioned police work.

I’m sure they have thousands of far more sophisticated methods. They don’t need to be able to just sift through everyone’s records at will until they find crimes.

The seriously dangerous people and groups were already using encryption, keeping it away from average users doesn’t seem to be worth the tradeoff.

 

[Razeus]

RIP Signal and Proton apps.

 

[jk111]

RIP Signal and Proton apps.

Except iMessage only works on Apple devices

 

[CarAnalogy]

In the meantime they have full access with or without Apple knowledge. This is pure marketing for Apple. FBI is granted access with a warrant, but this news article needs to put out to not have any image damage for Apple. See you guys when this news breaks out in 5 years.

They have as much access as Apple can physically give them with a warrant. The point of this is that they now can only hand over very few things as plaintext. But yes, they have many other methods, this just takes away one of the easiest.

Everyone remembers the San Bernadino shooter’s iPhone 5C right? The FBI wanted Apple to make them a special version of iOS that could be installed on any phone that does not include the passcode lock, so that they could completely unlock any phone at will. Apple refused to do that and the FBI refused to settle for less.

The FBI eventually just waited a bit for exploits to become known, and contracted hackers as they usually do. (Apparently they have a really hard time hiring hackers because they can’t pass the drug test for cannabis…) They just wanted to set precedent under a particularly political administration.

This is why the people need protection from the government, even when the government honestly believes they are protecting the people. Someone has to watch the watchers.

 

[DrJR]

Peoples attitudes will change when they become personally involved or affected by the use of security encryption related to criminal action. A person on holiday abroad being kidnapped for ransom, people trafficking, bomb threats/incidents and other terrorist incidents.

How would Tim Cook feel if a close relative of his was blown up in a terrorist incident and the FBI go 'sorry, we knew the bombers were communicating with others via iphones but there is nothing we could do because of Apple's security encription'.

Yes i know it's an argument that has been used time and time again but I do not think for one min that anyone supporting encryption without security authourities having some form of access would agree to such practices if they were on the resulting end of some tradgedy that could be prevented. A loved one on holiday get's kidnapped and killed because no ransom was paid or a loved one get's blown up at some event, there is no way in hell they are going to say 'oh well, such is life, the security services could not access Apple's encryption thus their death could not have been prevented'.

My rights don't end where your fear begins. End of story. I live in the US where the individual is sovereign....

 

[theluggage]

If every bad person ensures their communications are all done on encrypted devices that does seem like it would make them much harder to catch.

If a group wants to covertly exchange encrypted messages then they still can - just get some open-source encryption software, make sure all your co-conspirators have your public key, encrypt your messages and attach them to regular email. Use steganography to hide them in funny cat pictures if you don't want to look suspicious. If you're "up to something" that's probably already worth the effort.

If you just want to have innocent conversations with friends, colleagues, businesses etc. without worrying about bots run by identity thieves and advertisers scanning them for leads, you shouldn't be forced to jump through those hoops. Nor should you be offered a "secure" messaging system for financial transactions etc. which has a secret, government mandated back door that's all well and good ('cos you trust the government, right?) until it leaks...

Other than financial data I’m not sure what I have on my iPhone that I’m all that concerned about. If anyone wants to read my texts and look at my pictures they’d likely just yawn but worse case they’d laugh and point.

Well, the financial data is pretty important... and are you sure that your texts and pictures don't contain clues to where you live, when your home is going to be empty, the make of your mother's cat's first car etc?

Thing is, some nice policeman is not going to sit down and go through a million peoples' text messages and photos looking for words to the effect of "the heist's going off tonight" or "Joey, do you like films about gladiators?" - the danger is that some unicorn startup will sell them some clever AI software to sift through and pick out suspicious messages or photos, while talking down the number of "false positives" - which the justice system has a sad history of not understanding the risk of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy).

Apple's previous porn-detecting scheme smacked of that.

 

[laptech]

My rights don't end where your fear begins. End of story. I live in the US where the individual is sovereign....

My safety and security is more important to me than your rights.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

Would a criminal use iCloud? There are other apps out there that encrypt.

 

[Bustycat]

Will it really also roll out for users in China? I have serious doubts.

There are separate iCloud servers in the Guizhou province.

 

[rforno]

The FBI hates the idea because it means they can't just go get a court order and ask Apple for access to the data. They need the actual device (phone/computer) in their lab to hack into it the old-fashioned way. Which they CAN do ... but it takes time, and they much prefer the easy route. Their whining is predictable and invenvitable -- watch for all sorts of hysterical 'ticking time bomb' scenarios trotted out to lobby against this in addition to the usual Mrs. LoveJoy-esque 'protect the children' shrieking ... especially in cases where they might not actually have the device in their physical custody (yet).

I see both sides of the issue here - but will side with Apple on this and think it's a very good idea provided there's no backdoor they're not disclosing in their announcement and tech documents.

Remember, the FBI -- LIED -- about needing weakened security/backdoor access to get into the San Bernadino shooter's iPhones. They had the capabilities already (see above) but wanted a court-produced legal precedent to make it harder for this kind of privacy technology to be rolled out in the future. (Having worked with them off and on during my career, I've long since gave up trusting them in many ways.)

Smart criminals and nation-states know the FBI's capabilities anyway....

 

[T Coma]

My safety and security is more important to me than your rights.

Then man up and take care of them.

 

[ChromeCloud]

So icloud Backups were NOT encrypted???

iCloud backups were encrypted.

But they could be decrypted by Apple at any time (the key was stored on Apple servers).

This meant that if the FBI or the government or any other third party with sufficiently influential status (China?) requested access to your data, Apple would be in the position to satisfy such request.

With advanced data protection, not even Apple can access your iCloud backups.

 

[JosephAW]

Hopefully the current administration doesn't flag Apple as high risk and tries to nationalize it.

 

[now i see it]

The lid to the data honey pot the fbi has been dipping into the last 10 years has finally closed.

 

[bookofxero]

Exactly. I do have respect for the FBI and its work, the vast majority of it is good and not politically motivated. But ever since at least 2001 law enforcement has been unable to resist the lure of the power of databases. There has to be a careful balance.

If bad guys can read the messages, so can the FBI with enough effort. A common tactic seems to be starting a fake fight near the suspect while his phone is unlocked, and then just grabbing it when the suspect is distracted. Good old fashioned police work.

I’m sure they have thousands of far more sophisticated methods. They don’t need to be able to just sift through everyone’s records at will until they find crimes.

The seriously dangerous people and groups were already using encryption, keeping it away from average users doesn’t seem to be worth the tradeoff.

Exactly. For a case in point and perfect example of how they were able to find a weak link in a chain, look at the collapse of Silk Road.

 

[bookofxero]

If a group wants to covertly exchange encrypted messages then they still can - just get some open-source encryption software, make sure all your co-conspirators have your public key, encrypt your messages and attach them to regular email. Use steganography to hide them in funny cat pictures if you don't want to look suspicious. If you're "up to something" that's probably already worth the effort.

If you just want to have innocent conversations with friends, colleagues, businesses etc. without worrying about bots run by identity thieves and advertisers scanning them for leads, you shouldn't be forced to jump through those hoops. Nor should you be offered a "secure" messaging system for financial transactions etc. which has a secret, government mandated back door that's all well and good ('cos you trust the government, right?) until it leaks...


Well, the financial data is pretty important... and are you sure that your texts and pictures don't contain clues to where you live, when your home is going to be empty, the make of your mother's cat's first car etc?

Thing is, some nice policeman is not going to sit down and go through a million peoples' text messages and photos looking for words to the effect of "the heist's going off tonight" or "Joey, do you like films about gladiators?" - the danger is that some unicorn startup will sell them some clever AI software to sift through and pick out suspicious messages or photos, while talking down the number of "false positives" - which the justice system has a sad history of not understanding the risk of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy).

Apple's previous porn-detecting scheme smacked of that.

Unicorn startup? Have you seen what SAS Analytics software can do off the shelf?

 

[bookofxero]

My safety and security is more important to me than your rights.

OK - then lock yourself in a bunker. Off with ya now!

 

[Scipster]

Not sure if Apple has to give up security by design for the entire world just because the FBI wants lawful access by design. If the US really wanted this, couldn't Congress pass a law that compels defendants to unlock their iCloud account and jail them until they do? Like some sort of contempt of court measure? Granted it may require a constitutional amendment, but the American people could vote for it if they really wanted to.

 

[rictus007]

Will it really also roll out for users in China? I have serious doubts.

Remember that we don’t talk about China, but it’s OK to talk about the evil FBI. Regarding privacy I still don’t expect any level of privacy online, but is good that Apple takes few steps to keep our iCloud accounts “secure”. I don’t have anything to hide, but that does means that my life needs to be public.

 

[CapitalIdea]