On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:20:55PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/25/2016 10:51 AM, Rayzer wrote:
Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 04:06:27PM -0800, Rayzer wrote:
FWIW I don't see how the feds can force Apple to assign an employee to do anything not in their job description without violating that employee's contract, or their civil rights, and writing code to crack phones isn't in any Apple job description, but tightening phone security is...
I am pretty sure this won't stop Apple if they want to unlock it.
Are you familiar with their job descriptions (I am not)?
It might fit in the QA end of the biz. Someone has to test security. Whether your agreement with the company allows them to 'contract' you to a 3rd party's task... I REALLY doubt it judging from my industrial end (drive manufacturing) experience. They're really REALLY concerned about letting any information about the creation of the product out of their grasp. It probably violates you confidentiality and intellectual property agreement with the company.
Can the government make you violate that agreement? Can they make Apple change it's agreement with you? Can the government force you to change a worker's job description or hire/accept a government contract worker or employee?
Iow, tell you how to run your business...
Dunno. But IF an employee claimed confidentiality and intellectual property agreement as rationale for non-cooperation... Would the government also go after that employee? Force Apple to discipline or fire them?
Insubordination is always grounds for dismissal, unless an employee is ordered to break the law or expose him or herself to legally banned workplace hazards. So Apple could handle non-cooperation problems without involving the Feds: If we was Apple, would we want to piss off a client so big that it is a lucrative market all its own, just to indulge some ungrateful non-team-player's personal snit fit? What would Apple board member Ronald D. Sugar, former chairman and CEO of Northrop Grumman, say about that?
If Apple receives a Court order or lands a contract that requires re-purposing staff, they can just hire any skill sets they don't already have on hand. If special NDAs or even Federal security clearances are required, no problem: If it's a contract matter, the additional costs are included in the bid; if it's a Court order, Apple can ask for and most likely receive "reasonable" compensation for following lawful orders.
According to links here from this month, few years ago Apple unlocked many phones per feds requests.
Yes, but those phones didn't have the self-destruct code if I remember correctly. Apple claims it can't work around it.
"Self destruct?" It is to laugh. "Can't work around it?" Hilarious.
These propositions only work if we assume Apple does not have an in-house capability to analyze, troubleshoot and re-program its own hardware, does not have the technical capability to read from the storage media in its own devices, and lacks the engineering staff and/or data necessary to alter Apple brand software. In the case of any such deficiencies, Apple (or the FBI) can hire any required reverse-engineering done, under NDA (or gag order).
If Apple did not already do whatever was asked of them with regard to one iPhone formerly owned by one criminal suspect, the FBI can bring in the NSA on the basis of mere "suspicion" that the case may have a link to non-U.S. persons.
Instead we get a legal dispute and minor media sideshow based on a pile of false assertions by /both/ parties, apparently in collusion, with the apparent intent of creating a legal precedent for mandatory back doors in U.S. personal electronics - and/or public demand for legislation to that effect.
The words "Security Theater" come to mind, but with a stronger than usual connotation of "Security Propaganda and Disinformation."
Quite. This doesn't seem like some 'minor' legal dispute, however. We have the makings for a nice constitutional crisis with the supreme court justice most known for siding with defendants out of the picture. This really seems like Clipper Chip 2.0, but instead of the NSA, which seems to at least understand the fundamentals of crypto and spycraft, we have the FBI engaged in a *public* battle for legal precedent, vs what appears to be an ever-expanding number of companies who are starting to recognize the potential negative impact and risk to their business if a little forum-shopping can find your competitor a judge that will make you hand over the keys. As for public demand... Well, we used to think the public demanded the defense of marriage. When I see that only 51% support the FBI in the demand for unlocking, that's a number well worth investing in a marketing campaign for extending the 4th amendment devices and their cryptosystems, if for no other reason than to lower long term 'compliance' costs of having to hand over keys to every lokel yokel sheriff who wants to see what their ex-wife's been up to.