Instead of Apple tasking a coder to work on cracking that iPhone...

Steve Kinney admin at pilobilus.net
Thu Feb 25 10:20:55 PST 2016


-----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."







-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=K765
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list