Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite. If the FBI didn't do it this way, what exactly should they do? Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"? Today your phone content has that kind of key, what's to stop that being used elsewhere?
>Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime".
The frustrating bit for me is that many people believe that a courts power is unlimited and that simply by virtu of the FBI obtaining a rubber stamp from a court it makes their demand A OK... makes their demand ethical, moral, or constitutional.
The frustrating bit for me is that many people on the side of the FBI believe because people died in a terrorist act that justifies any loss of privacy and liberty for anyone now and in the future.
>and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite
Actually it is not. Almost all Authoritarian Surveillance Regime are perfectly legal, and have the full blessing of the Law and Courts in their jurisdictions. In fact by having a courts approval, and the authorization under law that makes it a surveillance STATE the key requirement of a surveillance state is said surveillance happens legally.
>Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"?
Yes. There seems to be an idea that the FBI is entitled to, has a right to all information at all times provided it ordered by a court somewhere. This flies in the face of historical fact. Never in human history has law enforcement had more information about its citizen, the needle is HEAVILY pointed in favor of the government, Encryption gives the citizens some limited authority to take that back. This idea that the government is entitled to know everything about you under court order is naive and not based in reality or history.
There is an extremely significant fact that this line of argument ignores: the FBI only seeks the ability to unlock a phone if it either has a warrant or (in this case) has the consent of the phone's owner. This is a capability that it already has for virtually every other type of phone--the only difference here is the amount of technical effort required to make it happen. I have a very hard time seeing how the FBI's ability to unlock a phone under these limited circumstances means they are an "Authoritarian Surveillance Regime."
They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any reason.
"They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any reason."
When he was asked by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Director of National Intelligence and Admiral James Clapper: “No, sir.”
Wyden: “It does not?”
Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”
^These are the people you're saying "aren't asking" for the ability. They are asking for a universal lock picking kit and the legal authority to strong-arm any manufacturer into allowing access to the keys for their devices as well. If you honestly believe that they wouldn't use these tools for other cases beyond this one phone, I've got this amazing bridge you may be interested in.
That's the beginning of a perfectly good argument that the activities of the NSA make the U.S. a surveillance state. (Though I don't, ultimately, agree with it.) But it has nothing to do at all with the topic under discussion which is whether the capability that the FBI seeks to unlock iPhones would turn the U.S. into a surveillance state.
And I never said anything about a single phone. I fully expect that the FBI would use this capability to unlock lots of other phones either with the owner's permission, or with a warrant. (Just as they do today, with every other type of phone.)
You are willfully conflating the NSA and the FBI. You are willfully conflating the illegal dragnets by the NSA with a legally obtained search warrant by the FBI. You seem to have decided because the NSA did what they did, no govt agency under any circumstances should ever be granted any request like this. If that's your case, then a) we disagree, and b) your position is extremely hard to defend in a historical context.
>I have a very hard time seeing how the FBI's ability to unlock a phone under these limited circumstances means they are an "Authoritarian Surveillance Regime."
Then you do not understand the security model of the phone, and should take the time the learn the actual issue before making statements in support of the FBI.
Nope. I know it well. Perhaps if you would actually make your point, instead of merely assuming that those who agree with you are misinformed, there would be something more we could talk about...
The courts can (and do) say no. They didn't in this case. What makes the FBI going to the courts a good thing is that the courts can say yes and you respect that.
You realize that this is exactly how it works with locked crypto systems normally right?
If the system is designed better there isn't even an apple to cry to to demand it be unlocked because they don't possess the key nor the means to get at it.
This is not nearly so huge an impediment as you might imagine. A computer that you couldn't unlock for love nor money when its off and cold could be attacked and accessed beforehand and most people leave a multitude of electronic evidence behind outside of their own machine.
