Hello WAMUG members, You will all be aware of the legal battles between Apple and the FBI. You might not be fully aware of how dangerous this would be if Apple DON’T convince the FBI and US Government of the implications of creating a ‘backdoor’ into Apple’s iOS security/encryption!
If you have not read Tim Cook’s - A Message to Our Customers, please do it is vitally important to you. February 16, 2016 - Tim Cook A Message to Our Customers <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/>> —- Tim Cook’s Open Letter Prompted by the FBI Going Public 20 February 2016 Apple’s spat with the FBI over building a cracking tool for an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terrorism case has taken an interesting turn. The New York Times reports that while Apple had asked the FBI to file its request under seal, the government chose instead to make it public. That supports the theory that the FBI is using this high-profile case of domestic terrorism to pressure Apple into compromising the security of its products. Faced with this PR onslaught, Apple saw no choice but to take its case for supporting encryption to the public in Tim Cook’s open letter. Sadly, this fight between the FBI and Apple could have been avoided had the assailant’s employer used standard mobile device management tools to maintain passcode control over the work iPhone in question. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=1 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=1>> — February 18, 2016 A Forensics Expert’s View into the FBI’s Request The more we learn about the Apple/FBI dustup, the more clear it has become that this is actually a subtle and dangerous game of chess, with each side feinting and attacking with whatever weapons they have. The latest insight comes from Jonathan Zdziarski, considered to be among the world’s leading experts in iOS-related forensics. In a blog post, Zdziarski explains the difference between “lab services” and developing an “instrument.” Apple has provided one-off lab services in the past to help law enforcement recover data when required by law. But developing an instrument is a tremendously involved, verified, documented, tested, and validated process. It would require significant resources and would result in the hacking tool being made public and usable by any law enforcement or intelligence agency — along with foreign governments and criminal organizations. That’s why Apple is resisting! <http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 <http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645>> Kind Regards, Ronni 13-inch MacBook Air (April 2014) 1.7GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost to 3.3GHz 8GB 1600MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM 512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage OS X El Capitan OS X 10.11.3
-- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List -- Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml> Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml> Settings & Unsubscribe - <http://lists.wamug.org.au/listinfo/wamug.org.au-wamug>
