Apple to close iPhone security loophole used by police

Topic

New Reply

Apple to close iPhone security loophole used by police

June 14, 2018

 
Apple says it is to change the default settings of its iPhone to stop hackers and others unlocking devices without proper legal authorisation.

The move will also make it more difficult for police to unlock handsets without authorisation.

However, Apple denied the changes were designed to thwart US law enforcement.

The company has been a prominent opponent of US legislation to force technology companies to maintain access to users’ communications.

The loophole also applies to countries outside the US, including the UK.

Police forces say that being able to unlock iPhones and iPads is crucial to their work.
…
The changes to the default settings of the iPhone are intended to stop unauthorised access to the phones via the USB port.

 
Read the full article here

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, columbia2011

Reply | Quote

Replies

Whatever you may think about Apple, they are definitely the best in protecting your privacy.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

… from others. Yes, I agree. Apple is very firm in preventing unauthorized access by anyone, else. Which awkwardly may even apply to the owner of the purchased device that has done something incorrectly.
But many of our discussions of privacy are about personal privacy from the immediate vendor using a customer’s private information and use patterns for their own internal use. I am not convinced that Apple is entirely innocent on that point. Apple is much better than most at keeping information from others, but it is still your data on their servers.
As long as you are comfortable with each employee of Apple Corp. and still consider that level of sharing ‘private’, then yes. They are protecting your privacy, from others.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

If you set up two-factor authentication on your Apple ID, you will have end-to-end encryption for the following:
• Home data
• iCloud Keychain (Includes all of your saved accounts and passwords)
• Payment information
• Siri information
• Wi-Fi network information

And if you have end-to-end encryption, not even Apple can read your information. Apple has purposely set things up that way so that they CANNOT read your information.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/ht202303

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

I agree that Apple is the best of the big players in this area. To get more private than Apple requires next level geek use of lesser known resources that don’t have a storefront in most cities.
I am reacting to the use of the word privacy in this manner. It gives a false security illusion. Sharing information in any form is the opposite of keeping something private. Private is when you do not share at all. Or share within a trusted group. If you feel the need to encrypt, then you are already assuming that it will be read and must be protected from being read in cleartext. That does not suggest private to me.

Reply | Quote

Police forces say that being able to unlock iPhones and iPads is crucial to their work.

What if you have a rogue government or a rogue police force? Without strong encryption, you won’t have any protection from abuse by the police or other government entities. In America, the power of the government is purposely limited by the Constitution to protect the citizens in these sorts of cases. This necessarily limits the government’s ability to do certain things; but that is simply the cost you have to pay if you want to have a free society.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

2 users thanked author for this post.

Bill C., Elly

Reply | Quote

To be clear, I agree with Apple’s stand on this issue. More competitors should emulate this standard. But I strongly dislike the idea that the United States citizens should prefer this method of security over using that Constitution, its enumerated powers, and guarantees of protections to eliminate all rogue elements of government including police powers.
If I am living under a corrupt system, I have more important things to worry about than my phone. And my energy would be better used effecting change to the system than jumping through two factor authentication hoops for simple communication like, “Remember to pick up milk”.
I think creating a Rouge Government strawman to sell a technology feature feeds on paranoia in a not very nice way.

Reply | Quote

Apple didn’t say anything about a Rogue Government. I said that.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Absolutely correct. Sorry that I mixed the two events together. You introduced the label rouge government, which I made into initial capitals, onto the bogeyman from which Apple will protect you when you use their technology. Bogeyman is the substitute word I have now selected. We could reorient a lot of liquid crystals changing names around without advancing very far in the discussion.
Unanswered is the idea that secure communication is good, but it is a different concept than privacy. And that addressing secure communications is assaulting the wrong end of the crocodile. Writing Figuratively. The rouge government being the crocodile. Correcting that threat is not accomplished by two factor authentication.
Pretending it is a solution would allow an actual rogue government to continue its abuse of power rather than remove the power being abused.

Reply | Quote

“Why Is Apple Fighting Law Enforcement on Unlocking iPhones?”
https://www.maketecheasier.com/apple-fighting-law-enforcement-unlocking-iphones/

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote