A question about security

This is, more or less, loosely related the Apple thing going on right now.


Lets say I make safes for a living, and I advertise that my safes are the...well...safest around. Indestructible. Made of metal that can't be cut or punctured. That's my selling point.

Lets say some criminal buys one, and uses it to hide his criminal secrets. He sets his combo, and only HE knows the combo...I am simply not privy to the knowledge. Am I responsible for law enforcement's access to that safe?

How so, and why?


And why is it that it seems to me to be that PRIVATE interests, in the name of profit, are the only ones really doing anything to protect fourth amendment rights?

KevinKohler said:

This is, more or less, loosely related the Apple thing going on right now.


Lets say I make safes for a living, and I advertise that my safes are the...well...safest around. Indestructible. Made of metal that can't be cut or punctured. That's my selling point.

Lets say some criminal buys one, and uses it to hide his criminal secrets. He sets his combo, and only HE knows the combo...I am simply not privy to the knowledge. Am I responsible for law enforcement's access to that safe?

How so, and why?


And why is it that it seems to me to be that PRIVATE interests, in the name of profit, are the only ones really doing anything to protect fourth amendment rights?

Click to expand...

You are responsible to provide whatever assistance you can in rectifying the situation, especially if you are under a court order to do so. If you are not willing to either turn over your expertise in the weaknesses of that safe to the authorities, or to exploit them on your own, such that you can open the safe, you are a pretty piss poor business owner and American.

Cephus said:

You are responsible to provide whatever assistance you can in rectifying the situation, especially if you are under a court order to do so. If you are not willing to either turn over your expertise in the weaknesses of that safe to the authorities, or to exploit them on your own, such that you can open the safe, you are a pretty piss poor business owner and American.

Click to expand...

Well, the apple thing isn't about ability....that's why I say this is loosely tied to that. Apple certainly could get access to their product they sold, they simply don't want to , because it would expose the lies they have been telling consumers for these past years.


My question is, I make UNCRACKABLE safes. This is purely hypothetical. Such a thing doesn't exist. But if it did, and I made them, what obligation would I have to try to open one? Or, baring that, do I then have an obligation to make a safe that is uncrackable to anyone BUT me, as in, I leave myself some sort of fail safe to get into one?

KevinKohler said:

Well, the apple thing isn't about ability....that's why I say this is loosely tied to that. Apple certainly could get access to their product they sold, they simply don't want to , because it would expose the lies they have been telling consumers for these past years.


My question is, I make UNCRACKABLE safes. This is purely hypothetical. Such a thing doesn't exist. But if it did, and I made them, what obligation would I have to try to open one? Or, baring that, do I then have an obligation to make a safe that is uncrackable to anyone BUT me, as in, I leave myself some sort of fail safe to get into one?

Click to expand...

1. The phone isn't uncrackable. It's uncrackable to everyone but Apple. I haven't heard any reports saying that Apple couldn't get the information if required. Only that they refuse to do so.

But I'm actually on apples side. The government is asking for software that they can use on any iphone to crack them, and that's overboard. Instead they should ask apple to pull the info off of this one phone and that's it.

roughdraft274 said:

1. The phone isn't uncrackable. It's uncrackable to everyone but Apple. I haven't heard any reports saying that Apple couldn't get the information if required. Only that they refuse to do so.

But I'm actually on apples side. The government is asking for software that they can use on any iphone to crack them, and that's overboard. Instead they should ask apple to pull the info off of this one phone and that's it.

Click to expand...

Even then Apple has a financial reason to lie. They have been telling US consumers for years that people need to get new products rather than use someone else's old one, due to not being able to crack the encryption. IE, I want to let my little brother use my cousens old Iphone after he died, or so on and so forth...well, sorry, no, your little brother needs to buy a new one, because your other one is encrypted.

What I want to know is, let's say they DID make an uncrackable product...do they have an obligation NOT to? Like with my safes. Do I have an obligation to ensure at least SOME sort of way to gain access to this thing I am selling?


My personal opinion is, no. It's not my fault, and therefor not my obligation to fix, problems that arise with the way consumers choose to use my product.

This is akin to suing gun manufacturers or sellers for people using guns improperly. "Well, you should have made it MORE idiot proof!"

Cephus said:

You are responsible to provide whatever assistance you can in rectifying the situation, especially if you are under a court order to do so. If you are not willing to either turn over your expertise in the weaknesses of that safe to the authorities, or to exploit them on your own, such that you can open the safe, you are a pretty piss poor business owner and American.

Click to expand...

And what if the only way to assist the govt is to make a blowtorch that is capable of opening any of their customers safes?

Say you had bought one of these uncrackable safes, and the governments request would mean that your safe, that you paid for in part because it was uncrackable. Is no longer uncrackable. Would you be ok with that, and would the company be obliged to make such a blowtorch?

KevinKohler said:

Well, the apple thing isn't about ability....that's why I say this is loosely tied to that. Apple certainly could get access to their product they sold, they simply don't want to , because it would expose the lies they have been telling consumers for these past years.

My question is, I make UNCRACKABLE safes. This is purely hypothetical. Such a thing doesn't exist. But if it did, and I made them, what obligation would I have to try to open one? Or, baring that, do I then have an obligation to make a safe that is uncrackable to anyone BUT me, as in, I leave myself some sort of fail safe to get into one?

Click to expand...

If you actually make completely and totally uncrackable safes, then you would be unable to break into one no matter how much you or anyone else wanted you to do so. There is a difference between the courts ordering you to do something that you are unable to do and something that you are unwilling to do. This is something Apple is unwilling to do.

roughdraft274 said:

1. The phone isn't uncrackable. It's uncrackable to everyone but Apple. I haven't heard any reports saying that Apple couldn't get the information if required. Only that they refuse to do so.

But I'm actually on apples side. The government is asking for software that they can use on any iphone to crack them, and that's overboard.

Instead they should ask apple to pull the info off of this one phone and that's it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Correct, and that would solve the immediate problem. The Feds are over-reaching on this, but I expect that they'll win in the end. This could end up at the SC. We'll be back to using carrier pigeons for private conversations eventually.

I believe the phones are virtually uncrackable because of the encription technology used but that a supercomputer could break it by guessing the key (eventually)? However Apple stops that by erasing the phone after 10 guesses. In any event the govt. can get most of what they need from the phone companies. I'm on apples side.

KevinKohler said:

Lets say some criminal buys one, and uses it to hide his criminal secrets. He sets his combo, and only HE knows the combo...I am simply not privy to the knowledge. Am I responsible for law enforcement's access to that safe?

Click to expand...

I’d suggest you’d have a moral responsibility to take reasonable actions to assist law enforcement in their legitimate investigations. If I was the sole witness to a crime and so had information in my mind alone that would help the police, would it be justifiable for me to simply refuse to tell them (assuming it posed no risk to me)?

There is clearly an additional aspect to the Apple question (with wider scope for encryption in general) where creating something to circumvent the security on this phone means the ability to do that on any other phone instantly exists. It’s really a balance of cost/benefit but Apple (with no little vested interest) is leaning strongly in one direction on that balance.

KevinKohler said:

And why is it that it seems to me to be that PRIVATE interests, in the name of profit, are the only ones really doing anything to protect fourth amendment rights?

Click to expand...

I disagree. Apples’ interests here are entirely commercial. Standing up to “the man” is good PR, simple as that. If there was strong public support (particularly amongst their target customer base) for them to assist the FBI, they’d be all over it, Constitution be dammed. If this was one of those hypothetical “The bomb will go off in ten minutes if we don’t act!” scenarios, Apple would have cracked the phone and be calling themselves heroes for doing it.

It’s worth remembering that in this specific case, the authorities clearly have probable cause and the appropriate legal warrants given the circumstances and since the owner of the phone is deceased, they have no rights to break. There is the question of the increased potential to break other people’s rights were the ability to access iPhones in this way established but that’s much more speculative at best.

Soho gator said:

I believe the phones are virtually uncrackable because of the encription technology used but that a supercomputer could break it by guessing the key (eventually)? However Apple stops that by erasing the phone after 10 guesses. In any event the govt. can get most of what they need from the phone companies. I'm on apples side.

Click to expand...

What the government can get from the phone companies is what phone numbers got sent texts, and the time it got sent. I don't believe the actual text can be recovered.

Cephus said:

If you actually make completely and totally uncrackable safes, then you would be unable to break into one no matter how much you or anyone else wanted you to do so. There is a difference between the courts ordering you to do something that you are unable to do and something that you are unwilling to do. This is something Apple is unwilling to do.

Click to expand...

Would it then be an obligation for me to manufacture a "back door" of sorts, into my product? Would I have an expectation to have some means of access to the contents of the safes I sell?



I mean, otherwise, a terrorist could buy one of my safes, load it with explosives, and leave it someplace, and NO ONE could disarm them, because they couldn't get into the safe.

KevinKohler said:

Would it then be an obligation for me to manufacture a "back door" of sorts, into my product? Would I have an expectation to have some means of access to the contents of the safes I sell?

I mean, otherwise, a terrorist could buy one of my safes, load it with explosives, and leave it someplace, and NO ONE could disarm them, because they couldn't get into the safe.

Click to expand...

If you actually do that, then you have a responsibility to provide help to the government for an investigation if you can. If you don't actually do that, then you are physically unable to help the government. I'm saying there is a difference between can't and won't. Right now, Apple is refusing. They're not saying they can't.

Cephus said:

If you actually do that, then you have a responsibility to provide help to the government for an investigation if you can. If you don't actually do that, then you are physically unable to help the government. I'm saying there is a difference between can't and won't. Right now, Apple is refusing. They're not saying they can't.

Click to expand...

They're refusing to build a backdoor into every single safe they manufacture.


They have not been ASKED to break into just ONE safe.

They have been TOLD that they need to manufacture safes that the government can get into, whenever they want.

KevinKohler said:

They're refusing to build a backdoor into every single safe they manufacture.

They have not been ASKED to break into just ONE safe.

They have been TOLD that they need to manufacture safes that the government can get into, whenever they want.

Click to expand...

Nobody is asking them to build a backdoor, but clearly, they have one. Apple is done with the manufacturing process. They already put a backdoor into the phones. All the government is doing is asking them to access it. Apple isn't saying there are no backdoors, Apple is saying they have the keys and they're not sharing. There's a difference.