Linked List: February 24, 2016

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

The Next Step in iPhone Impregnability 

Matt Apuzzo and Katie Benner, reporting for the NYT:

Apple engineers have already begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone using methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts.

If Apple succeeds in upgrading its security — and experts say it almost surely will — the company would create a significant technical challenge for law enforcement agencies, even if the Obama administration wins its fight over access to data stored on an iPhone used by one of the killers in last year’s San Bernardino, Calif., rampage. The F.B.I. would then have to find another way to defeat Apple security, setting up a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple. […]

Apple built its recent operating systems to protect customer information. As its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, wrote in a recent letter to customers, “We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.”

But there is a catch. Each iPhone has a built-in troubleshooting system that lets the company update the system software without the need for a user to enter a password. Apple designed that feature to make it easier to repair malfunctioning phones.

The way the iPhone works today, when put into recovery mode you can restore the operating system without entering the device passcode. The only restriction is that the version of iOS to be installed must be properly signed by Apple.

I just tried it here with my old iPhone 6, which had been turned off for weeks. I powered it up, but did not unlock it. I put it in recovery mode, and then updated it to iOS 9.3 beta 4. Then it restarted. Now it’s running iOS 9.3 beta 4, and I still have not unlocked it. All my data is still on the phone — but it’s running a new version of iOS, without my having unlocked it.

What the FBI wants Apple to do is create (and sign) a new version of iOS that they can force the San Bernardino suspect’s phone to install as an update — and this new version of iOS will allow them to easily brute-force the passcode.

I think what Apple is leaking here is that they’re going to change this (perhaps as soon as this year’s new iPhone 7), so that you can’t install a new version of iOS, even in recovery mode, without entering the device’s passcode. (I think they will also do the same for firmware updates to the code that executes on the Secure Enclave — it will require a passcode lock.)

If you do a full restore, you can install a new version of the OS without the passcode, but this wipes the data. See also: Activation Lock, which allows you to bypass the passcode to completely wipe an iPhone, but requires you to sign into iCloud before you can use it.

Scalia in 1987: ‘The Constitution Sometimes Insulates the Criminality of a Few in Order to Protect the Privacy of Us All’ 

NYT report on a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in 1987:

Justice Scalia’s opinion was forcefully denounced as an unjustified obstacle to law enforcement in dissenting opinions by Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Lewis F. Powell Jr. Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in both of the dissents.

Justice Scalia, however, said, “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” […]

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion today said that although the search for weapons was lawful — a shot had just been fired through the floor of the apartment, injuring a man below — the police were not justified in moving the stereo components even slightly to check the serial numbers without “probable cause” to believe they were stolen. He thus affirmed a ruling by an Arizona appellate court that the stereo components, which turned out to have been stolen in an armed robbery, could not be used as evidence against the occupant of the apartment.

Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the Court’s senior member, who is its leading liberal, apparently assigned Justice Scalia to write the majority opinion, which he joined. Under the Supreme Court’s procedures, the Chief Justice assigns opinions when he is in the majority. When the Chief Justice dissents, as in the Arizona case, the senior member of the majority has assignment power.

Conservative judges, as a general rule, tend to side with law enforcement in search and seizure cases. Scalia was certainly a conservative, but by no means was he in lockstep with them.

ABC News Posts Extensive Interview With Tim Cook on FBI/iPhone Case 

Solid, thorough, and I think very fair interview by David Muir. Cook made his case about as well as it could be made — a passionate defense of civil liberties. It’s 30 minutes long and worth every minute of it.

Former Bush Administration Official Argues Supreme Court Should Count Scalia’s Vote in Pending Cases 

This is how we get from here to there.

David Ortiz Makes a Final Plea to Yankees Fans 

Kevin Kernan, writing for the NY Post:

When Ortiz, 40, makes his final Yankee Stadium appearance on Sept. 29, this is what he wants, and it speaks volumes about Ortiz the player, the competitor, the enemy, the star.

“You know what I want most of all?’’ Big Papi told The Post on Tuesday at JetBlue Park. “I would love it if the fans at Yankee Stadium gave me a standing ovation.’’

That’s what he wants, and that would be the perfect tribute to Ortiz, who owns 503 home runs.

I would wholeheartedly join in that ovation. Great player, great rival, and his retirement really marks the end of the epic Yankees-Sox rivalry from the early 2000s. I would expect appearances from Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, and Joe Torre. Just thinking about it makes me want to buy tickets.