Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[mheslep]

At any rate, I'm not aware they've changed their assessment of "homegrown."...

Homegrown, i.e. radicalized here, is not in dispute. Outside links, i.e. " their association and the source of their inspiration", are unresolved, per the FBI. The FBI has good reason to not "move on". I would assess them as negligent it they did so without trying to the obtain phone info.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would assess them as negligent it they did so without trying to the obtain phone info.

I agree. And they did try. But Apple has put an obstacle in their way. So, my question is how much of their resources do they want to divert into overcoming that obstacle for what seems to be a longshot?
If you, Meshlep, think they should pursue this all the way to the Supreme Court, then I suppose you're willing to go a lot farther after a long shot than I am. Or, it could be, you don't see it as a long shot.

 

[DiracPool]

I don't think the debate here comes down to who owns the phone, the terrorist or the county of San Bernadino, what the FBI's intentions are, or even if it is possible to hack just this one phone or not. It comes down to, as I stated in my posts #184 and #185, do you trust that Apple knows what it is doing and is not just trying to advance their brand image by creating a controversy in the press over customer security? It seems to me the commentors in this thread break up into two camps: 1) those who feel Apple should be forced to comply to hack the phone by the FBI, and 2) those who feel that Apple would do whatever they could help the FBI catch terrorists provided that effort did not put an even greater threat in play. I happen to belong to the latter camp and so does it seem James Woolsey, former CIA director. I'd be very interested to hear the reaction from the "Force Apple to comply with the FBI" camp (you know who you are ) to this recent brief interview with Woosley:

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think the debate here comes down to who owns the phone, the terrorist or the county of San Bernadino, what the FBI's intentions are, or even if it is possible to hack just this one phone or not. It comes down to, as I stated in my posts #184 and #185, do you trust that Apple knows what it is doing and is not just trying to advance their brand image by creating a controversy in the press over customer security?

Well... a lot of people are commenting on the FBI's intentions, so that I think makes it relevant (see your request below!), but I do agree with you that people are placing their trust in Apple in a way that is unwise. As I've said before, Apple isn't required to tell us the truth here. It doesn't have to tell us if money is a motivation. It doesn't matter: winning is winning. But the FBI can only win what it is actually asking for, regardless of what, in the bigger picture, it wants. Yes, it can force Apple to use the tool over and over, but it isn't asking for and therefore can't get:

I'd be very interested to hear the reaction from the "Force Apple to comply with the FBI" camp (you know who you are ) to this recent brief interview with Woosley:

Right here! [raises hand]
Here's what he said:

What's at issue here is that the FBI wants Apple to design its operating system in such a way as to make it possible for the FBI to get into cell phones by itself. It doesn't want to have to go to Apple and ask...

I think he's just plain wrong. I think he's bought a line being fed to him by Apple and "media" activists. How can the FBI possibly achieve that with this case if it isn't asking for that?

He continues:

Apple had a back door in its most recent operating system that Apple wanted to close...and the FBI doesn't want it to close the back door.

That part is correct, but I called it a back "hatch" because this particular entrance is one only Apple can easily use.

 

[russ_watters]

Apple is apparently now challenging other requests and today won one in New York:

A federal magistrate-judge in New York City has ruled that the U.S. government can't force Apple to hack an iPhone to investigate a drug dealer.
It's a win for Apple, which is being pressured by federal law enforcement agents to help it break into iPhones in at least 13 instances across the country. Apple says doing the federal government's bidding would undermine the security features in hundreds of millions of iPhones around the world.

So far, the Department of Justice is relying on the All Writs Act, passed in 1789, which gives judges broad discretion in carrying out the law.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/technology/judge-apple-feds/index.html

Related (linked through):

The Justice Department, in a court filing late Monday, accused Apple of suddenly changing its legal position on cooperating with federal law enforcement after years of complying with court orders based on a broad 1789 law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/apple-justice-department/index.html?iid=EL

It would appear Apple is going for broke, reversing years worth of compliance/cooperation in these fights -- and eight other active cases nationwide.

 

[Astronuc]

New York judge rules in favor of Apple in earlier locked iPhone case
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/new-...n-earlier-locked-iphone-case--001258264.html#

While Apple (AAPL) and the FBI have been busy battling over a dead terrorist's passcode-locked iPhone in a case in California, a federal judge in New York on Monday ruled for Apple in a similar case over a locked iPhone belonging to an admitted drug dealer.

In a 50-page ruling rejecting almost everything federal prosecutors had argued, Judge James Orenstein ruled that Apple could not be compelled to help get information off a locked iPhone used by methamphetamine dealer Jun Feng under the 1789 All Writs Act, the same law at issue in the California terrorism case.

Orenstein acknowledged that the debate over encryption and the needs of law enforcement required balancing competing interests. But Congress, not the courts, should make that decision, he said.

All Writs Act was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-all-writs-act-1789-has-do-iphone-180958188/?no-ist
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=196

 

[russ_watters]

No, I am not implying all government communications are classified. I'm saying the situation might exist where a federal employee calls a county employee with classified information. Like when? Like after 911 or after San Bernadino, to name two I can think of. The vulnerability would be in the less secure phone.

That wouldn't be classified either. What you are describing just isn't how such things work. Heck, I don't think state governments even have comparable classification systems and even if they did, they wouldn't necessarily be linked with the federal system.

You're just making my point for me: the Military wants soldiers to have secure phones. The fictional insecure phone scenario demonstrates why. It's not a description of how it is, it's a description of what the military doesn't want.

The fictional insecure phone scenario is false/nonsense. It doesn't prove anything because it is total fiction having no relationship with any current or future real situation. Soldiers would not be carrying personal phones in battle, much less sending/receiving operational communications on them.

Afraid not. I'm not responsible for any strawmen your imagination accidentally concocts. Read carefully.

In post 202 you said (and I quoted there in what you responded to):

the FBI hasn't made that distinction and has a standing opposition to "going dark."

That sounds pretty clear to me that you are saying the FBI is against secure government communications ("going dark"). If not, please don't just say I'm reading it wrong, but clarify it.

Remember that thread about the origins of life where you mistook the article as saying the opposite of what it was actually saying?

No, I haven't the slightest clue what you are referring to. I can't remember the last time I posted in such a thread. Are you saying I sometimes misread things? News flash, I'm human! I make mistakes! Are you holding some sort of grudge over a mistake I made a long time ago?

 

[russ_watters]

Apple engineers are now in a race against time to see if they can design an unbreakable iPhone in the next few months. They hope the added security can appear in the next iteration of Apple's operating system and its next iPhone model, according to several security researchers in direct contact with Apple employees...

In essence, the FBI http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/19/technology/apple-extension-unlock-iphone/index.html?iid=EL, showing that it was open to attack -- from its maker.

That's why engineers are now seeking to increase the security of Apple's flagship product. As it currently stands, Apple can't abide by its previous promise to customers: that its devices are impenetrable for the sake of security and privacy.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-unbreakable-phone/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iid=obnetwork

Moving forward, this would make the current court cases moot, but the results will still apply to older phones or those running older software...

...unless Apple wins, then it can retain the ability to hack its own phones without fear of having to use that ability to help law enforcement (they could just use it for their own purposes). That would make the case interesting -- would Apple still make an uncrackable iPhone if it didn't need to to defeat law enforcement assistance orders?

On a nuts and bolts level, anyway, I wouldn't expect it to be difficult for Apple to make minor modifications to make the phones uncrackable. They just need a pop-up that requires a user to hit "ok" before a software/firmware update is installed. Shouldn't be a difficult "race" to win, they just have to make the decision to give up the power.

 

[Drakkith]

Soldiers would not be carrying personal phones in battle, much less sending/receiving operational communications on them.

I'm sorry, as I haven't read much in this thread already, but I wanted to make it clear that what you've said here is correct. Operations security (OPSEC) is taken very seriously in my personal experience in the military. The rules and regulations regarding it are, generally, very clear. Communications security (COMSEC) is probably taken even more seriously. Communications equipment used to transmit sensitive and classified information is specially designed and monitored, and those who violate the regulations are subject to extremely serious consequences. In addition, the average military member, regardless of branch, has zero access to this equipment or to sensitive/classified information.

Heck, I don't think state governments even have comparable classification systems and even if they did, they wouldn't necessarily be linked with the federal system.

I can honestly say I've never heard of such a thing. The federal regulations even apply to the national guard of each state. (I can provide references if need be)
I'd be extremely surprised to hear of classified information being passed from a federal to a state employee at all, let alone by phone.

You're just making my point for me: the Military wants soldiers to have secure phones.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, zooby. I've personally worked with COMSEC equipment. It would be a godawful nightmare to have a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of secure cell phones roaming around. I believe it would be extremely easy for a foreign power to acquire plenty of these phones and I'd expect someone to break their security essentially overnight.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, zooby. I've personally worked with COMSEC equipment. It would be a godawful nightmare to have a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of secure cell phones roaming around. I believe it would be extremely easy for a foreign power to acquire plenty of these phones and I'd expect someone to break their security essentially overnight.

I've heard stories that make it easy to believe foreign powers could acquire them, but I don't see how they could hack them. Could they hack the iPhone in question essentially overnight? If so, why can't the FBI?

 

[Drakkith]

I've heard stories that make it easy to believe foreign powers could acquire them, but I don't see how they could hack them. Could they hack the iPhone in question essentially overnight? If so, why can't the FBI?

I'd guess it's a matter of cost vs benefit. Hacking the i-phone gives you access to the phone, but only for a short amount of time (assuming the vulnerability is caught and corrected in a short amount of time). You might get some personal information that you can use, but on a national scale personal information is generally worth very little. Hacking a government-issue, secure cell phone gives you a good chance of having access to information that does matter at the national level. So in terms of cost vs benefit, hacking the i-phone would probably not be worth it considering how easy it is to fix leaks. But hacking a government's secure cell phone, and continuing to expend the resources to hack it again and again as vulnerabilities are fixed, is almost certainly worth it.

The FBI is much more limited in what it can and can't do, and the resources it has access to, than a foreign government, so I wouldn't expect it to be able to hack the phone and then keep hacking it as Apple makes updates and fixes vulnerabilities.

But that's all from a guy who knows essentially nothing about how the software and hardware of a modern cell phone works, so take it with a grain of salt if you must.

 

[russ_watters]

I've heard stories that make it easy to believe foreign powers could acquire them, but I don't see how they could hack them.

You don't need to hack the phone, you just capture the soldier carrying the phone and torture him into giving up the password!

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'd guess it's a matter of cost vs benefit. Hacking the i-phone gives you access to the phone, but only for a short amount of time (assuming the vulnerability is caught and corrected in a short amount of time). You might get some personal information that you can use, but on a national scale personal information is generally worth very little. Hacking a government-issue, secure cell phone gives you a good chance of having access to information that does matter at the national level. So in terms of cost vs benefit, hacking the i-phone would probably not be worth it considering how easy it is to fix leaks. But hacking a government's secure cell phone, and continuing to expend the resources to hack it again and again as vulnerabilities are fixed, is almost certainly worth it. The FBI is much more limited in what it can and can't do, and the resources it has access to, than a foreign government, so I wouldn't expect it to be able to hack the phone and then keep hacking it as Apple makes updates and fixes vulnerabilities. But that's all from a guy who knows essentially nothing about how the software and hardware of a modern cell phone works, so take it with a grain of salt if you must.

About when was that COMSEC gathering? You've been at PF for quite a while, and I'm thinking you wouldn't have time for that if you were still active military, so it might have been a while ago. The two articles I posted about the government/military interest in secure phones are about 5 years old. So, I'm thinking, even if, when you attended COMSEC, the military considered the then best in "government-issue, secure cell phone(s)" to be a joke (hackable overnight), it wouldn't mean they thought that a permanently insurmountable problem. The articles show they were doing all kinds of experimentation and exploration.

If you take my statement, "The government wants secure phones," to mean they want more of the joke secure phones (hackable overnight), then, of course, you'd have to disagree with the statement. However, what I meant by it was that they want authentically secure phones. Apple is on the verge of phones that they, themselves, can't hack, much less the FBI. My thinking is that this current resistance to the FBI demands may be a show for potential customers like the military, which wants authentically secure phones that foreign powers couldn't hack, regardless of their resources.

 

[mheslep]

the Military wants soldiers to have secure phones.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, zooby. I've personally worked with COMSEC equipment. It would be a godawful nightmare to have a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of secure cell phones roaming around.

Drakkith - Your comment was unfortunately the standard for years as used by the old school security folks in the DoD which failed to recognize the harm caused by a lack of pushing relevant information such as photos to a squad about to kick a door down. But the dam finally broke. Smart phones with appropriate levels of security have started to roll out to troops. These phones also don't have withstand ridiculous mil-standards that required equipment to, for instance, survive after hours in several feet of water when a replacement is available for a few hundred dollars, as opposed to some full-mil gear costing many thousands of dollars with weight in lbs instead of ounces, and thus impossible to ever become widely deployed.

 

[russ_watters]

Drakkith - Your comment was unfortunately the standard for years as used by the old school security folks in the DoD which failed to recognize the harm caused by a lack of pushing relevant information such as photos to a squad about to kick a door down. But the dam finally broke. Smart phones with appropriate levels of security have started to roll out to troops.

Google finds this:

http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-militarys-secretive-smartphone-program-1603143142

I'll be able to comment later.

 

[256bits]

That should be the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nett_Warrior,

In July 2013, the Army installed the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_II into Nett Warrior as the system's end user device. Each Galaxy is bought at the commercial price of $700 per phone, substantially lower than if the Army had to procure devices from contractors who would develop their own original devices. Once acquired, the phones have their commercial features including cellular antennas, https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Wi-Fi , and https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Bluetooth wiped out by Army engineers, and the Nett Warrior software is installed on the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/National_Security_Agency -approved Android operating system. The smartphones communicate through a https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/USB connection with the hip-mounted, data-capable Rifleman radio for network connectivity. Because commercial products are being bought, a new smartphone will need to be acquired once the Note II production stops. Nett Warrior is currently fielded by the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/U.S._Army_Rangers and members of the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/10th_Mountain_Division .[5][6]

( Bold is mine )
Not exactly a smart cell phone anymore, but a graphical tool. Random signals dissallowed.

It is employed by direct connection to the battlefield radio for secure communication to the battlefield network. ( Rifleman is not this radio system. )
http://rf.harris.com/capabilities/tactical-radios-networking/an-prc-152a.asp
and at the present time not every soldier would have that piece of equipment.

Drakith IMHO is probably correct regarding COMSEC communication being a logistical nightmare if every soldier had in "in" to field support.

 

[russ_watters]

Drakith IMHO is probably correct regarding COMSEC communication being a logistical nightmare if every soldier had in "in" to field support.

Especially since most of the soldiers themselves are not cleared for such communications.

 

[Drakkith]

About when was that COMSEC gathering? You've been at PF for quite a while, and I'm thinking you wouldn't have time for that if you were still active military, so it might have been a while ago.

No, I had plenty of time while active duty. I was maintenance and worked an 8-9 hour day, 5 days a week for the most part. I've received COMSEC training within the last few years, but that training is at the unit level. It's very specific and wouldn't have included secure cell phones since we didn't have any. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means an expert on the subject here. I could very well be incorrect.

If you take my statement, "The government wants secure phones," to mean they want more of the joke secure phones (hackable overnight), then, of course, you'd have to disagree with the statement. However, what I meant by it was that they want authentically secure phones. Apple is on the verge of phones that they, themselves, can't hack, much less the FBI. My thinking is that this current resistance to the FBI demands may be a show for potential customers like the military, which wants authentically secure phones that foreign powers couldn't hack, regardless of their resources.

I'm going to disagree with you again here. Given enough incentive and resources, I don't think a foreign power would have trouble hacking the phone. Note that I'm using hacking in a broad sense here. When I say hacking I mean that they could exploit flaws in the software/hardware, develop malware for the device, gain access to and procedures for using the phone along with the necessary codes or documents to allow them to exploit the system without having to hack the phone, along with any number of other things. Now, some of that may be a bit off topic, and if so, then I apologize.

But the dam finally broke. Smart phones with appropriate levels of security have started to roll out to troops.

Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to see the details. Phones like the ones used for the Nett Warrior are entirely different beasts from what I envisioned by "secure cell phones".

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm going to disagree with you again here. Given enough incentive and resources, I don't think a foreign power would have trouble hacking the phone. Note that I'm using hacking in a broad sense here. When I say hacking I mean that they could exploit flaws in the software/hardware, develop malware for the device, gain access to and procedures for using the phone along with the necessary codes or documents to allow them to exploit the system without having to hack the phone, along with any number of other things. Now, some of that may be a bit off topic, and if so, then I apologize.

No, that doesn't strike me as off-topic. It's not the kind of hacking the FBI wants to do, but it absolutely pertains to the security of any military phone.

 

[DiracPool]

No, that doesn't strike me as off-topic. It's not the kind of hacking the FBI wants to do, but it absolutely pertains to the security of any military phone.

Why is half this thread about military phones/communications? The issue here is about civilian communications. The military executes a different standard that doesn't directly apply to the San Bernadino case that the OP (Greg) posted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why is half this thread about military phones/communications? The issue here is about civilian communications. The military executes a different standard that doesn't directly apply to the San Bernadino case that the OP (Greg) posted.

I started it:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/apple-vs-fbi.858107/page-9#post-5392716

 

[mheslep]

Google finds this:

http://gizmodo.com/inside-the-militarys-secretive-smartphone-program-1603143142

I'll be able to comment later.

Yep. I worked on several of the concepts. The impediments from the entrenched DoD internal and external contractor establishment were immense, and held back deployment for far too long. Repeated, unassailable evidenced argument about how deployment of cheap smartphones would stop casualties, have stopped casualties in experiments, would receive only more robotic, acronym laced, wrapped in the flag response about the rules of security, and ten year development cycles of custom gear. I've been in rooms where things began to change via just-back-from deployment officers who had enough, and launched into *loud* Colonel Jessup-in-the-courtroom objections to the standard contractor or government program manager line. US Commanders in the field have always been responsible for determining what was red/black in a war zone, i.e. classified/not, and they started asserting themselves.

Unfortunately none of this smart phone innovation gets deployed via main stream DoD programs, or at least it didn't when my shop worked on it. It gets out instead via ad-hoc methods, by special program or direct individual unit acquisition.

 

[anorlunda]

Especially since most of the soldiers themselves are not cleared for such communications.

Source

 

[russ_watters]

Source

Experience -- navy though. All officers have secret clearance at least, enlisted depended on the needs of the job, with most having nothing.

For the army though, there is clearly a conflict between operational security and information/modernization that is worse than on a ship (if you get separated from your ship, a map won't help you get back to it...).

 

[nsaspook]

Even if you have the required clearance and secure device there is also the 'need to know' the information with the vast majority of members having no need to know anything beyond what's needed to complete the immediate job at hand..(take weapon A and fire at target on hill B) I would think that these devices would increase the user knowledge of the sensitive but not classified immediate situation but actually decrease the requirements to give low-level personal operational information in advance if it's easy to send updates as they 'need to know' the next step in some plan. A micro-managers dream.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yep. I worked on several of the concepts. The impediments from the entrenched DoD internal and external contractor establishment were immense, and held back deployment for far too long. Repeated, unassailable evidenced argument about how deployment of cheap smartphones would stop casualties, have stopped casualties in experiments, would receive only more robotic, acronym laced, wrapped in the flag response about the rules of security, and ten year development cycles of custom gear. I've been in rooms where things began to change via just-back-from deployment officers who had enough, and launched into *loud* Colonel Jessup-in-the-courtroom objections to the standard contractor or government program manager line. US Commanders in the field have always been responsible for determining what was red/black in a war zone, i.e. classified/not, and they started asserting themselves. Unfortunately none of this smart phone innovation gets deployed via main stream DoD programs, or at least it didn't when my shop worked on it. It gets out instead via ad-hoc methods, by special program or direct individual unit acquisition.

This is a very interesting post. However, I'm snagged on the concept of an "internal" contractor. What is that? My sense of the word "contractor" is such that contractors would always be essentially external entities.

 

[mheslep]

Source

Also, the scale of the matter shows clearing every soldier, marine is not plausible. On the order of a million members of the miltary, some with criminal records. The process requires a detailed background check, interviews of friends, neighbors.

 

[mheslep]

This is a very interesting post. However, I'm snagged on the concept of an "internal" contractor. What is that? My sense of the word "contractor" is such that contractors would always be essentially external entities.

Non governmental, external, contractors, and a large governmental, or internal, body of DoD civilian staff.

I worked for a time in a no-man's land of sorts: a small number of private but non-profit think tanks that consult to the government on technical issues but can't sell the govt any widgets (like military smart phones).

 

[russ_watters]

Even if you have the required clearance and secure device there is also the 'need to know' the information with the vast majority of members having no need to know anything beyond what's needed to compete the immediate job at hand.

Yes, I don't think most people realize that a "Top Secret" clearance isn't a license to view all "Top Secret" information: the information is pretty much always compartmentalized on a need to know basis.

The navigator of a ship wouldn't necessarily know how many of what type of missile are onboard and the weapons officer wouldn't necessarily know where the ship is going.

About the only people who have a "need to know" everything are the highest level commanders and the people receiving and distributing the message traffic.

The impediments from the entrenched DoD internal and external contractor establishment were immense, and held back deployment for far too long. Repeated, unassailable evidenced argument about how deployment of cheap smartphones would stop casualties, have stopped casualties in experiments, would receive only more robotic, acronym laced, wrapped in the flag response about the rules of security, and ten year development cycles of custom gear. I've been in rooms where things began to change via just-back-from deployment officers who had enough, and launched into *loud* Colonel Jessup-in-the-courtroom objections to the standard contractor or government program manager line. US Commanders in the field have always been responsible for determining what was red/black in a war zone, i.e. classified/not, and they started asserting themselves.

You certainly would know the details of that particular argument better than me, so maybe this is food for thought for others, but I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to judge the generals as being entrenched dinosaurs. This issue of operational security and compartmentalization of information predates this technology as does the push-pull between the grunts and the generals.

An easy example that applies both with digital and paper is maps. Most soldiers don't have maps and yes that can get a soldier killed if he gets separated from his unit and can't get back or get to an extraction point. But if he has a map with an X on the base or extraction point and is captured, that map can get everyone else in his unit killed and make the mission fail. Military units are strictly utilitarian in that way and I don't see the availability of technology as changing that. It is a difficult balance, but I would tend to think the mission risk is higher with too much distribution of information of that type than not enough.

Also, the scale of the matter shows clearing every soldier, marine is not plausible. On the order of a million members of the military, some with criminal records.

And, potentially, conscripts or "stop loss" or other disgruntled members. Such people can be substantial security risks.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a very interesting post. However, I'm snagged on the concept of an "internal" contractor. What is that? My sense of the word "contractor" is such that contractors would always be essentially external entities.

That's a mess even in the civilian world. A woman who worked in my consulting engineering firm got embedded with a client as a project manager. Then they hired her as a direct employee. Then they outsourced her job to a larger facilities services firm (who immediately hired her to do the job). All the while, her job title/description/office/email address/business card/direct boss didn't change, just the company name on her paychecks did. The distinction between "internal" and "external" or "contractor" and "employee" can dissolve.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Non governmental, external, contractors, and a large governmental, or internal, body of DoD civilian staff. I worked for a time in a no-man's land of sorts: a small number of private but non-profit think tanks that consult to the government on technical issues but can't sell the govt any widgets (like military smart phones).

That's interesting enough for me. I'll read your book if you write it.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, I don't think most people realize that a "Top Secret" clearance isn't a license to view all "Top Secret" information: the information is pretty much always compartmentalized on a need to know basis.

The navigator of a ship wouldn't necessarily know how many of what type of missile are onboard and the weapons officer wouldn't necessarily know where the ship is going.

About the only people who have a "need to know" everything are the highest level commanders and the people receiving and distributing the message traffic.

You certainly would know the details of that particular argument better than me, so maybe this is food for thought for others, but I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to judge the generals as being entrenched dinosaurs. This issue of operational security and compartmentalization of information predates this technology as does the push-pull between the grunts and the generals.

An easy example that applies both with digital and paper is maps. Most soldiers don't have maps and yes that can get a soldier killed if he gets separated from his unit and can't get back or get to an extraction point. But if he has a map with an X on the base or extraction point and is captured, that map can get everyone else in his unit killed and make the mission fail. Military units are strictly utilitarian in that way and I don't see the availability of technology as changing that. It is a difficult balance, but I would tend to think the mission risk is higher with too much distribution of information of that type than not enough.

And, potentially, conscripts or "stop loss" or other disgruntled members. Such people can be substantial security risks.

Problem has not been with the generals per se. That new smart (non) phone BTW got a push from the vice chief of staff of the army. It's more the acquisition rules pushed by Congress which is in part motivated in part getting money spent by contractors in districts. A ruggedized commercial mobile like this short circuits the main DoD appropriations process. It cuts our big DoD contractors and their civilian counterparts in the DoD. The DoD has spent billions on custom radio and computer programs for years.

Agree with you on no silver bullet technology. Hundreds of things have been tried to get more info to troops and most of it is scrapped, just like in the commercial world, as it must be.

 

[Borg]

That's a mess even in the civilian world. A woman who worked in my consulting engineering firm got embedded with a client as a project manager. Then they hired her as a direct employee. Then they outsourced her job to a larger facilities services firm (who immediately hired her to do the job). All the while, her job title/description/office/email address/business card/direct boss didn't change, just the company name on her paychecks did. The distinction between "internal" and "external" or "contractor" and "employee" can dissolve.

I've seen that more times than I can count. I know people who have 'retired' from government positions on Friday and returned to the same desk on Monday as a contractor - gue$$ why.

 

[Astronuc]

DOJ Lays Out Its Legal Case For Why Apple Should Help Crack An iPhone
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ase-for-why-apple-should-help-crack-an-iphone

• Apple's response to the Justice Department's motion and the earlier court order is due by Feb. 26;

• U.S. attorneys' response will be due by March 10;

• Apple's reply brief will be due by March 15;

• A hearing has been scheduled at 4 p.m. ET on March 22 in federal court in Riverside, Calif.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-doj-idUSKCN0VS2FT

Hearing scheduled in Apple encryption case for March 22: U.S. Justice Dept
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-hearing-idUSKCN0VS2J0

SAN MATEO, Calif. — The ID passcode to the iPhone the FBI wants Apple to hack for information about one of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorists was changed less than a day after the government gained possession of it, Apple executives said in a phone briefing with reporters Friday afternoon.

Had the passcode not been changed, Apple said, a backup of the information the government is seeking could have been viewed. It is unclear who changed the Apple ID passcode while it was in the government’s possession, the executive said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...scode-changed-government-possession/80632962/
I'm wondering - if someone changed the passcode - doesn't that person know the passcode? I think perhaps they are referring to the iTunes password and not passcode to the phone.

In a somewhat related case that bolsters Apple's defense, a federal magistrate ruled that the DOJ cannot compel Apple to unlock an iPhone in a criminal case.

Apple Wins Ruling in New York iPhone Hacking Order
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruling-in-new-york-iphone-hacking-order.html

A federal magistrate judge on Monday denied the United States government’s request that Apple extract data from an iPhone in a drug case in New York, giving the company’s pro-privacy stance a boost as it battles law enforcement officials over opening up the device in other cases.

I think everyone agrees that law-abiding citizens have a right to privacy, and in particular from unwarranted government intrusion. However, there must be a balance with protecting the general welfare and providing for common defense. There is a reason that the government must secure a warrant to obtain reasonable 'search and seizure'.

I heard a statement yesterday that the DOJ is suing Apple, but other than going to court and filing a motion mentioned above, I've not seen any news article about a lawsuit.

 

[russ_watters]

I think everyone agrees that law-abiding citizens have a right to privacy, and in particular from unwarranted government intrusion.

The way it is being presented in this case and in tech media, I disagree.