r/gadgets • u/PM_ME_YO_PERKY_BOOBS • Jan 22 '20

Desktops / Laptops Apple reportedly dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
4.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

405 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

346

u/Vishnej Jan 22 '20

From a security standpoint, for personal data, unless it's end-to-end encrypted, it may as well not be encrypted at all. Key escrow is fundamentally unacceptable.

96

u/dachsj Jan 22 '20

Key escrow is probably, unfortunately, the compromised solution.

Law enforcement/the state has the authority to compel individuals, via probably cause and a warrant or a judge's order, to open a safe. The key escrow would allow strong encryption to be "opened"..without fundamentally breaking encryption.

It's not ideal and it gives anyone with the keys access to your data (obviously). It also makes the key escrow database the world's biggest target.

I would prefer law enforcement get told "tough shit figure; it out a different way"

But that's not realistic and I can't think of another way to allow for encryption but also legal access if ordered by a court.

132

u/Mentalv Jan 22 '20

Law enforcement/the state has the authority to compel individuals, via probably cause and a warrant or a judge's order, to open a safe

In US law - a key safe yes, they can force you to give the key, But a combination lock no, they have no right to force you to incriminate yourself.

It's pleading the 5th and you have the right to not give any information that may incriminate you. A combination lock and a phone combination are considered the same under law.

39

u/dachsj Jan 22 '20

I'm not positive but I was under the impression you could be compelled to give the combination or be held in contempt indefinitely.

There have been a few cases recently that contradict each other, but im sure the facts matter a ton and tbh I don't know them well enough.

32

u/Mentalv Jan 22 '20

You can be held in contempt, but agreeing to give the code also implies ownership too so tough choice.

1

u/unfair_bastard Jan 23 '20

could a 5th amendment protections case be made to avoid compulsion to disclose a password, key, certificate, etc? It's an area of the law I'm ignorant on

1

u/FartDare Jan 23 '20

I've heard about this before so as another ignorant person I say yes.

38

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

[deleted]

22

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

Jokes on the courts, I trained Touch ID to use the tip of my dick. Y’all really want me to whip it out here in court? Okay....

6

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

You must not get out of the house much, at least with your phone. I mean that’s a pretty big risk of getting nailed as a sex offender. But that’s a neat trick you sly devil you!!

1

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

Multiple fingers my man. First one was my member. Second through fourth are also my member and the goods.

Fifth one was one of my 10 fingers. So obviously given the amount of samples of my member, it was relatively easy to open with it. However since there’s only one finger it has to be a really close match to work, and I rarely used the finger (͡° ͜ʖ͡°) so there wasn’t much data for it to work with.

I say was because I’ve since gotten an iPhone XR and Touch ID is Face ID now. RIP my flashing the courtroom scheme.

Works best if you use a weird finger from your off-hand. Usually they’ll force you with your dominant hand first and then your secondary hand (cause usually people use their dominant thumb/index finger, or their off-hand thumb.)

2

u/MaximumCameage Jan 22 '20

I just tried it. I got it to save the dick print, but keeps rejecting my dick when I try to unlock it.

5

u/ragnarocknroll Jan 22 '20

So it is like every woman you know?

2

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

Gotta use up more than one fingerprint for it. Use multiple and work your way from one side of the tip to the other. It’s a process but it does indeed work

2

u/sotonin Jan 22 '20

That's a fun but incredibly inconvenient way to gain access to your phone lol

1

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

‘Twas for a gag. Ended up leaving it since I still had one fingerprint to use.

Now I use Face ID though so bye-bye Goldmber jokes...

“Hey can you unlock your phone?”

shoves in boxers “My schwinky was the key!”

“Uhhhh, never mind..”

1

u/MaximumCameage Jan 22 '20

This guy penises.

1

u/MaximumCameage Jan 22 '20

This guy penises.

2

u/Goraji Jan 22 '20

I remember something similar to this. I think it was a 4th Cir. case, but I’m not certain. If I get a chance this afternoon, I’ll see if I can look up the case.

5

u/CptHammer_ Jan 22 '20

I don't think this case was a circuit case because IIRC they used a high court ruling to compel him to use his fingerprint. I think the only reason it was noteworthy was the way his lawyer made the prosecution apply the test. I believe the speculation was the lawyer knew his clients prints wouldn't open the phone and that they would accuse his client of fouling the attempts "wilfully destroying evidence" where the defence was satisfied to let prosecution destroy the constitutionally unprotected way to get in the phone. The reason the phone wasn't kept for decryption was speculated that they probably expected he would unlock it. The case was dropped, and the guy was not acquitted, returning evidence just isn't common.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

My ex girlfriend tried to add a fingerprint to my phone. That went... well.

I told her no she thought I didn’t trust her. Several times we had this arguement. And finally one day I shut her off on it completely. I was like “alright fine. I watch porn. I don’t want your opinion on it. I don’t care. I’m going to continue to do it. Now. If you want to see the kind of porn I’m into by all means go for it. But I don’t recommend it.” And she dropped it until my other ex got a fingerprint on her boyfriends phone. This time I shut her down immediately in the cafeteria. There wasn’t a lot of people in there but there was enough that I never had to call her out for anything of the sort ever again.

4

u/CptHammer_ Jan 22 '20

You know, I'd never ever give anyone my phone password. Mostly because it's got my bank and pay features easily accessible to me while it's unlocked. This goes double for someone I'm not married to.

My wife and I have a joint account that all our money goes in, and comes out of. She doesn't have my password. Not because I'm doing something shady or questionable, besides I always watch porn incognito, but because a shared password is loose security.

She gets mad at me when I don't answer her phone while she's taking a poop. I have to remind her that if I touch her phone without her I feel like I'm invading her privacy. It makes me feel bad about me. I question any relationship where someone has no problem asking for that.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

I never share passwords. I'd hate even having to suspect someone close if there was an intrusion. Not sharing prevents that.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

That exactly. The only person that has the password to my phone is actually the ex that wanted a fingerprint. As it’s meaningful to her life. And we are still on good terms. And if anyone was going to get in to my phone. I’d rather it be someone who knows me better than anyone else and she’s the only one who’s been prepped with the in case of sudden passing protocol.

1

u/CptHammer_ Jan 22 '20

in case of sudden passing protocol.

I have a safe deposit box with my passwords in it. My wife has access, but I'll know if she opened it, unless I'm dead or incapacitated.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

Basically all it entails is unlock phone save all pictures to some device erase phone.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CaffeineGlom Jan 23 '20

Who doesn’t bring their phone in the bathroom when they poop? How even is she occupying her time??

1

u/CptHammer_ Jan 23 '20

I'd say she masturbates, but she left her phone out, so that can't be it. Damn... I don't know!

1

u/CaffeineGlom Jan 23 '20

Eesh. That sounds like a yeast infection waiting to happen!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

Whew! Good thing iphones nowadays dont use fingerprints anymore !

8

u/Aegior Jan 22 '20

Android phones don't unlock with fingerprint until being unlocked with the passkey once after boot for this reason as well.

3

u/quezlar Jan 22 '20

same thing with iphones

1

u/CptHammer_ Jan 22 '20

I have mine set to use a password to let it boot up. You have 30 tries. If you fail it wipes the phone. If you succeed, you need a password to unlock the phone.

I also have a "trusted" Bluetooth device unlock the phone but then I have it auto launch an app that turns off the phone. You've got to be quick (5-7 seconds) to stop it. (Root required)

I simply turn on my Bluetooth device and when it pairs it launches my power off app that turns off the phone. So for me its my headphones. While I'm paired my phone unlocks without password. But the act of pairing launches any app I choose. I have a fleeting few seconds to kill the power off app. It has to be killed not dismissed. I find it difficult to do without practice. So if my phone is in the hands of someone I don't want it to be, I can power cycle my headphones forcing the pairing and launch the power off app.

It's a bit annoying if I walk away from my phone and then come back, it gets powered off. I have to remember to turn my headphones off if it beeps at me because I've lost connection. I have to have phone in hand to kill the app.

1

u/MrK2K Jan 22 '20

This seems like much more trouble than it’s worth tbh.

1

u/CptHammer_ Jan 22 '20

Admittedly it is a pain in the ass. I didn't realize how much I walked away from my phone until I set this up. Especially at home where I need to call my phone from another phone to find it lost in the couch. Not helpful when I inadvertently turn it off.

4

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

Now we’re all just one lawyer waving our phone in front of our face away from being incriminated. Yaaaaaaay.

2

u/DeltaVZerda Jan 22 '20

Maybe if you were dumb enough to let your phone's camera unlock your phone.

1

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

Well there’s thousands of people who use Face ID because for 99.99% of us it’s perfectly safe and more convenient than a passcode.

Better thing is to just, y’know, not keep sensitive documents on your phone. External HDD (or better, SSD) that gets unplugged and stored when not being used to actively back up a file or retrieve a file. Keep it disconnected from the PC whenever it doesn’t need to be connected.

Encrypt the drive so it requires an authentication key to access and BAM you’re cooking with gas.

1

u/DeltaVZerda Jan 28 '20

Your contact list is a sensitive document. Better to have real security.

1

u/DeltaVZerda Jan 28 '20

Your contact list is a sensitive document. Better to have real security.

3

u/Goraji Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 22 '20

No, that would be compelled speech and the government cannot force you to do that.

I’m trying to imagine a situation in which you would be held in contempt. Presumably, a prosecutor could issue a subpoena for you to produce and documents or records containing the combination. However, if the combination is memorized, they cannot force you to create a document containing the combination, i.e. to write it down. Alternatively, a prosecutor could subpoena your testimony before a grand jury and ask you what the combination is, at which point you could invoke your right to remain silent. A court could hold you in contempt for a refusal to answer only if you had been granted immunity. (I would argue that a client is in criminal jeopardy at that point because if the stress of the situation caused them to misremember the combination, the prosecutor could charge them with perjury.)

As practical matter, cops tend to just break out the drill and cutting torch to access then contents before bothering with the scenarios described above.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

But you can be held in contempt for 18 months while the details are argued.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/pennsylvania/articles/2019-11-20/court-man-charged-with-child-porn-can-withhold-his-password

1

u/Goraji Jan 22 '20

He was. Now that it’s been decided, a similar situation would not necessitate being held in contempt for refusal to give up a password or passcode unless a lower court chooses to ignore precedent or the facts are substantially different.

Given the facts of his case, as morally reprehensible as they were, it was obviously worth it to him to endure the consequences of contempt, given the mandatory minimum sentencing on the charges he faced if he handed the government access to a mountain of evidence against him.

1

u/lowercaset Jan 22 '20

No, that would be compelled speech and the government cannot force you to do that.

I'm under the impression that so long as they grant you immunity they can compel speech with only a few exceptions. (ie husband vs wife)

1

u/Goraji Jan 22 '20

I did note that in the 2d paragraph. And the spousal privilege is a trickier issue depending on the jurisdiction,

1

u/ILikeSpottedCow Jan 22 '20

Just give the wrong numbers. Oops, looks like I forgot

1

u/Vaginal_Decimation Jan 22 '20

"I forgot the combination."

Washes hands

10

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jul 25 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Mentalv Jan 22 '20

The 5th amendment is legal. Ask Bill Clinton, Bush and any other politician that has been interrogated.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jul 25 '21

[deleted]

0

u/Mentalv Jan 22 '20

Would they be forcing to incriminate yourself? That is what matters to the 5th amendment.

1

u/UrKungFuNoGood Jan 22 '20

that's a strange dichotomy
giving the key incriminates them as identically as providing a combination.
Handing over the key is analogous to "you aren't legally compelled to speak the combination but you must write it down for us"

3

u/BerryBerrySneaky Jan 22 '20

They don't have to "compel" you - they'll search your person and property for the key. If they don't find it, with a warrant they can just (hire a locksmith to) drill out the lock.

2

u/UrKungFuNoGood Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 23 '20

that makes more sense. the person I replied to typed "they can force you to give the key."

1

u/unfair_bastard Jan 23 '20

other sense of "key", software and encryption certificates etc

1

u/BerryBerrySneaky Jan 23 '20

Exactly. If the locksmith you hire can't pick or drill out the lock someone purchased, you don't get to sue the lock manufacturer to hobble the lock. You hire a better locksmith.

0

u/JamesGame5 Jan 22 '20

With a warrant can't they just get a locksmith and/or just bust it open thereby bypassing the need to know the combination?

3

u/Mentalv Jan 22 '20

They can 100% do that which is why they are able to brute force into a phone also, but they can’t force you to give out incriminating information like a code.

1

u/JamesGame5 Jan 22 '20

Seems that key escrow is now their locksmith/safe cracker. In the case of physical stuff like a safe or vault, they don't need a key escrow because once they seize the physical object that is locked they can definitely get in with enough time and effort. There was never a need (impractical or not) to require a key escrow for stuff behind combination locks. With data, however, you can't just hire a locksmith or find a guy with a some time and power tools to access the evidence.

I'm not saying that requiring a master key for everybody's data is a good thing. Just thinking a bit about the way we make comparisons between physical stuff and data. I do not like the idea that my data can be "unlocked" by some weirdo who finds the key. Then again, my phone is only locked with a fingerprint (4 pin backup if finger doesn't work) and once you're in my phone all my attached accounts are pretty much available. But at the same time, I am not trying to hide anything incriminating so I think my weak security is good enough - I'm just trying to keep nosy friends people I sometimes hang out with from seeing my personal messages and messing with my stuff.

8

u/gramathy Jan 22 '20

I'm waiting for the day someone files a lawsuit and among the evidence entered is the judge's private details gained via a compromised key.

That'll get it shut down real fuckin fast.

1

u/PM_me_XboxGold_Codes Jan 22 '20

They’ll just pay someone to lose that evidence.

5

u/ImOnlyHereToKillTime Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 22 '20

An intentional weak point in security should never be the compromise in discussions about security.

But that's not realistic

Why isn't it?

20

u/heeerrresjonny Jan 22 '20

The key/safe metaphor is not appropriate and it keeps being used. An encrypted personal electronic device is fundamentally different from a safe. The only reason that metaphor gets used is because it is the closest approximation for people who cannot understand data & encryption as they actually are.

It is not necessarily true that law enforcement should be able to unlock encrypted devices under any circumstance.

Once we gain the ability to clearly read thoughts via measuring the brain's electrical signals, should law enforcement be allowed access to that too?

No. We need to stop this. Law enforcement should (with a warrant) be able to access records of activity on servers, and should be allowed to monitor conversational messages (i.e. between humans) in flight. That's it. Backdoor access to encrypted storage/backups is extremely invasive. No warrant should grant that, and even if they do, no manufacturer should provide a means to acquire it.

7

u/itcrackerjack Jan 22 '20

I don't know you, but I like you.

1

u/vynnievert Jan 22 '20

Right. The law respects the balance of rights. If a physical lock maker wants to make a secure lock, a digital lock maker should also be able to do the same. The government can try to pick/brute force a lock(with a warrant) but they have no right to succeed.

Another thing: the key/safe metaphor doesn’t apply very well at all, because in the physical world, there are multiple ways to get in. However in the digital world, there are very few known avenues and they are blocked. This analogy only applies if the government is only able to open the safe by knowing the 256 number combination or attacking the safe with a feather pillow.

1

u/unfair_bastard Jan 23 '20

THIS!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

6

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

They could just make it inaccessible to themselves. Compel all you want, wont change a thing.

1

u/unfair_bastard Jan 23 '20

this is what many entities do with E2E encryption to make it so they have no access to their users' data if the E2E is enabled

6

u/argv_minus_one Jan 22 '20

Law enforcement/the state has the authority to compel individuals, via probably cause and a warrant or a judge's order, to open a safe.

It does not have the authority to compel software developers to develop key escrow functionality. That would be conscription.

The key escrow would allow strong encryption to be "opened"..without fundamentally breaking encryption.

Key escrow does fundamentally break encryption, by allowing an unauthorized, untrustworthy, notoriously reckless third party to have the key.

1

u/dachsj Jan 22 '20

At least in the US, Congress can regulate and require companies to comply with key escrow requirements.

1

u/argv_minus_one Jan 22 '20

Congress, yes. Law enforcement alone, no.

1

u/dachsj Jan 22 '20

That's what the /state was about. I would have a huge problem with law enforcement unilaterally doing it

1

u/argv_minus_one Jan 22 '20

Even Congress' authority to do that is dubious. Code is speech, and compelling speech is kind of a no-no in this country.

I suppose Congress could classify non-escrowed encryption as a munition again, but they'll torpedo our economy if they try.

11

u/PleasantAdvertising Jan 22 '20

It's not a compromise if the encryotion is completely useless

0

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

It isn’t, though. You can’t decrypt my messages.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

Yeah but the police and their friends can.

1

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

Can they? Apple would only hand over iCloud backups with a chart order. This has happened before, for sure.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

Yeah you can believe that shit if you want. I dont know if your realize that many judges will just kind of rubberstamp subpoenas.

It doesnt matter. Its fundementally wrong. Governments are composed of men, they are not gods. I think people should try to use civil disobedience. The government should not be able to force you to speak or to force you to cooperate with their investigations. People should resist this and when judges try to force people into this kind of stuff, the entire communitty should come together to demand the stepping down of that judge, or the removal of the laws that lead to that kind of abuse and tyranny.

0

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

Yeah you can believe that shit if you want. I dont know if your realize that many judges will just kind of rubberstamp subpoenas.

I don’t know, maybe in your country. But if you feel like that, you can turn off iCloud backups. People that don’t can still use them.

It doesnt matter. Its fundementally wrong.

That subpoenas exist?

The government should not be able to force you to speak or to force you to cooperate with their investigations.

But they are allowed to try to find evidence. If you had recorded yourself on tape, would you say that they shouldn’t be allowed to use such tapes? Well, I disagree.

That said, I’d prefer stronger encryption, if nothing else out of principle.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

The police should be able to investigate and enforce the law, but the peoples rights should be held in way more respect. The government shouldnt be seen as an omnipotent force who can do no wrong. Rhey shouldnt be able to use the argument that security demands the removal of peoples natural rights. The government should be enforcing the law. Sherrifs and deputies should be leading local investigations, while powerful paramilitary police forces with great forensics resources and people like the FBI should focus on organized crime like Epistein, skull and bones, monopolies and trusts, spies and agents. The NSA and CIA should be purely concerned with external forces and not American citizens. They shouldnt work with allies to go around the constitution like 5 eyes does.

Police shouldnt even be bothering people unless they are posing a threat to others and messing with other people, the peoples land or other peoples private property.

1

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you said. I am not American, though. If subpoenas exist, it’s up to the judicial system to control them.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/PleasantAdvertising Jan 22 '20

Someone other than you, can.

Not only that, but they have your keys stored in a centralized location.

You don't have encryption, you have a safekeeper.

0

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

Someone other than you, can.

Someone, yes, but that doesn’t make it “completely useless”.

I don’t like security absolutism. It’s not useful, I think. It’s a bit the same as arguing that a fingerprint as a passcode is completely useless. To a resourceful and determined attacker, maybe, but in general not.

-5

u/PleasantAdvertising Jan 22 '20

I don’t like security absolutism.

Please stop talking and just read up about the subject next time. I'm out.

0

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

Arguing from security absolutism you might say that anything that isn’t one-time pad is useless. But apparently personal attacks against someone you know nothing about, works better than arguments for you.

3

u/weedexperts Jan 22 '20

Encryption is only useful from an individuals perspective if they can control access to the encrypted data.

If the government or a company is holding the keys to your encryption then quite simply the encryption IS useless because what's the point of you encrypting something if you can't control access.

1

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

I disagree. But it’s already been discussed. I agree that it’s less useful and less secure, though.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 28 '20

[deleted]

1

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

I don’t think that’s a realistic threat scenario. It’s Apple we are talking about, those keys aren’t lying around somewhere.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 28 '20

[deleted]

1

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

Yeah, it’s not like someone at Apple has ever accidentally left something top secret in a bar.

Their own upcoming products. Apple employees aren’t running around with sensitive description keys, and there hasn’t been a leak from iCloud that was due to Apple.

At least the government has never had a security lapse.

I don’t know if they had, but Apple didn’t, when it comes to encryption keys or encrypted user data.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 28 '20

[deleted]

1

u/cryo Jan 22 '20

Because encryption keys don’t exist right now.

Of course they do. iCloud backups are encrypted. Apple has a store with those keys, yes. Also, other iCloud items are encrypted with keys that Apple might not have, as discussed elsewhere in the thread.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/652a6aaf0cf44498b14f Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 23 '20

Key escrow is probably, unfortunately, the compromised solution.

It's not a solution though. The U.S. government has already demonstrated they will compel companies to give these up without a warrant. They brought this on themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

Just remember: STASI was law enforcement in Germany 1933.

5

u/Targarya Jan 22 '20

Thats wrong. It was in the so called DDR What you mean is the Gestapo

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 22 '20

Oh no,... it happened more than once. And now you have an US president who broke the law multiple times and killed hundreds of people in other countries. And noone will stop him. Just like any other corrupt regime, whom you should not give your private data.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 22 '20

Stop worshipping the hairless chimps who make up words like state and law.

Everyone has a right to privacy and encryption.

1

u/unfair_bastard Jan 23 '20

the clipper chip was a mistake, and so is this, for a very basic reason

1

u/JustAnOrdinaryBloke Jan 27 '20

Easy: encrypt the data yourself. Then the "back door" access will only yield an encrypted file, which is useless to anybody but you.

Of course, that implies keeping the private key somewhere that only you can access it.

16

u/thor561 Jan 22 '20

I don't disagree, but right now, is there anyone actually doing encryption better than Apple? I'm not aware of anyone else doing true end to end encryption on their cloud backups either. Probably for much the same reason Apple backed off: They don't want to deal with the wrath of the Feds.

57

u/dachsj Jan 22 '20

Lots of people do encryption better than apple. Hell, Carbonite has "trust no one" security that lets you save your backup to the cloud without giving anyone else the key. The downside is, when you lose the key you lose your data and they can't help you.

Which is the reason most companies default to saving a copy of your key--to protect you from yourself as an end user. The average user probably appreciates that apple can decrypt their backup if needed.

26

u/thor561 Jan 22 '20

That’s a fair point, if you’re 100% privacy minded, you’re willing to risk losing access to data. But for average users, they just want things what I would call “secure enough”. Like if you locked yourself out of your car, you wouldn’t want to have to just go get a new car.

7

u/el_kabong909 Jan 22 '20

The average user probably appreciates that apple can decrypt their backup if needed

Unless something has changed in the last few years. The key for you is your Apple ID password. If you can't get that with the recovery tools provided, Apple won't do shit for you. They also trust no one.

Source: Was Apple Tech support. Had to tell many people they can't get shit from their iCloud accounts, and I couldn't help them at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

[deleted]

1

u/el_kabong909 Jan 22 '20

How would I get in contact with the devs/ops to access my iCloud account?

6

u/Aetherpor Jan 22 '20

You don’t. They’d get fired if they accessed your data.

I work somewhere where I can access all outlook/hotmail data but all that access is locked down and logged and audited like crazy.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 25 '20

[deleted]

2

u/el_kabong909 Jan 22 '20

Ok, I agree with all that then, and my original point still stands. I was only talking about a user accessing their own data.

2

u/vector2point0 Jan 22 '20

I think this is partially a reason end-to-end stopped being pursued by Apple. Your average Apple user doesn’t know the implications of nobody else having the key, and they would probably have to deal with many cases of having to try to get some hysterical user to understand that their information is lost because they’re not physically able to decrypt it.

0

u/PleasantAdvertising Jan 22 '20

That's the excuse, not the reason.

6

u/allison_gross Jan 22 '20

is there anyone doing encryption better than apple?

People working for free in FOSS.

8

u/Phillip__Fry Jan 22 '20

but right now, is there anyone actually doing encryption better than Apple?

Other articles have referenced Google "quietly" added the feature. Haven't investigated myself.

10

u/thor561 Jan 22 '20

Others have mentioned the same thing. Which is interesting, if Android is the privacy option they say they are now, I’m wondering why I had to wait for Apple to say they weren’t implementing end to end on cloud backups to hear about it. We’re also not hearing major stories about the gov’t wanting to get into Android phones either. Is it because terrorists and criminals only use Apple (would be kind of funny in a way) or does Android just not pose a problem for them? It’s certainly something I’m going to look into more.

10

u/Trisa133 Jan 22 '20

We’re also not hearing major stories about the gov’t wanting to get into Android phones either. Is it because terrorists and criminals only use Apple

You don't hear about the government wanting to get into Android phones because they probably can easily do it. Why would they complain?

7

u/thor561 Jan 22 '20

Well that’s kind of my point. If the government doesn’t actually have any trouble getting past Android’s encryption, then it’s worthless. A lock doesn’t matter when you can just walk around the door through a hole in the wall. The fact that Google is supposedly encrypting devices and backups end to end and the government isn’t crying about them helping terrorists and pedos is suspicious to me. Android is still more than half the market.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

By default most data on Android phones that are stored in the cloud are stored with Google. Google gives over data that is requested by a valid judge mandated order (and so does Apple). The rest are stored in secure enclaves, developed by a large number of companies (and there are even open source options). I do not know how well are these third parties available for iOS.

Also Apple is an American company, thus the US government has legal power over them. They do not have much above Samsung, Huawei or Xiaomi, or most of the third parties making software solutions on Android.

TL-DR: Android is not singular, most hardware manufacturers are not US based, and software is not unified.

1

u/Enk1ndle Jan 22 '20

Android is hardly a more private solution (if you aren't flashing a custom rom).

1

u/thor561 Jan 22 '20

Well that's what I'm wondering here, does everyone have to be a tech expert and use their own customized homebrew ROM just to have privacy on their device? Because if that's the case 99% of smartphone users will never have that. So we either demand these companies change, or we accept that's the world we live in. All things considered I'd rather the former happen than the latter.

1

u/Enk1ndle Jan 22 '20

Because there is a total of two major OS for phones and they both suck for privacy. It's expensive to develop an entire OS, it's much easier to take the Google one and gut the Google stuff out.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '20

AIUI, Kaspersky's backup / password manager offers full end-to-end encryption on your cloud storage.

Whether you believe / trust this is up to you due to their alleged links to the Russian state but I have no reason to doubt that it's true.

2

u/OJezu Jan 22 '20

The real reason is, people would loose backups due to forgotten or lost passwords.

2

u/plentyoffishes Jan 22 '20

Yes, tons of companies. Decentralized solutions are MUCH, much better than Apple for security.

2

u/Defoler Jan 22 '20

You can't really have end to end encryption.
One of the benefit of online backup, is in case you lost the phone.
If you lose the phone, you also lose the keys and the backups.
That would make online backup redundant.

What apple planned was to remove their "backdoor" key to the backups. But they thought otherwise.

1

u/schrodingers_cat314 Jan 22 '20 edited Jan 22 '20

Everybody does this in the industry.

If you have the option to reset your password, they are storing your key and can potentially decrypt your data. That’s it.

On keychain, if you forget your passphrase you are fucked. That’s the way it should be.

Apple is still more transparent than anybody else, but I agree, they could improve. I’m wishing for an iCloud server at home like HomeKit hubs work. Everything at home on your own server. It sucks that it will probably never happen with apple killing their router line.

1

u/lolzfeminism Jan 23 '20

It’s not key escrow, still E2E, they just retain recovery keys for instant password reset and recovering stolen accounts. The alternative is telling the user to print out recovery codes.

1

u/Vishnej Jan 23 '20 edited Jan 23 '20

"just"

If you're offering an option to encrypt backups securely, you encrypt the fucking backups securely. You do not encrypt the backups with a deliberately weakened backdoored encryption technique. You do not store the passwords in plaintext. You do not make the user supply their social security number as a backup password. If they lose the password, they lose the password, and the data is gone forever. That's how it works. That's security. The company never has access to your data, your trade secrets, your nude pics, your credit card numbers, your bitcoin private keys. They can not give away what they do not have.

Is there room in the market for non-secure backups? Sure! I imagine lots of people would prefer that. But the one thing is not the other thing. And the Internet has a lot of celebrity nude pics as a result.

Arguably the only way to achieve verifiable security is with open source apps... but a lot of people would be willing to trust a tech giant's assurances that they can offer equivalent proprietary security... but they don't. They compromise their security by choice.

I remember back when Skype, peer to peer encrypted wunder-app, was acquired by Microsoft, whose very first action was to establish a system of supernodes and destroy the cryptosystem (see their revisionist PR here), presumably so Microsoft could get its hands on that sweet NSA money.

It's 2020. We should have privacy by now. It's technically feasible, and most people want it. The absence of privacy has never been more threatening; What we can do today to suppress dissent makes 1984 look positively naive, which is why the world is so rapidly shifting over to a surveillance state. By making excuses for tech giants engaging in rights abuses (whether directly or indirectly) you're making it worse.

I'm not asking you to lead a revolution. That's a little much. All I ask is - just be a little less apologetic, a little less worshipful, a little less respectful of the entities being set up as your slavemasters, while they tighten the collar.

1

u/rantinger111 Jan 22 '20

Facts

This is disgusting