[acqq]

> Here's hoping that the iPhone 7 has a secure enclave that either 1.) deletes keys on firmware flash, or 2.) doesn't allow it to be upgraded ever.

If you hope for that, consider the legal base on which FBI made the current request: All Writs Act, which is, in full:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act

"(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction."

Note it's not any kind of law that regulates any form of encryption or communication security, a lot of laws with such topics were fought through the years! It's just "we can demand anything we want."

Then consider how long such Secure Enclave will last if this precedent on such use of this Act is now to be made.

[zer01]

I agree that it would be upsetting if precedent was made, but I believe it is technically feasible to build a device whose keys are only known by an end user. The FBI is basically asking to go down legitimate update channels to brute force their pass-code, and while that's still a feasible option, of course the FBI is going to ask to use it. Updating the security model of the secure enclave to either destroy keys on flash or disable the flashing mechanism all-together would render the ability outside of even apple's reach, then it goes back down to a question of if you can be compelled to give up your encryption pass-phrase, which I believe precedent has already been set on (please correct me if I'm wrong).

As an aside it bugs me to a fairly large degree that we still attempt to apply very old laws to something they were never designed to address the things we put in front of it. It feels very akin to trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.

Ever play with a wifi pineapple? Ever build one yourself? Congrats! You broke a federal wiretapping statute!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2512

[plorg]

The age of the law should not be an indicator of how applicative it is. Consider that the All Writs Act was written at essentially the same time as the fourth ammendment. Similarly, it appears to be written broadly with the very intent that it can be applied in many circumstances.

What has changed in the past 2 centuries is the way the law is interpreted by the courts. And if this case keeps going it will probably be another that defines what the limits of that law.

If there is something you should be concerned about with All Writs it is not its age but its scope. Unless Congress provides a more specific legal framework (which we have seen in a number of other technical cases, for good or, often, ill), it will continue to be decided by judges and justices.

[acqq]

> I believe precedent has already been set on (please correct me if I'm wrong).

No, as far as I understand, this now would be a new and dangerous precedent:

Nobody was ever asked to alter their product using All Writs.

That's what's here all about.