Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 03:39am PT
|
"ISIS" magically appears out of the sand with billions of dollars and simultaneously attacks every major world power (except Israel).
ISIS did not 'magically' appear out of the sand and didn't and doesn't have billions of dollars. Where do you get this sort of nonsense from? Have you really been following along with events in the ME for the past twenty years? If you had it wouldn't be any sort of mystery how ISIS came into being.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 08:03am PT
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 23, 2016 - 09:01am PT
Lorenzo,
the reference you gave does not substantiate this statement:
Among the people who's phone security was breached was FBI Director James Comey.
The reference says:
FBI Director James Comey called the hacks an "enormous breach," saying his own data were stolen.
It would seem more factual if could leave a complete and accurate paper trail as I find no reference to his iphone.
It was in the first publishing of the first article version I saw, afterwards deleted in the link I gave.
But Comey did say so when it happened, as this screen shot shows, including the part about the "enormity " of the breach.
Give me your home address and I'll see if the Washington Post will send you the paper copy you want COD.
|
|
Trashman
Trad climber
SLC
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 08:16am PT
|
So in response to this Apple is apparently working on a feature in its next OS to have the "secure enclave" ignore any over rides/updates. As one story called it, a software that's been told to ignore all external inputs.
And that, kids, is how we got skynet.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 08:20am PT
|
And that, kids, is how we got skynet.
No doubt the FBI will sue it, too.
If only Sara Connor hadn't forgotten her passcode...
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 08:26am PT
|
It's an election year.
There is plenty of demand for mass hysteria.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 11:02am PT
|
And that, kids, is how we got skynet.
You either don't have firm grasp on what is being described by apple or a poor understanding of skynet. It's all a pretty simple proposition:
A) you're for your phone being hackable
or
B) you'd prefer what's on your phone to be private
Where it's not so simple is if someone's phone has information on it regarding a small nuke with a gps trigger buried in the stacks of an unknown container ship bound for a dock in Los Angeles or Newark.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 12:11pm PT
|
Where I get lost, is where no one explains how much more secure and safe we are today, than we were 10 years ago, when such encryption did not exist?
I don't feel safer. Most people don't.
I think I fear the big companies a lot more than our gov't.
But then, I think Apple already has a backdoor. No business entity gives up such power totally, and permanently. Also, there is no way to know what the Hacktivist Community might come up with.....they just extorted money from a hospital here in LA, where they shut down their computer system, and the only way to recover was to pay, so they did, and the system was restored.
Why not do the same thing with your phone.....and Apple could do....nothing, same as the hospital system. Would Apple leave themselves open to that????
Would you?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 01:12pm PT
|
A) I think Apple already has a backdoor.
B) No business entity gives up such power totally, and permanently.
C) Also, there is no way to know what the Hacktivist Community might come up with....
A) Apple doesn't have a backdoor - that's the whole point.
B) Generic, power-related memes are pretty irrelevant to the conversation.
C) The hacktivist community, the NSA and apple are all bound and constrained by the same mathematical realities as everyone else. So unless they can come up with magical fairie dust which allows someone to guess the right passcode in under ten tries then they're all sh#t out of luck.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 01:27pm PT
|
A) Apple doesn't have a backdoor - that's the whole point.
B) Generic, power-related memes are pretty irrelevant to the conversation.
C) The hacktivist community, the NSA and apple are all bound and constrained by the same mathematical realities as everyone else. So unless they can come up with magical fairie dust which allows someone to guess the right passcode in under ten tries then they're all sh#t out of luck.
A) I think they do. I think they told Federal officers that they did not, and if they do, they have committed a felony.
B)?
C) Yes they are, which is why I would never create a product that I could not access very secretly "just in case". The point is, you don't know what you don't know. People are creative, particularly in this field.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 01:39pm PT
|
Dingus, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I would point out that in this specific case, the owner of the phone is not being protected, the owner wants the phone opened. Someone OTHER than the owner used the phone in a commission of a terrorist assault, and the owner wants the info out there.
Most of the things that you talk about fearing happening, is by the very companies that you are working to protect. Those companies now have a tool that will protect them from ANY regulators or courts trying to deal with abuse.
Take insider trading, which is one of the greatest dangers of manipulation of the markets, with the ability to crash our economy. We have now handed to insiders, the ability to hide the activity. No feds involved in this stealing of your money. No warrant can find the evidence, which is a simple phone call.
Your discussion of security of medical records misses the entire issue---it is the CORPORATIONS that are doing the abuses, NOT the gov't.
This entire process GIVES MORE POWER TO CORPORATIONS, not TO THE GOVT.
Gov't access by way of courts only takes us back to the state of things 10 years ago. I am largely satisfied with the process of giving the gov't the power to look at things by way of court orders. I am NOT happy about anything that empowers corporations beyond the ability of gov't to regulate. History tells me that corporations will ALWAYS abuse that power.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 02:14pm PT
|
History tells me government will always abuse that power, too. Where does that leave us?
Richard Nixon, the executive officer of the Gov't, said that his personal recordings were his own property, and could not be heard by anybody else.
The Supreme Court held (9-0), that he was wrong.
the gov't TRIED to abuse the power, but the power of the courts protected us.
Today, all a president would have to do is put the info on a phone, and YOU would be SOL.
So it leaves us with a system with a relatively objective arbiter: The courts.
It is not an infallible system, but it protects everybody.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
|
This case presents a great number of legal conundrums (conundra?). Apple's arguments involve concerns that benefit its business, but they wrap them around issues that really do affect the public generally. The irony, to me, remains that the government screwed up when it recovered the iphone, so now they're trying to compel Apple to fix their problem.
It reminds me of a sign that I used to see at the clerk's office of the local Bankruptcy Court: "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part." Normally, to obtain an injunction, the plaintiff must show more than mere irreparable injury. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that it comes to court with "clean hands." While I'm not sure that the government is subject to the clean hands doctrine, this self-inflicted wound makes me wonder how the court would balance the equities.
I, too, have wondered whether Apple really has a "back door," but if Apple lacked that back door, why is it fighting so hard? It could simply say that what the government requests is impossible, and let the government try to prove that Apple is wrong.
I'm always skeptical when a defendant claims to be acting on behalf of the general public, and this case is no different. Nonetheless, the legal issues are so interesting, I find it irresistable to follow the developments with bated breath.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 02:31pm PT
|
Richard Nixon, the executive officer of the Gov't, said that his personal recordings were his own property, and could not be heard by anybody else.
The Supreme Court held (9-0), that he was wrong.
The inherent problem with limited government is that the limits ultimately depend on voluntary adherence to the law by those in power. Nixon, for all his flaws, allowed the SCOTUS to decide the issue of the custody of the tapes in a meaningful way, and chose to abide by that decision.
in contrast, Hillary Clinton and the IRS have done everything possible to inhibit Congress in seeking to recover information to which Congress has a clear right under U.S. v. Nixon. It's rather like Andrew Jackson when the Supreme Court ruled against his administration in favor of Native Americans "The Supreme Court made its decision. Now let them [try to] enforce it."
The law is only as good as its government's obedience to it. Too many countries have governments where the words of the law mean only what those in power say they mean.
John
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 03:44pm PT
|
Here's a good article on why the FBI's position is dangerous overreach.
Good article, Spiny.
The All Writs act as interpreted by the FBI is basically
" if we want something, you gotta provide it."
Democracy in action.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 03:55pm PT
|
Just because I borrow a brief case from you, put some of my personal files in it, and then lock it... doesn't mean for a microsecond that you own my content and have a right to it however you may please. That's my position on this cell phone - it is a digital container, as a briefcase is a paper container. The data on my phone is mine. Its not Apple's. Its not Verizons. Its not the credit card company's. Its not my internet provider's. Its not my medical provider's. Its not the police's data. Its not the court's data. Its my data. It is a part of who I am, in this modern world and I am entitled to protect it.
Cheers
DMT
But if I loan (or sell) you my briefcase, then you go out and shoot dozens of people, possibly leaving evidence of unidentified accomplices in that briefcase, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd give police the spare key, I'd let them turn my whole house upside down looking for it, screw your privacy.
I think Apple is afraid to admit how easy it would be for them to break this supposedly secure phone. Their argument is a business decision, the public interest angle is bogus. The idea that their secret software would somehow fly itself to Russia or China would suggest a complete absence of basic corporate security.
I have some concerns about the misuse of uncrackable encryption, but I have huge concerns about mandated backdoors pre-installed into software. Those are both red-herrings in this case, since neither is involved.
TE
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 04:45pm PT
|
The cell service company collects info on phone numbers called and texted to and from. Aside from that, on the phone itself, there could be a history of texts, but not recorded calls. There could be contacts as well, but that would also be evident from the cell provider. In other words, unless the culprit was an idiot, the cell provider can provide most of the meaningful info.
I don't see why the FBI really needs the phone except for they want it all.
Check this thread out on the ATT forum:
https://forums.att.com/t5/Wireless-Account-Questions/Does-the-AT-amp-T-phone-statement-show-which-numbers-you-ve/td-p/2790431
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 06:28pm PT
|
A) I think they do.
You can have all the conspiratorial wonderment you like, but not having a back donor is the whole point of apple's current security efforts. They avoid an ocean of legal problems and costs by the simple approach they've taken and that is based on there being no back doors.
And the Feds aren't asking for a backdoor, they're asking for passcode try limit to be disabled so they can try to brute force the code.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2016 - 07:02pm PT
|
Apple don't like that backdoor actchin
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!