| Author | Message | ||
     Thumper74 |
Froggy, I have encrpyted my Note 5 from prying eyes, ie theft, police during random traffic stops (http://thenextweb.com/us/2011/04/20/us-police-can- copy-your-iphones-contents-in-under-two-minutes/#g ref) and (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp), etc. Thoughts on TOR browsers on phones to protect data being sent to and from? I had read that TOR browsers might make you MORE of a target for investigation as they are working on the assumption that you're up to something shifty. | ||
| Aesquire |
Simply using encryption or seeming to use any means to protect your privacy is suspicious. After all, how many times have you heard "if you've got nothing to hide"??? That statement is bogus. Every adult in the country has broken some federal regulation or law. There literally is no way to avoid every regulation since we have over two centuries of overlapping and contradictory laws. Afaik no temporary state of emergency has ever been cancelled. Did you break a law about dealing with a Spanish national? Some rule signed by Nixon? FDR? The Patriot Act? Hoover? Lincoln? Bet you have. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The US government put themselves in the position that they now find themselves in. They employed some very underhanded tactics to break into all sorts of communications. Snowden leaked the whole mess. Some above board, like sweetheart deals with security product companies and agreed upon back doors, others below board like rented space in data centers attaching listening equipment to communication lines they didn't own. Snowden leaked information about a lot of t his, which painted a picture of an agency out of control. On top of that, you have government agencies telling companies that they have to "do things", and that they can't ever tell anyone that they are being forced to "do things", and the only "appeal" is to the same secret court that granted the request in the first place and OK'd the whole mess. My personal opinion? If they had done what they did more transparently, perhaps it would be OK. Or if they had done less but not been transparent, perhaps it would be OK. But what they were doing really did cross many lines. So that resulted in the collapse of the EU safe harbor rules for doing business in the US, meaning that many US firms doing business in other countries now were not allowed to move data on EU citizens to the US. Which was a mess with architectures everywhere, and could cause a lot of wasted money moving business away from US technology companies and over to EU technology companies (which was no doubt one of the core secret objectives of blowing up the safe harbor rules). The whole thing became such a mess that Apple did the one thing it could do. The only way to not comply with some secret "corporate government death squad" request from some secret court was to truthfully say "I won't decrypt it, because I can't decrypt it". In short, you build a system that even you can't break. That's where we are now. The government, getting to the heart of the issue, is saying "if we can't force you to decrypt something you made to not be decryptable, we will force you to not be able to make something that can't be decrypted". Which is as stupid as it sounds, but at least we are getting to the real issue now. In this case, I think it is a strawman. As Hoot points out, if the government is in physical control of the device, they *can* decrypt it, but it might be really expensive and take a lot of specialized hardware and software. There is one other weird aspect to this case also. The phone was actually paid for by the state of california, as the coward worked for them. The state has given permission for the phone to be cracked. I think that's the real reason they are going after this one, as it lets them force the "create a cost effective back door" with far fewer messy constitutional questions about privacy. The fact that the shooter was a dick takes a lot of the emotional wind out of the sails too. So it's the perfect case for them to try and set precedent. Basically, what it boils down too, is that the US government was a bully, and as a result, the companies building these things used pretty extreme measures to protect themselves where the rule of law apparently failed them. I get the whole privacy versus security trade off, and think it has to be a trade off. I'm fine with that. But when it is being adjucated by secret courts and and the victims of government action can't even acknolwedge that they are being forced to do things, the whole thing fails on face value. If we have to do something awful, we should be *very* public about why we do it, when we do it, why it was awful, and when we will do it again. (Disclaimer: I've been following this, but not studying or vetting it all, so what is above is my current perception of the issue, and is not sufficiently detailed, and likely contains significant factual errors) | ||
| Aesquire |
Wasn't it Wisconsin where a prosecutor decided to steal property. .... sieze computers & records, from political "enemies" aka conservatives, & issue a gag order forbidding the victims from telling anyone what happened? Including their neighbors who watched as heavily armed police kicked doors.... | ||
| Froggy |
Honestly I wouldn't use TOR, main reason is that it sucks to be honest. Performance is slow, and its not very secure anymore. While there are legit uses for it, it seems to be so heavily used by shady folks it is basically painting a target on your back. I recommend setting up a VPN instead. Works basically the same way as TOR, your traffic is encrypted, and a VPN will protect all your data, not just the webpages you view in a browser. Make sure you get one that does not keep logs if privacy is a concern. Edit- Also one thing to know should you ever be on the wrong side of an investigation, you can be legally compelled to unlock the phone if you use fingerprint/iris scanner/etc. The law views it no differently than providing DNA, but they cannot force you to give up a password to unlock the device. (Message edited by Froggy on February 23, 2016) | ||
| Airbozo |
I think most people are missing the point here. The FBI is not asking Apple to crack the phone. They are asking them to rewrite a piece of software code that disables a security feature (a limit on the number of times you can enter a bad password before the data is erased) in the OS, load it on the phone and give it back to them so they (the FBI) can crack the phone. This would give the FBI (and anyone in possession of that code) the ability to disable that security feature on any iphone in their possession, allowing them to perform a brute force attack on the password. Apple knows that once this code is written, it will end up in the hands of the general public because of the history of their company and the federal governments ability to keep secrets. | ||
| Hootowl |
I'm curious how they intend to load this software onto the phone if they can't unlock it. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I am pretty sure, if he called anyone during the attack, ... they were probably called before, and the previous icloud backups would show that wouldn't they?? ... If so, how many backups can the fbi obtain?? Can they go back more than just the last one? I hope they crack it and find something. | ||
| Sifo |
I understand that he had his own phone, as in not a government issued phone. I understand that he destroyed this phone before the attack. I'm guessing that the phone they want cracked wasn't used to contact any of his terrorist cohorts anyway. This is all kabuki theater. I'm pretty sure this is just a case that the government can make sound important, and where there are no real objectors based on privacy issues from the owner of the phone (owner would be the state of CA). It's the perfect excuse to force Apple to provide a key to their products. A key that could be used in cases where there would be real objections. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Smoke, mirrors and misdirection. Airbozo touched on it. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Is it just as hard to break into Android phones?? | ||
| Brighton |
Xdigitalx asked Is it just as hard to break into Android phones?? Android came from Linux and is Open Source for the most part. So I wouldn't be surprised if the tools the F.B.I. is asking from Apple already exist for Android. But I don't know, it's just my guess. | ||
| Brighton |
- !!! CONSCRIPTION !!! Suppose you were a developer at Apple and you were asked to develop this tool that the F.B.I. wants. And suppose the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment were very important to you. This issue was VERY important to you. So when Apple is forced to comply, you're asked to participate because you are the developer or mathematician that helped developed the original modules. In fact, you took the job at Apple specifically because of their stance on this. You refuse to participate. Can you refuse? Now what? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I suppose someone from Apple, or some other engineer(s) could work 24/7 for a few months/years at taxpayers expense to break the code or write into a backdoor. Somebody like Snowden?? | ||
| Brighton |
It turns out there are other agencies with confiscated encrypted iPhones that are viewing this case as their way to get a copy of whatever the F.B.I. gets from Apple. This is now looking like a for-real backdoor solution as opposed to a unique solution for that one iPhone in San Bernadino. What happens when China wants a copy to "save" their country from dissidents? Maybe they won't even have to ask the F.B.I. or Apple for it. It'll be for sale somewhere by then. And if it can be installed as part of an over-the-air update, then talk about malware! - | ||
| Reepicheep |
In theory the Android encryption could be just as strong as IOS encryption, but it all comes down to the details of the implementation. I haven't done much research to know how strong the Android encryption is in practice. I turned it on for my Nexus tablet, and it looked fairly solid for a powered off device. But for a sleeping device, I don't know what kind of lock / wipe features were lurking and what kind of hardware protections were in place. | ||
| Brighton |
Reepicheep Whether the Android (Google) encryption algorithm is as strong as IOS encryption might not be the question as far as this case is concerned. It's whether it is as hard to modify Android to accept unlimited password attempts without any pauses in between attempts. Attempts will come at nanoseconds, requiring MUCH less time to brute-force login to the device. The encryption algorithm is not broken, the devices' logon-password is broken. Which might be easier to do on Android since it is somewhat OpenSource. - - | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Well, this sure stirs the pot a bit... http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-a pple-china-20160226-story.html | ||
| Rick_a |
This thread prompted me to look into these alleged celebrity hacks. Good lord nothing is sacred!  | ||
| Sifo |
Well, this sure stirs the pot a bit... http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-a pple-china-20160226-story.html I'm not sure how you think it stirs the pot much. I know people are trying to claim hypocrisy on Apple's part, but this is what you get when you do business in multiple countries. From the article...
So should Apple comply with local governments? Should they refuse to do business in countries that don't respect an individual's rights? The issue to me isn't that Apple does things differently in different countries. The issue is what our government is trying to do in our country. It seem that right now, they are trying to get a door into Apple's technology in order to become more like China's government. When this happens, we need to take a stand against our government. Who really wants the US to become more like China in these regards? (Message edited by SIFO on February 27, 2016) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://anonhq.com/we-just-found-out-the-real-reaso n-the-fbi-wants-a-backdoor-into-the-iphone/ http://theantimedia.org/mcafee-i-will-decrypt-info rmation-on-the-san-bernardino-phone-for-free/ http://www.wsj.com/article_email/justice-departmen t-seeks-to-force-apple-to-extract-data-from-about- 12-other-iphones-1456202213-lMyQjAxMTI2MjIzMzMyMTM wWj After much consideration, I've decided that the FBI is wrong here. That Apple, a company I don't even like, is in the right, and correctly states that to comply with a court order telling them to create a tool for evil, will ruin their reputation. It would also ruin any hope that any of you perverts out there would not be outed for the furry porn on your phones. Just imagine... you are called in to court as a witness, or a victim, or an accused criminal. The lawyer for the government would be crazy, and lazy, if he hadn't already had the contents of your Facebook page and phone available to be used against you. If you have insufficient imagination to understand this.... just assume you will get the same understanding, and legal rights, as a typical North Korean peasant accused of treason. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.pjtv.com/series/trifecta-105/should-the -fbi-encroach-on-apples-encryption-11816/ | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/21/fbi-may-hav e-found-way-to-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iph one.html Hmm. Break it offline? Or...conspiracy theory...apple is the mysterious third party and have come to an agreement with fbi. Like fbi made them an offer they can't refuse. | ||
| Aesquire |
How about they already hacked the phone but still want that back door so they can see into all phones. | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/28/fbi-breaks- into-san-bernardino-gunmans-iphone-without-apples- help-ending-court-case.html So much for that. I suspect the third party was NSA. Hate to say I told you so, but...I told you so. | ||
| Brighton |
It could be that a third party can break in. Or it could be that the F.B.I. decided not to force the issue at this time: this was a way to leave the issue undecided, perhaps until a time when they will have a better chance. The majority of public opinion was tending against the F.B.I. on this matter. Even former NSA and CIA chief, 4-star general Michael Hayden, said that Apple is right on the bigger issue of encryption back door. Hayden went so far as to specifically call out FBI Director Jim Comey in his comments. "In this specific case, I’m trending toward the government, but I’ve got to tell you in general I oppose the government’s effort, personified by FBI Director Jim Comey. Jim would like a back door available to American law enforcement in all devices globally. And, frankly, I think on balance that actually harms American safety and security, even though it might make Jim’s job a bit easier in some specific circumstances." “When you step back and look at the whole question of American security and safety writ large, we are a safer, more secure nation without back doors,” he says. With them, “a lot of other people would take advantage of it.” - | ||
| Hootowl |
Could be? They got in. There's no could be. | ||
| Court |
Mossad | ||
| Hootowl |
That would not surprise me one bit. Lots of tech innovation coming out of Israel, especially in the security space. |
