Slashdot Mirror
Want to Keep Messages From the Feds? Use iMessage
According to an report at CNET, "Encryption used in Apple's iMessage chat service has stymied attempts by federal drug enforcement agents to eavesdrop on suspects' conversations, an internal government document reveals. An internal Drug Enforcement Administration document seen by CNET discusses a February 2013 criminal investigation and warns that because of the use of encryption, 'it is impossible to intercept iMessages between two Apple devices' even with a court order approved by a federal judge."
The article goes on to talk about ways in which the U.S. government is pressuring companies to leave peepholes for law enforcement in just such apps, and provides some insight into why the proprietary iMessage is (but might not always be) a problem for eavesdroppers, even ones with badges. Adds reader adeelarshad82, "It turns out that encryption is only half of the problem while the real issue lies in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which was passed in 1994.
If I had just figured out how to eavesdrop on imessages, this is JUST the sort of thing I would make public....
... is also known as a "police state."
A security hole left open for the good guys is also a security hole left open for the bad guys.
When I see terrorists in skinny jeans, ironic tshirts and wayfarers, on their iPhones plotting the demise of the Great Satan, then I'll worry.
It could just be something that CBS told them to print. I don't trust a word they say now.
Hey, I'd like to buy some of those drugs. Hit me up on iMessage at 407-TOTALLY-NOT-A-COP.
Long signatures suck.
iMessage keeps messages secret from the carrier, but it can't keep the messages secret from the feds.
Apple has to be able to know the user's private key to allow them to log in new devices, at least when the user logs into Apple using their Apple password. And therefore, with a warrant, so can the police.
Now Apple could use a technique where your password is hashed one way to create your iMessage key, and hashed a different way to be sent to Apple for logging in. But this doen't seem likely, as a login to iCloud (using a user's apple Password) on the web interface sends the password to Apple where its hashed on their end for login validation. So unless the iPhone/Mac iCloud login uses a different technique, Apple must (at a minimum) be able to access the user's iMessage key when the user logs into Apple.
And its far more likely that Apple (and therefore the police with a search warrant) can get the user's iMessage key whenever they want.
Test your net with Netalyzr
PGP all over again. BAN it, it must be evil! How could someone expect to talk to their friends and family without being in the clear for anyone to see. The nerve.
If you believe, even for a second, that the feds can't read iMessages, you are just the deathstick dealer they are looking for.
Y'all know about this, right?
Here a money quote from an article in Wired:
Yeah... that really fits in perfectly with "can't read iMessages", lol.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Don't rely on closed source to keep your secrets. Since we can't verify that the Feds haven't pressured Apple into giving them a back door, we have to assume they have. The article here could easily be propaganda encouraging people to use compromised software.
Use something like Jitsi or Retroshare if you care about your privacy. Anything else should be considered the equivalent of standing on the street corner with a megaphone.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
On the Android platform, there are third-party, open-source apps available for encrypted voice and SMS. Those are just the ones I'm familiar with; there may be others.
I know you think you're protecting your rights, but it doesn't mean you aren't facilitating trafficking meth, heroin or the next big thing in soma-jolting chemistry when you advocate for an untappable form of communication. Your right to privacy is actually a proscription against unreasonable use of governmental power. It's not absolute, and it's not guaranteed the 'evil corporation' we all like to whine and bitch about shouldn't be subject to compliance for such measures as reasonable surveillance. I don't like assuming that there's an unfriendly, obtrusive ear, eye or nose pressed to my privates either, but there are bigger evils out there than the DEA.
Judges are so 20th Century.
Have gnu, will travel.
I know you think you're protecting your rights, but it doesn't mean you aren't facilitating trafficking meth, heroin or the next big thing in soma-jolting chemistry when you advocate for an untappable form of communication.
Or facilitating free speech in places where saying the wrong thing leads to torture and imprisonment or worse. There will always be illegal things, but the greater right to free secure speech, I believe, takes precedence over stopping drugs / child porn / cause of the decade.
Your right to privacy is actually a proscription against unreasonable use of governmental power. It's not absolute, and it's not guaranteed the 'evil corporation' we all like to whine and bitch about shouldn't be subject to compliance for such measures as reasonable surveillance.
You means the government that retroactively gives itself powers to invade our rights? There's not much checks-and-balances going on in America.
I don't like assuming that there's an unfriendly, obtrusive ear, eye or nose pressed to my privates either, but there are bigger evils out there than the DEA.
So you're of the opinion that if one has done nothing wrong, one has nothing to hide. How can you enjoy your bread and circuses when your head is buried in the sand?
PGP Creator Phil Zimmerman has a new business, Silent Circle, that does proper encryption for voice and SMS on mobile devices.
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
1. That the feds are going to spend the resources, which even with the breakthrough is unlikely to be trivial, to crack random suspected drug dealer's communications.
2. That they're going to risk the very knowledge that they have the capability to slip out
3. That they aren't the ones dealing the drugs in the first place
4. That they're going to bother to send in a tip when they're busy with country scale espionage.
I don't read AC A human right