Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Said To Be Working On an iPhone Even It Can't Hack (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this story at the New York Times: Apple engineers have already begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone using methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California, according to people close to the company and security experts. If Apple succeeds in upgrading its security — and experts say it almost surely will — the company would create a significant technical challenge for law enforcement agencies, even if the Obama administration wins its fight over access to data stored on an iPhone used by one of the killers in last year's San Bernardino, Calif., rampage. The F.B.I. would then have to find another way to defeat Apple security, setting up a new cycle of court fights and, yet again, more technical fixes by Apple.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
How much of this is theatre? Is the only improvement is to make it more difficult to download new software while the phone is locked? Which models does this apply to - is it a hardware change that applies only to new models, or is it just an OS change that might also apply to some (or all) older models? From the prior discussions here on slashdot I came away with the impression that there are hardware modules (secure enclave???) on newer model iPhones that would render useless the OS changes requested by the FBI.
They should unlock the phone if they can, then fix the bug that let's them unlock it.
Also, is systemd still supported mostly by creepy dudes that fondle goats inappropriately?
Microsoft is disguising "Tips and Tricks" as a way to sell out your lock screen and is having you store your files on their cloud so that the government, Microsoft, it's "partners", and advertisers have full access to all your data.
Guess I should consider looking at OpenBSD
Sig: I stole this sig.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".
It could also be argued to be an act intended to keep the noses of the FIB, CIA, NSA, et al out of places where they don't belong i.e. the private data of every Apple iPhone/iPad/Mac using person on the planet.
Oh, well bless your heart! Let me go ahead and guarantee you that the federal government will not be prosecuting Apple, Inc. for treason any time in the near future. LOL.
AAPL makes software and hardware in "response". Yea!!
I guess I had better remove the deadbolt from my front door and the owners of MasterLock best prepare for the death penalty.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
It would be trivial for Apple to disable all IPSW image installations without a unlock code making what the FBI requested technically impossible, however if the FBI were to prevail in court the Judiciary is likely to take a dim view of Apples actions
Maybe. With the security hardware that exists in the iPhone 5S and later devices, it's possible a software update to them could simply fix it.
Except that it ISN'T the SOLE intention. The sole intention is to give US citizens a secure method of communication. Just like the interstate's sole intention is to let US citizens travel safely across the country. Just because an enemy or terrorist or undesirable can use these too doesn't make it less stupid. Interstates and secure phones aren't treasonous since they can't have intentions since they have no souls.
you never know who gets hacked.
If Apple is all-powerful, can they make a phone that they can't hack?
HA HA HA! We got him now!
Only if you're willing to accept deciding to not personally join or donate to the military is giving aid and comfort to the enemy as they're grateful to you that there's one less person to fight and that our military has less money to use against them. I suggest we execute mysidia for treason as well as every grocery store owner who sold food to anyone who later went postal.
Obviously. That's t-reason they're doing it.
Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Just legalize cocaine for those dirty aristocrats fill their asses and they will forget about the government.
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".
You can't give aid and comfort to a dead man - so that's irrelevant in the current case.
On the other hand - if a phone's owner is alive, and if the US Government has enough evidence to obtain a lawful order requiring that person to grant them access to the phone, then if the owner refuses he can be jailed until such time as he decides to comply. I doubt he's going to be launching any attacks from jail.
#DeleteChrome
Well what about them losing the right to sell stuff in some places (may not usa) or may even hard time in guilty til proven innocent places.
This should then also apply to, let's say, manufacturers of cars used by enemies, right? After all, cars usually do give "aid and comfort".
Why does apple get headlines for doing what they should have done in the first place? Anything else is a broken, insecure device. If the vendor has a backdoor, it's not secure, whether they allow the government to access it or not.
Can God make a chili pepper so HOT that even He can't eat it?
Yeah, makes you think, doesn't it?
...omphaloskepsis often...
What I haven't heard yet is where Android lands on the security spectrum. Are they already as or more secure than what the rumors are now saying Apple is trying to achieve? Are they as or more secure than where Apple is right now? Are they as or more secure than where Windows is right now?
So you're saying that if someone from North Korea bought a sweet and delicious cupcake from me, I would be guilty of treason?
Clothing. Particularly warm or loose clothing. And macaroni and cheese. That's even known as "comfort food"!
Than some stupid phone.
People can talk secretly. Over large distances. The sooner the government comes to grip with this simple fact, the better.
Someone had to do it.
And then the FBI will demand the source to iOS, toolchain, and Apple's signing keys.
It could also be argued to be an act intended to keep the noses of the FIB, CIA, NSA, et al out of places where they don't belong i.e. the private data of every Apple iPhone/iPad/Mac using person on the planet.
I think the idea (not that I agree, I certainly don't on the full picture, but let's at least be fair!) is that an independent judge decides in a court of law whether or not the FBI belongs in a particular phone or not, and that it makes that decision on the basis of the individualized facts around that phone. And that the decision of the court authorizes only the search of that specific phone.
The first step in an honest argument is arguing against the best possible version of your opponent's position, not against a caricature.
The U.S. Government can conceivably ban the sale or possession of that type of phone.
They do it all the time with other products, or require licensing and training and over site after purchase.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
hahaha treason
Aiding the enemy. Like shipping them weapons ? Training them so they can perform a regeime change for you ? Looking the other way when they do evil shit because they're a source for oil ?
Locking down a phone so an obviously corrupt government isn't treason. It isn't the same game. Not even the same fucking universe :|
I suspect that Tim Cook as an LGBT individual, has an intimate, proximate, and/or cultivated personal interest, with historical and current backing, in personal privacy. In these particular circumstances, it would express itself as the importance of data privacy on a personal device.
If I had to guess, it could come down through the ranks indirectly as unstated support from the top.
to the data on the phone (disabling wipe after 10 attempts) - is the phone really all that secure?
The security "war" is not longer about country versus country, but about "the people" versus the government.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".
By your own logic, the amount of time US armed forces have been the cause of "friendly fire" incidents ensures that the US armed forces should all be held accountable for giving aid to the enemy.
that way they'll have some skin in the game. Cupertino population density according to WP: 5,200/sq. mi. --- Manhattan population density --- 71,671
This issue become if another country that is not bounded by the search and seizure laws (China) forcing a deep investigative search of all phones entering the country, and possibly leaving long term trap doors in the phone. If this person later becomes a person of interest (for any reason) the country immediately downloads your entire phone remotely and turns it upside down looking for sedition/treason.
Any knowledgeable international travelers already know to leave their laptops at home or bring a burner laptop on the assumption that Chinese customs and immigration *will* load your computer up with five different flavors of spyware during the immigration process. I expect they would love to do the same with every phone that enters the country.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
This is how Apple should have designed these phones from the start. We've only had the necessary technology widely and cheaply available for, oh, about, 25 years?
Why does apple get headlines for doing what they should have done in the first place?
Why do you think Apple should have "in the first place" required a PIN code to install an OS update? As a technologist do you not find it reasonable you should be able to put the phone into a recovery mode and then install the OS again in case something was messed up?
Indeed if it's what they "should have done" then you must be apoplectic that no other company has taken this "obvious" step to date.
Should you be required to log into your PC in order to install an OS?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
to the data on the phone (disabling wipe after 10 attempts) - is the phone really all that secure?
It's not that the data is automatically accessible, it's that if your PIN is only four digits, then it's easy to brute force (which is that the FBI wants to do: go through all ten thousand combinations).
If, however, you enable "complex passcodes", and you enter a 10+ character string, then it's going to be a lot harder to go through all the combinations--even if Apple is forced to help.
At a moment very very soon, the US Government should determine that Apple Inc. is and Enemy of the USA and take the most direct measures to annihilate Apple Inc. and it's ... Fuhrer.
Mr. Timothy Donald Cook and Apple Inc. are the cancer within humanity.
Bye Bye
Precisely ... When I aim my 9 mm out the window I have a really good grip compared to when I am grasping my cell phone, texting down the highway at 80 mph, primed to kill someone as soon as auto-correct makes me bring the screen closer to my face.
That's fine. The FBI should be granted all lawful orders to the phone in question - and to all the other phones. They have that already. What they don't have is the ability to force Apple to develop a mechanism to render that device useful. I'm okay with that. That's the way it should be. I've got nothing wrong with the FBI having access to the device. They can do their very best to retrieve the information in a lawful manner. This, this order, is not lawful in my opinion.
And yes, yes I think I'm qualified to hold an opinion. That this is not about physical access is a difference with distinction. They are free to do quite a bit with the device. Well, they're free to do anything with the device they want - just not if they want to use it as evidence. They can try to break in it any way they want. They can even hire people to do it. They can even ask Apple to do it. What they can't do is *force* Apple to do it. Apple can comply if they want but that sets a bad precedent. It's best to not allow it and I feel Apple made the right choice to fight this.
Yes, it sucks that good people might get hurt. That's a price way pay to have some liberties. I'm just as at-risk as you are. Don't let your fear take away my liberty, thanks. Don't worry, I'll respect that same position when it comes time for a liberty you're concerned with losing. And trust me, that time will come.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Go ahead, I'll wait.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to just say the truth instead of wishy-washy crap like "I think it depends on the OEM". We aren't having this debate about Android phones because it is trivial for the FBI to crack an Android phone.
Presumably you've made a perfectly secure smartphone yourself--that would certainly justify your 'holier than thou' attitude. Can you point me to where I can buy it?
Failing that, just point me to any perfectly secure consumer computing device. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Actually, the Interstate Highway System is built for the sole reason of allowing rapid troop and equipment deployments. That you can use it as a citizen is just a side benefit. If you don't believe me, try to interrupt a convoy on a Federal Highway. Then check and see what your insurance company says to you. And then check the resulting fines.
Eisenhower had them built after seeing the Autobahn in Germany in WWII and on a video of them in action. He saw the movie and said to his Aide De Camp, "Hot damn we need some of that shit up in here." And it was so. They traveled throughout the land planting highway seeds in all the right places, tended them carefully, and they grew into the highway system you see today.
In other words, no... The Interstate is not for you. That's just a side benefit. If you look at the size of the equipment and then look at the mandatory road widths on Federal highways, you'll notice something. If you want a really specific example, look at the width of things like tanks and the HMMWV and then measure the width of your nearest Federal highway - all the way down to the regular old non-toll roads that are actually Federal highways. They're the ones with the funny looking logo around them. On a properly labeled map you'll see they're named things like US Rt. 2, US Rt. 95, etc.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I RTFA this time. It, like so many other other articles, missed the actual legitimate issues of the case. Every time you read an opinion that says Apple should "unlock the phone" or "decrypt the phone" misses the point that Apple must create software which doesn't exist. Whether Apple should do that or not is itself an interesting discussion, but the real issue here is whether government agencies should be able to force software companies to create hacking software, especially when the software company isn't accused of breaking any law in the case.
I don't have any issue with the idea that a government agency should be allowed to create hacking software. I wouldn't object if the NSA had required Apple to sign a software update created by the NSA for the purpose of hacking into the phone. In fact, I think that's what the government should do. However, I'm very troubled by the fact that most people are in favor of Apple being forced to unlock a phone when that's not what is really going on.
Compulsion of speech is an issue that has been supported in food labeling laws and denied in other cases. Creating software is fundamentally different than providing existing information. I believe creation of software is a form of speech, and I think the courts have upheld that viewpoint, so this case is really hinging on whether a judge under "All Writs Act" has the authority to force someone, not even someone accused of a crime, to create something new.
I think it is important in this discussion to understand how the software the government wants Apple to create would work. Apple updates happen automatically for phones which automatically connect to a known wifi access point. Those updates don't just get pulled from Apple though, the phone creates a code which is encrypted with Apple's public key, so that only Apple with it's private key can decrypt. The update is then provided to the phone, with the code provided by the phone re-encrypted so that only the phone can decrypt it, and only then is the update, signed with Apple's key, loaded into the phone.
If the government wanted to, they could require Apple to provide source code to their existing software and the government could modify it and either ask Apple to sign it or require Apple to provide its private key. However, by requiring Apple to create the hacking software, they're introducing an idea that software companies cannot refuse to create software when required by the government. Once someone does something for a government official, often that's taken as a reason that the government can require them to do it again. (See In re Boucher - case citation: No. 2:06-mj-91, 2009 WL 424718)
Apple had asked that the request be sealed, thus kept secret and not able to be used as precedent but the Department of Justice refused and thus made their request both public and able to be used as precedent. If they succeed in forcing Apple to create hacking software they get access to the information on this phone, but more importantly, the hundreds or thousands of phones they'd like to access are much more likely to be accessed by forcing Apple to repeat the process over and over. Apple doesn't want to be in the business of creating hacking software for the government. Much of law enforcement would consider this a victory, but I think the FBI is hoping to lose this case as a general might be willing to lose a battle, in order to win the bigger war. By losing the case, the FBI gains public support that they can use to pressure Congress to create laws forcing software companies to build in backdoors. Such a thing could be done securely, so that it wouldn't open the software to hackers. I have zero faith that Congress or software companies actually would do it in a secure way, but that's not the reason I am against the backdoor. Encryption is math and the math is known and freely available to anyone who searches for it. The ability to create securely encrypted software is something that can't be made to disappear, but it can be made illegal to do in the US. By d
"This couple purposely and specifically destroyed their phones and computers before going on their rampage. Do you really thing they left incriminating evidence on the guys's work phone?"
Its interesting to consider that by leaving their iphone in the situation they did, this terrorist couple may end up doing far more damage to US society than their shooting spree...
I have disliked Apple since i used apple IIs as test beds in test engineering. Apple pascal was an abortion and it only got worse from there. Apple hardware is real nice but the company was never going to get my support till it stopped being so tight fisted with their hardware. That being said I applaud Apple for fighting the proper fight. Today's smart phones have so much in them that I would consider them a brain extension. Do you want the government to have access to your brain? No I thought not. Cheers to apple.
The U.S. is defined by the Constitution. If that document is null and void, the government becomes nothing more than the machinations of a warlord.
It could be argued that the FBI and NSA have already BECOME enemies of the state and so helping them is itself giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It could also be argued that the FBI is committing treason by trying to make it easier for foreign powers to hack Americans' phones.
They'd better be working on this entirely from outside of the country, otherwise I wouldn't put it past the various U.S. agencies to try and sabotage this next release somehow, either via hacking legal asshattery, or both.
If you did so knowingly, probably, yes... At least according to the law. You're not going to get prosecuted but, theoretically that's treason. It's also not cool to sell it to them. They're hungry and don't have any money, give 'em your damned cupcake. But, under certain circumstances, that may well count as treason. Bare minimum, the State Department's gonna be right pissed when they find out about it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
About as treasonous as justifying warrantless wiretaps of citizens using "war powers", which could be argued as an act of war against the United States.
It would be nice if this issue would generate additional discussion and action to fix the failure of technology companies as a whole for delivering secure products. It is clear that computer science departments in the United States have failed. It is also clear that many companies are failing. Computer scientists should have a mandatory requirement to take a class in cryptography. Students need to learn concepts about securing communications, data on devices, and creating solutions to authenticate users and commands passed to software. They should also be required to take a senior level elective on ethics and be made to study case studies on the impact to society and economies due to poor design and implementation of software systems.
There have been several stories on Slashdot about the total failure of IoT devices. Reading about the failures in design of the software solution made me think that 'software hacks' made the systems and not professionals. There is a lot of energy and passion being spent by technical folks on both sides of the Apple and FBI/DoJ issue. I for one would love folks on Slashdot who are in product development to turn this passion into improving security of products as a whole at their companies.
Then Apple is one San Bernadino event away from being on the wrong side of things.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If Tim Cook cannot produce an iPhone that he cannot hack, would that constitute proof that he is not omnipotent?
how much of this is just an attempt by the FBI to convince everybody that they don't already have a quantum computer that will break anything?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".
You think you have problems? By your logic the entire hospitality industry are now enemies of the state!
Moron troll!
They need software signed with Apple's private key loaded onto the phone. Leaving aside the reasons why, consider what they could do instead. They could demand Apple's source code and compiling process and Apple's private key. They could modify and compile the necessary software, sign it with Apple's key and thus access the data on the phone, all only by compelling Apple to provide the information it has.
Would you say that Apple should fight that? Would you say that the court was acting within its legal authority if it did that instead?
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc.
There is no back door. There is only Apple digitally signing a modified version of iOS. That's it, just like with every patch for iOS that goes over the wire.
What the FBI needs is for a modified version of iOS that skips the delays between passcode entry attempts and destroying the encryption key currently used if there are too many failed passcode attempts. Apple could add code that limits this version of iOS from running on any other iPhone. Apple's digital signature would prevent the FBI from using this version on any other phone, exactly the same way the FBI can not hack around and change iOS themselves today. Apple could unlock this phone without giving the FBI a tool that could be used on any other phone.
The real problem is that the government's claim that this is a one time event is bogus. I don't see why any judge on any case could not order similar technical assistance from Apple.
As for this supposed unhackable phone. All it would require is that the passcode delays and encryption key destruction after too many failed passcodes be moved into the hardware and not be in iOS where it is "patchable".
The only "vulnerability" is this case is that Apple potentially has the ability to push new firmware onto this model of iPhone (the 5c) using its own signed certificate, even if the phone is locked. The FBI wants this new firmware to do two things: (1) bypass the "10 wrong tries on the unlock code and the iPhone erases itself" routine and (2) reduce the time interval between unlock code entries.
Note that Apple can introduce code to this modified firmware/iOS so that it only runs on this one particular phone. The FBI would be no more able to remove this restriction than they can remove the current passcode delay. Apple's digital signature can prevent this code from being used on any device.
Also note that making the firmware unpatchable in unlikely. More likely is that the passcode entry delay, and maybe the encryption key destruction after too many failures, would be moved into the hardware, permanently embedded into the silicon. Unpatchable.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".
Oh, I love this game. Let me try!
And by demanding we give up our rights in the name of fighting terror, they're giving aid to our enemies. Ergo, the FBI agents pushing for this are treasonous monsters and we should ignore them.
What is more: the current line of products with their "secure enclave" chip and so, are already supposedly unbreakable by Apple themselves. So is this an admission that Apple can actually break into the current iPhone 6 line? Or do I miss something here?
More secure in the sense of defeating the encryption since part of the key is embedded in silicon and "unreadable"? Which is something quite different from your passcode which is normally all that prevents one's data from being decrypted by all this fancy hardware. Unless the passcode retry delay is burned into silicon, part of a processor, it would seem to be software that is patchable. If so the only thing the FBI needs is for Apple to digitally sign a tampered iOS or firmware.
On a positive note if Apple provides the modified firmware/iOS then they could make this modification only run on the one iPhone in question. Their digital signature would prevent the FBI from altering this code, just as the FBI is prevented from altering any of the current code.
The real problem is that if one court can compel Apple to do this than any court on any case can likewise compel them. Any claim that this is a one time thing seems false, in what way is any court so limited?
This is called flaunting.
we forgot to turn it on.
They could demand Apple's source code and compiling process and Apple's private key.
I have argued that this is exactly what they should seek a court to order Apple to do, in order to gain the upper hand in bargaining, because ordering Apple to develop and produce a piece of software for them they don't have is essentially unconstitutional (Involuntary labor, equivalent to unlawful enslavement).
However, Apple is not above the law in regards to producing a copy of materials in their possession relating to a 3rd party as required or desired for law enforcement to conduct an investigation.... if Apple are served with a warrant for the source code and all necessary signing keys and build tools, required by law enforcement in order to conduct an investigation (That involves the FBI building a modified version), they must comply and produce the materials, or else be charged with obstruction of justice.
There's no legal argument against producing source code once ordered, since they will clearly be in possession, and clearly be capable of complying with the order, any failure to promptly submit can result in contempt of court and jailtime for managers.
This would also conveniently excuse Apple from appearing as a willing party to any perceived government overreach.
Apple can never create a secure phone unless it completely destroys itself the moment it leaves your hand.
they're giving aid to our enemies. Ergo, the FBI agents pushing for this are treasonous monsters
No.... they don't intend to aid our enemies; they are just incompetent.
And the FBI director is a cabinet position; therefore, agents by definition CANNOT be treasonous, since the president is by fundamental definition the opposite of the enemy, unless agents are going outside the orders coming down from the executive.
The US government cannot be treasonous to itself while adhering to its own directives.
Remember back in the Jobs days when Apple sold music with digital rights (mis)management? Back then, they would re-update iTunes to re-encrypt every time the music player's encryption dll was (re)cracked.
So now it's a new decade, but same old same old cat-and-mouse game, except that:
This time it's Apple doing the cat and mouse game with its own people :).
That's not even close to right. The Interstate highway system has always been intended both as an instrumentality of interstate commerce and as an adjunct to civil defense. And as time has passed, the civil function has far far outstripped the military one.
Don't believe me? Look at the enabling and funding legislation for the interstate highway system over the years. It all explicitly points to the commercial function of the system and invokes the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution as its source of authority, NOT the common defense clause. It is also managed entirely by civilian agencies, NOT the DOD.
Of course everyone around here knows that you are a military knob slobber, so it's no surprise you would put forth such a distorted picture glorifying your daddies in uniform.
You would make a poor poor lawyer.
Don't get too excited, folks. It's unlikely that such a device will ever be released. The governments will make sure that it will be banned, as are drugs or explosives. If current laws don't allow this, then they will be changed. And Apple knows this very well. They are making this news only as a tool in their negotiations with the FBI and DOJ.
If he was still alive today, I wonder what say and do about this privacy issue.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
apple do not make guns.
Although if they did, they'd be amazing looking
and only shoot rubber bullets
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
same reason Roman roads were built and built straight - even over mountains (or in some cases, through them). It was zero to do with civilian infrastructure, everything to do with the rapid movement of soldiers and equipment.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
the power was off.
So you're only willing to sacrifice someone else, most likely some normal person, just to stick it to the government?
At the very least, an Apple phone is now the mark of a criminal or terrorist.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
What happened to good old-fashioned police work? When did it all go down the drain, when did people begin to even accept such a thing as lazy law enforcement that simply wants to have access to every tiny bit of a person's privacy?
almost certainly, emotions aside 14 dead people is not really a concern for anyone but those directly involved. ~90 people die in traffic accidents every day
>Every encryption is hackable, it might just take the 'lifetime' of few universes to do it.
There's 100% completely utterly unhackable and there's 99.99999999% when someone without the budget of top10 1st world country can't.
The later is good enough for most practical purposes.
The funny thing is you know out there somewhere someone has already done it.
Security is something that is in the control of the end users. You choose the level you want.
On the other hand, Apple only designed their security to protect celebrities and people of means.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Only if you consider choice to be a problem.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Apple already has given away the backdoor but they are positioning themselves so that they look like they care about their customer privacy.
Please, just stop this cyber-punk pink unicorn cloud-castle daydreaming, stop it now! Why?
- Uncle Sam can resort to the old and efficient 5$ wrech and hose method.
- Apple execs can die, in shipwrecks of their yachts, contacting unexplained illnesses, during bizarre sex acts, etc. Next round of Apple CEOs will wizen up that it is better to play golf alongside politicians in office. The political elite is ruthless, for them ritual human sacrifice is as common as boiling an egg.
- The giant called Nokia was intentionally wrecked for as little as getting US permission to buy 72 units of JASSM-158 stealth cruise missiles. Apple is now the new Nokia. There is a price, where US national security concerns or political-military interests justify wrecking Apple and replace it with Teslaphone or whatever.
Encrypted filesystem, tiny OS kernel stored as on-chip PROM and a bit of NVRAM. Sorry, no updates to it are possible so they'd better get all the bugs out before release. Kernel has just enough to support to display a prompt and accept the PIN, set up encryption, relinquish control of screen and keyboard and trigger a real OS boot, presenting plain data to the device as if it were a disk controller or memory stick. The phone or whatever doesn't know its data is encrypted.
Let's say three strikes and you're out. First time it's used, a random salt is generated and 3 copies of the salt are written to its NVRAM, along with a hash of the PIN. The encryption key is hash(salt+PIN). Destroying all copies of the salt would render data inaccessible.
Every time a PIN is entered (attempt x=1,2,3) its hash is computed and then salt(x) is read into memory, then salt(x) is destroyed in NVRAM (zeroed). Then the hash of the PIN is checked against the stored hash.
If the PIN is bad, we move on to the next entry. salt(x) remains destroyed.
If the PIN is good, the salt held in memory is rewritten to salt(x), un-destroying it. All other salt() entries are checked to see if they match the salt stored in memory and if they don't match, they are rewritten so there are now 3 good copies. Then encryption is set up and the boot proceeds.
This using of three salt buckets and always writing to them is to protect against a brute force attack where the attacker power-cycles the chip to gain "free" attempts. But also, if you use separate "game over: you lose" code that sets out to destroy the salt, a side-channel attack may be possible where the attacker listens to chip emissions to detect it starting to run and aborts it somehow. By destroying a copy of the salt on every attempt the chip's emissions should offer little or no clue of such branching behavior.
A downside is that yes, NVRAM is being written to and will degrade over time. That's why it is good to have good escrow system in place so the government can help you recover your data. /SARC It probably wouldn't hurt if on first use the user has the option of selecting the salt rather than random generation, and a separate option (after successful PIN entry) that displays the salt. This would allow a technician to ''migrate' you onto a new chip that can access the (copied) encrypted filesystem. And the chip itself should be removable so in case of a device failure it can be moved to a new one.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Is there anything a company can do with the software in a phone they provide to make sure it isn't being used illegally?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
...by the FCC. Apple is not free to flout the law. Apple has no right to be communications provider to world terror.
Good luck with that interpretation. Do you actually, seriously, think that Apple will be charged with treason for putting encryption in a phone?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Error 53.
Best Slashdot Co
And you trust the government with Apple's signing keys? The government will keep them safe and they won't be leaked?
I'm not sure why you're glad you have an Android. I've seen zero evidence that Android's encryption is more secure, but I have seen much to the contrary. (I've always owned Androids and never owned an iPhone).
You seem to be under the impression that there are more enemies of the state than regular civilians. Why should a small percent have to destroy something actually beneficial to the overall majority of people? Doesn't that basically mean the enemy wins?
Also, US Government has nothing to do with other countries that value privacy and encryption. So really, they can still develop it but not release it in the US if it's that big of a deal.
More power to them!
The government does NOT have the right to do whatever it wants whenever it wants...
You want to bring up someone on treason charges? Start with Congress who's stated job since Obama was elected was not to help america and do the citizens bidding, but to ignore their job and block anything he tried to do....
No shit, some people's capacity for being pathetic sheep is disgusting...
But you are a fine sheep
It's gotten to the point where the nutjobs in the hills with their guns caches chanting about the evils of the gubbermint are more reasonable, intelligent sounding, and more realistic than the government-supporters....
The government does NOT have the right to what you know (5th Amendment).
This only applies to self-incrimination.
Read the whole thing: "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
An article explaining the logic:
* http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/forget-the-1st-amendment-apple-to-plead-the-5th-in-iphone-crypto-flap/
You'd probably sway more people in your argument if you argued the issues instead of attacking the individual. When you attack the individual, it makes the argument personal, which makes them less likely to see things from your point of view.
With the way the internet works, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a hack proof phone. First the auto updates, The phone has to get updates from somewhere, That somewhere is a closely guarded secret for a reason. If the hackers got a hold of that site, and spoofed it, You could in theory update the phone to whatever hack you wanted. Second there is the downloaded content every time you go on the internet, A small rookit, on a site that the user sets to allow, POOF its hacked. In some cases the user does not even need to "allow". People without a background in security should NOT be writing stories and spreading rumors about security.
Bad precedent. That means someone making an encryption utility as part of their software is now giving aid and comfort to the enemy by not allowing a backdoor to be present.
Plus, good luck prosecuting treason in general. YouTube and Twitter both gain revenue from Daesh's videos, and no company publishing their work have even been told that they are "giving aid and comfort" even by actively distributing an enemy's IP.
This is Obama, pure and simple. The most anti-constitutional President ever. He studied the Constitution so he could DEFEAT IT.
Apply the same reasoning, and you'd have:
The court has already established a precedent here that saving a life is subordinate to the right to privacy.
Actually Treason is most easily committed by government. Anyone in government intentionally acting beyond the restricted powers we've allowed them via the Constitution or a supreme court justice ruling in a manner inconsistent with Constitution both in letter and spirit.
The right to invade privacy is not granted in the Constitution, nor are "lawful orders" being made here therefore those attempting to get Apple to unlock the phone are committing treason and Apple would be complicit to Treason if they complied.
If she ever suspected that I was cheating, there'd be no stopping her from getting into my phone.
"I think the idea (not that I agree, I certainly don't on the full picture, but let's at least be fair!) is that an independent judge decides in a court of law whether or not the FBI belongs in a particular phone or not, and that it makes that decision on the basis of the individualized facts around that phone. And that the decision of the court authorizes only the search of that specific phone."
I'm afraid I do agree. Furthermore, not all things are possible in this world. An independent judge could grant the FBI a warrant to search the backpack of an astronaut on space station but that doesn't mean they'll be able to get up there to execute it. The supreme court has ruled that the people did not grant the government the authority to invade our privacy. We have no obligation to engineer our world to be transparent to government or law enforcement, further we've reserved the right to engineer it to be opaque. To engineer transparency would be to eliminate our ability to speak and act contrary to illegal laws and acts by government which intrude upon the authority that we, The People, who are the leaders of the United States have reserved for ourselves... which these days is the vast majority of laws.
I beg you, do not aid the federal government in it's illegal and unjust civil war against The People. The FBI, NSA, CIA, and DHS ARE the terrorists.
I was wondering about this...thank you for posting.
"What they don't have is the ability to force Apple to develop a mechanism to render that device useful. I'm okay with that. That's the way it should be."
"This, this order, is not lawful in my opinion."
Here here.
"Well, they're free to do anything with the device they want - just not if they want to use it as evidence."
That is what has been ruled illegally but we didn't actually grant them the authority to do whatever they want with our property in time of peace. Since we are acting outside a constitutional congressional declaration of war this is in fact a time of peace.
Fist if is made by humans it is hack-able. This has been proven time and time again.
Second if they make it and know what keys/software/code they used they can undo it or come up with some way around it.
"However, Apple is not above the law in regards to producing a copy of materials in their possession relating to a 3rd party as required or desired for law enforcement to conduct an investigation"
A lawful warrant is the key requirement there and parties are not required to produce anything in response to a lawful warrant, a lawful warrant only authorizes law enforcement to look for what they want. There is no requirement that one help. Judges abusing contempt of court authority should not be confused with the creation of law entitling courts to anything it wants nor should judges be allowed to subject you to a contempt of court penalty without due process (your right to have a jury of peers nullify the attempt to imprison you). The courts do not out rank the people.
Apply may increase their profits by providing false sense of security, but it is just delusional to assume there is any security in your phone against governments and regimes of big countries. Everything on it can be read using zero-day exploits and you will never know it was read. Even if your phone is locked and you are dead and can't readily provide pin code to interrogator with a big wrench, he can always hire electronics engineer, connect your phone RAM and ROM and change all the bits he needs to brute-force full access. Very long unpractical passphrases may give another level of security illusion, but basically it is very old dilemma - you are trying to create security on device that is connected to all kinds of communication channels and can't be trusted at all, you have no clue what exactly is running on it at given moment of time.
Seen the YouTube videos about Master Lock product security? I don't think any government has much to worry about. Now, Abus, Abloy, or Sobo... different story.
Step 1.
Ban iPone from Federal procurement and possession by Federal agencies and employees personal iPones on Federal property.
Step 2.
FCC revokes iPones access to telecommunication codes and airways.
Step 3.
Arrest Mr. Timothy Donald Cook, CEO Apple Inc. for conspiracy, interfering with a Federal investigation, destruction of Federal property, accomplice to the murders of 14 and accomplice to terrorism, treason.
BOOK THE GOAT FUCKER Dan'O!
Although I disagree with Apple's stance (because you don't have the right to privacy once a warrant is issued, and that includes data in computers, labtops, and yes your phone) I see the creation of an unhackable phone to be inevitable. Strong encryption coupled with impossibly hackable hardware is coming, like it or not.
No subpoena or search warrant will allow a government to get the data, because the device will be unhackable. And although the judge can stipulate that you are out of order and are in contempt of court for not providing your password (and thus, could be imprisoned basically indefinitely on continuing counts of contempt) this would in no way help at all when faced with a dead terrorist.
It's very much like gun control after everyone has 3d printers and cad software able to print guns. You can make all the laws controlling guns you want, but if I can just print one out in my bedroom, it'll be moot.
This is probably ok. The FEDS certainly have poisoned the well of trust. We're in a post-snowden world where a large majority of people don't trust the government, and a signficant minority believe the government to be 'the enemy'.
What we need to do is fix the government and its agencies so that the damaged trust is repaired. It's a dangerous position to be in when a society doesn't trust their government. That's when civil war breaks out and democracies fall. This won't be easy or quick, and may be painful as some in the government lose their power, jobs, castles in the sand etc.
I'm not sure? I'm pretty sure they can do anything with it they want - the owners are still very much alive and have granted unfettered access to the device. They could, if they wanted, smash it with a hammer, set it on fire, or hire someone to look at it all with an electron microscope and try to reverse engineer it. They can JTAG, scope, and move the hardware as desired.
At least I'm pretty sure of that? I am not a lawyer so I am not going to claim that I'm certain but I'm pretty damned certain that they're entitled to do anything they want with that specific device. I'm not sure what all will be admissible in court, be eligible for supporting evidence to be granted additional warrants, or things like that. But, I'm pretty sure they can do anything with the device they want - up to and including blowing it up with C4 out on the demo field at Quantico.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Anyone in government intentionally acting beyond the restricted powers we've allowed them via the Constitution or a supreme court justice ruling in a manner inconsistent with Constitution both in letter and spirit.
I would love to see officials being charged with treason for such acts.
But I think the courts (And the public) will never agree that an elected official commits treason, by doing things inconsistent with the Constitution.
There's limits as to what the courts can ask from uninvolved third parties, particularly when it's to their detriment.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fun fact: shortly before WWII, Eisenhower was put in charge of an Army road convoy to investigate the feasibility of cross-country movement by road, and it did not go smoothly. I think this had something to do with his establishment of the Interstate system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's unclear. The limited case law on US courts requiring passwords suggests that the government needs to already know what's on the device, and can't go on a fishing expedition.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That Constitutional clause doesn't say anything about intent or motive, so, at least in the strict sense, being an idiot and mistakenly giving aid and comfort to our enemies is treason.
I think you'll find that agents of the US government can indeed be convicted of treason. It doesn't say that anyone gets a free pass. Were we at open war with Latveria, and the President delivered munitions to them, that would be treason.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yup. In Rome's case, the roads were built by the Legion. It's amusing, sad really, that they're "insightful" for the post. No... No, that's not right. That we benefit is a good thing but it sure as hell is not a priority. The FHS/NHS (Federal Highway System/National Highway System) was quite specifically created for military use. The reason that they spend so much money on them (and they do spend a ton of money) is because of the military value.
Yes, there are side benefits and they're considered. However, if we didn't need to move military equipment then they'd be paying a lot less. I can also speak first-hand to the results of interfering with a military convoy on the FHS. It will end badly for you. Do not do this. We have rovers with flashing lights, we have signs mounted on the lead and rear vehicles. When we say "DO NOT INTERFERE WITH CONVOY" or "CONVOY DOES NOT STOP" we mean it. If you put your little red Honda in the way, slow down, and take a picture - we will not slow down. We will, maybe, slow a little so that we can push your vehicle off the edge of the road, watch it flip on its side, and laugh hysterically while we drive by.
And the resulting phone calls will be funny. The paperwork is a bit much, so it appears - I was behind them and driving a different vehicle. We are told, "Do not stop unless you're given orders to do. If someone pulls in front of you, hit them. You will not stop." We don't stop. We were, by then, on a limited access highway. On the regular routes, we've got spotters and rovers. We pull up, stop access and feeder routes, and stop traffic until we've gone through. You will not interrupt the convoy. Even on closed access, we drive where we want. We pull off, up, and on. We drive backwards down the on-ramp and stop traffic. We've got like 50 extra vehicles out there. We occupy one lane plus the rover's in the second lane. We stay to the right. Do not interfere with convoy!
I can definitely state, with some authority, that this is NOT correct:
Just like the interstate's sole intention is to let US citizens travel safely across the country.
There is no way that's right. In fact, that's so far wrong that it's as opposite to of correct as it can possibly be. A more accurate statement would be that the highway's sole intention is purple. It would make more sense.
As an aside, I'm kind of partial to highways... The reason that none of the original Roman roads have curves and only have right angles is because they lacked the math to make the roads curve. So, Rome's original roads are all straight and have right angles. I forget the name of the documentary but it goes into that as well as how the roads were made. They go out and actually do some experimental archeology, use the correct tools, and even speak in Latin (as I recall - not sure if I'm conflating it with others).
At any rate, it's laughable to think the interstate highways are made for letting US citizens travel safely across the country. No, we've got plans to shut 'em all down if there's a crisis. The civilian use is secondary. As I'm sure you know, see the width of the lanes and the size of an HMMWV or even an Abram and all will become clear.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Thanks! I'd heard that one not too too long ago. There's an excellent documentary on Eisenhower. I forget the name but I happened to bump into it not that long ago. It was since I was on the road, so since last September. I want to say it was before I got here in Florida. It's hard telling. I think I watched it at a site other than YouTube so I can't just go through my history and find it. It turns out that he and his wife were rather popular long before he had any power/rank.
I'm not sure if I'm conflating him with someone else? I think, if I remember correctly, he also had access to a great general and that general's library. They had some sort of falling out and he was fired while he was away on leave, or pretty much like that. He returned to the base and his role as an aide had been filled by someone else. I'm thinking it was Eisenhower but, as I've explained, these are entertainment pursuits and not scholarly in nature. If the goal was learning, I'd not necessarily enjoy it as much. Learning (and remembering) is incidental. ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Even *prior* to Eisenhower...
Wilson was an ardent advocate of good roads and made them a party platform in 1916: "The happiness, comfort and prosperity of rural life, and the development of the city, are alike conserved by the construction of public highways. We, therefore, favor national aid in the construction of post roads and roads for military purposes".
For more information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For a better citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note the first link in the planning. Then, calmly, sit down and be quiet. The adults are speaking.
Posted as an AC 'cause you're not worth tracking the reply. Wow, we really need to consider a test for letting people post here. I don't mind being wrong, I'm okay with that. At the same time, it's annoying to have to correct people who try to correct me. You're wrong metrix007, you'll be wrong tomorrow, and you've always been wrong. There's the fucking citations to prove it now stop wasting my time.
width of UK highway lane: 3.65m
width of Challenger main battle tank: 3.5m
width of US highway lane: 3.7m
width of Abrams main battle tank: 3.66m
Coincidence? Methink not.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
That Constitutional clause doesn't say anything about intent or motive
No.... Criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. hTe concept of a strict liability crime is a fairly modern one and doesn't apply to Treason or other crimes mentioned in the constitution, unless there has been a new law to set different standards; didn't come about until the 1800s, when the idea of strict liability became necessary to hold employers accountable for worker safety standards in industry; before then, business management could fail to abide by the law (And they did), without having any (provable) criminal intent: making them impervious to prosecution.
So only a very small number of crimes are prosecutable without showing criminal intent. Even if the law itself doesn't mention intent.
^^ THIS ^^
It's tough but I've managed to actually get people to alter their views in meaningful ways. It takes two to do that, they have to be receptive to changing their views and have to be able to do it without their ego being in the way. You're not going to do that if there's an attack on the person.
I like this example...
You probably don't know about it - but I've been telling people about it for about 15 years now. You can actually read some of the Windows source code. It's called the Shared Source Initiative. We, a bunch of Microsoft MVPs, were the ones that got that started. We are the ones who showed that it was important and needed. We were the ones who got MS going on their open source.
It wasn't the spittle flecked zealots. It wasn't the people who were vulgar. It wasn't the idealist. It was the pragmatic, it was the calm, it was the polite, and it was the communicative with clarity. It wasn't RMS. It wasn't Slashdot. It was the MVPs, the "Most Valuable Professional" award winners who were given true insider access (nothing like the Insider Access program of today). By the way, I participated for about a half dozen years. I mis-typed earlier, in another post, and said a dozen years. It was half that. I've not actually taken part since 2006 or 2007 so I can't speak about today's program.
When you're specked with spittle, smell bad, and ranting - nobody listens, no matter how correct you might be. Like it or not, how you carry yourself and how you portray yourself is significant. It is not the message that matters but how it is delivered and the sooner people realize it then the sooner those of us who have cooler heads can actually start to have meaningful discourse. It's the zealots who hold back progress more than the those who are opposed to the ideals.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Apple Is Said To Be Working On an iPhone Even It Can't Hack
It's like that old rhetorical question about if Jesus is all-powerful then can He microwave a burrito so hot even He couldn't eat it?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
;-)
I didn't even cheat and go look at the numbers first. There are also very few stretches of single lane highways in the FHS. That's because convoys need to have a second lane in order to have some flexibility and safety. Yes, it has added benefits where civilian traffic is concerned. However, convoys need to be able to route around a damaged vehicle, be able to move specialty vehicles up and down the line, and things like that. The feds can, and will, come stomp that highway closed if they need to.
Of course, the fecal matter will have needed to hit the fan by then... There are still occasional drills and convoys. By the way, you can fit 3 HMMWVs on a 2 lane federal highway with room for the mirrors. Turned sideways, they will block a complete 2 lane highway and the breakdown lane. Staggered in a line, a full five lengths apart, will create a slalom that a semi can fit through. Three is enough for the M1 Abrams to fit through. One is enough for your average passenger vehicle at five miles per hour. And if folks don't think they'll stop, I'd like to remind them that they carry a .50 cal on them if needed. I believe, I'm not positive, that two M1s at a 45 deg angle blocks the entire 2 lane highway.
And people think that's just coincidence... No, they do... If you expand the sub-thread, you'll see an "enlightened" AC has decided to tell me that I'm wrong. I gave them a citation all the way back to the beginning - in 1916, before Eisenhower. Then I gave 'em a second citation to let them check and see that it was the earliest start of our federal highway system as ordained by the government. *sighs*
You can lead 'em to water, but you can't make 'em drink. At any rate, thanks for pulling the numbers out. If you want to see how close they cut it, check the width of the HMMWV with the door's on both sides open to full extension. They'll fit - and the doors will be able to open, fully, with enough room to walk between them though I think it's a tight squeeze. The lines for parking them on-base are that same width, there are training courses that are that same width, and you will learn to operate them safely and effectively in that same width. Depending on your height, when you look out the passenger side window from the driver's seat and line it up so that the bottom of the door-handle is even with the top of the passenger side bottom window sill, you'll be the exact distance apart. (Or close enough for government work.) Oddly enough, that'd put you "exactly" dead center with your lanes on the highway system if traveling in parallel.
Surely, it's just like you said - coincidental. *snickers*
There's more... There's the reflectivity of the marking paint used at a certain number of lumen. Coincidentally enough, that lowest value would actually have a strong correlation with the lumen used with blackout lights. Coincidentally enough, that reflectivity (different for signage) is also using that same lowest value for the minimal amount.
Yup, like you said, it's surely coincidental. Oh, the USSR is like that too... So aren't the main routes in China. So aren't they in Israel. As you noted, the UK, etc...
You know, you're right! It must be coincidental! *sighs* No, I've no idea why the AC wanted to argue. I do feel like making fun of them. I'm tired and about as mature as a five year old.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Don't worry. They have enough folks controlling guns. They hire new folks to control phones. They will hire new folks to control what you eat tomorrow morning. They will hire new folks to monitor the cams you will be required to have up in your house.
Don't worry. Your wish is on the way.
There's limits as to what the courts can ask from uninvolved third parties
There's an argument that Apple is an involved party, because they supply current software and updates to software for the criminal's device, And Apple is essentially the landlord who rents the device to the customer, Because Apple maintains ownership of the software only allowing use through a EULA, and by doing so they leave the ownership of the copy of the software with Apple (since the user only acquires a "Limited license to use it", so long as the end user abides by the Lease), and also, Apple fails or refuses to deliver even basic source code and device schematics to the user, So it is essentially equipment Owned, Maintained, and Managed by Apple.
A lawful warrant is the key requirement there and parties are not required to produce anything
My bad.... They can pursue several routes for example (1) File with a court against Apple and Bring it before a judge to get a court order to deliver the Source code and signing keys., (2) Subpoena the source code and keys, Or (3) A National Security Letter under the Patriot Act to secure delivery of source code and crypto keys,
And you trust the government with Apple's signing keys?
Is it relevant whether I trust them?
Courts regularly require businesses to hand over internal secret memos and trade secrets. That's what Source code and Crypto keys are: trade secrets.
They can be secured by a court and placed under protective seal to keep the public out, then the court can use them, or allow the investigators or designated third parties to use the secured secrets to accomplish the desired investigation project.
They are the government. They have the technical police power. They can use the police power to get what is required (If possible to be produced) to investigate crime and enforce the law.
The 4th amendment protects innocent citizens against search and seizures, BUT it does not protect against authorities investigating crimes and securing the means to investigate criminals.
The 4th amendment does not say the police cannot secure the means that COULD IN THEORY BE ABUSED. The constitution secures against actual unlawful searches by making unlawful searches illegal.
1 and 2 go back to that abuse of contempt of court powers to violate the Constitution and 3 refers to an illegal act of congress outside their authority and in direct violation of the law that is the only thing granting them any authority in the first place.
People tend to forget that The People are in charge, not the bodies they gave some limited and restricted authority via the Constitution.
I'll bet they're doing it with people who are not US subjects, and through a management chain which removes them from US legislation. And they've got enough financial and political muscle that they may make it stick.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The only reason they really go this far is to protect celebrities, not normal people.
(For this, I'm thankful to have an Android phone, which gives more options)
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.