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.
"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.
I find it hilarious that security efforts are not being driven by the government but to protect people from the government.
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
In a perfect world maybe, but you're not considering the real world where few lives will be saved, but the vulnerability will be abused constantly.
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
"If listening on every citizen's phone calls could potentially save lives..." –Sting Ray
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-SR
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.
In case I wasn't clear with my above post. This is the physical version of what I'm talking about.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
you never know who gets hacked.
this is because the fbi screwed up on purpose and refused to use a very easy way to get the data to try and break American freedom to privacy
Obviously. That's t-reason they're doing it.
Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal.
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.
if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives
That's not really an argument, but more of a random statement.
Keeping everyone sedated and locked up in a room when they are not at work could also potentially save a lot of lives (by keeping some perpetrators and many potential victims off the streets). But we are not planning to do that either.
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?
Is there evidence that lives could be saved?
Even if true, the FBI could always say that they want to put RFID tags into every person and newborns at birth in order to solve crimes and save lives. It would seem like a huge invasion of privacy and government intrusion, but that's only because care about our own personal rights. But when it comes to a third party we're a lot more blasé about what the government does to companies or people that aren't us.
So you're saying that if someone from North Korea bought a sweet and delicious cupcake from me, I would be guilty of treason?
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Well, if your phone has information which can save someone's life, then of course you have the option of unlocking it for the government. No one is forcing people to keep their phones locked. But Apple is giving people the choice.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Clothing. Particularly warm or loose clothing. And macaroni and cheese. That's even known as "comfort food"!
in a perfect world countless lives would be saved by limiting the speed of cars to 20kph but no one wants to do that either. I am agreeing that the risk/reward outlook favors encryption by a wide margin.
Than some stupid phone.
Anne Frank had something to hide from the government
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.
You know what, I don't actually care if it is theater if it keeps people talking and thinking about security, for a change.
Someone had to do it.
People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. An overzealous government with unlimited reach and power is what so many have died for, paying their lives as the cost of liberty for their children.
A free-thinking libertarian once gave me a great acid test for weather or not laws should exist: Would the existence of such a law have helped the colonies overthrow King George III or would such a law have helped King George III keep hold of the colonies?
In my opinion, there are really three things here that have to be considered:
1. What you have
2. What you know
3. What you are
What you have is the information on the phone. This information on an iPhone is encrypted, and would take unimaginable amounts of time to reverse, but it is reversible.
What you know is the key to reverse the information. What you are includes the thumbprint that can also be used to "mimic" what you know (the key).
The government through a warrant has the absolute right to search and seize what you have: The encrypted data.
The government does NOT have the right to what you know (5th Amendment).
The third one: "what you are" is tricky. It only works in this case of the phone has been left ON, and has been unlocked in the past 48 hours using the key. From what I believe: due to the 13th amendment, the government can not force you to enter your fingerprint, because of a catch 22. You have not been found guilty (yet) of a crime, and doing so would constitute "involuntary servitude".
I don't think it would serve us well either to have all of our information readily accessible without any privacy protections either. What happens when China wants this information to find out who has been preaching Christianity in China, or Saudi Arabia wants to know who has gay thoughts?
Our iPhones have such intimate details about our lives and so much information, I wonder if it would not server us well to classify that information as an extension of "what you know".
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.
"Justice Department Seeks to Force Apple to Extract Data From About 12 Other iPhones" (Feb. 23, 2016)
"Apple embroiled in phone court fights beyond San Bernardino; cases don’t involve terrorism charges, sources say"
http://www.wsj.com/article_ema...
Also the service providers have a lot of details and so do all the other gov linked workers on gov issued platforms.
The end product been requested is a new backdoor operating system. Once the US federal gov gets this, so will Canada, Australia, the UK, NZ. Then third party "friends" of the US gov/mil in the EU, all their staff, contractors and gov workers. The keys to a generation of devices will be requested around the world and govs will use the new OS for any reason they want. So will ex and former staff, contractors who got cleared for the same work but then moved to the "private" sector working for anyone with cash.
Every phone of that generation will need a "Charlie is listening" sticker as any random gov or ex gov worker around the world will have the backdoor keys over time.
Once US smartphones get the court ordered access, so will every other US designed networked device. Spying on citizens will be designed into every US device legally and for anyone else with the cash to access.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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!
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?
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Would you be willing to give a copy of your house keys to the local police department? Afterall, if everybody did that, then lives could be saved by letting the police enter suspects' homes on a whim. In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The security "war" is not longer about country versus country, but about "the people" versus the government.
Because when whoever comes for you based on what you do have, there will be no one left to care for you?
The problem is it's not just this phone. It's the 12 others they have on stand by, it's the 175 NY has lined up and ready to go -- for starters. The other problem is there is no guarantee breaking into this phone (and enabling the government to break into any other iphone) is going to save even one life. Is it worth compromising the phone's security (and enabling all kinds of fraud) on the off-chance that some information it contains may help the government prevent a death?
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?
Ask yourself, what is the price of freedom? If you want to live in a world where your every move isn't monitored and recorded by untrustworthy people who seek to capitalize on every little weakness you may have, perhaps the risk of a death here or there is an acceptable price. The question boils down to, would you rather live as a slave or risk death living as a freeman?
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
In a perfect world, lives would not end prematurely in the first place.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
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.
The change to the phone I can see: While the operating system can be updated, the "Secure Enclave" hardware cannot be bypassed, and the software controlling this function cannot be bypassed unless the user enters the unlock code on the phone. Yes, I realize that there are many hurdles to make that happen.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
If you give up freedom in the name of security you get neither .(paraphrased from Ben franklin)
There is nothing of value on that phone. exactly like how the NSA bulk collection didn't stop a single terrorist threat. Every so called threat it stopped is deeply classified as if the terrorists didn't know we stopped them.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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
I don't have an iPhone, why should I care? Apple didn't care when the Indian government went after Blackberry.
Learn from the past:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I don't know why people modded you down as flamebait. You've summed up the dilemma perfectly. Better than most, actually, since tend you see a lot of people falling for the "liberty vs security" rhetorical trap when topics like this come up. You recognised that privacy is security. And only an idiot would think that lives aren't important.
It's not really relevant to the current case, since realistically we all know that exactly zero lives will be saved by the act of the government breaking into the phone. But as a general point, weakening security can indeed potentially save lives, and the "most wrong" answer is to kid yourself that all answers are simple.
Apple is in the right... this time.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Well said. We give up what little privacy we have left at our own peril. Here you have a door they want opened. They will probably succeed at forcing it open. At first it will be a few phones, but then it will be an automated process. Then that won't be fast enough, and it will be a portable device. Then the device will be copied and it will be used all over the world at every checkpoint. I wouldn't be surprised now if certain customs agents don't demand the unlock code to get in the country, and then silently clone it. With the automated tool they wouldn't have to demand. Just drop the phone in the "terrorist detector" and watch it scan for anything of interest. That anything of interest could easily be not sufficiently praising some group or another. Got a phone they can't crack, well that is a presumption of guilt. Better lock you up till you open it up for them. And all that is ignoring the possibilities of governments around the world simply collecting contact lists of people and such, so they can better target their espionage efforts, and of course if there is actual company IP on the phone, they will want that too. What, your phone's browser stored the username and password to access a work related site? Well, better get that too. Could drain a bank account with that info too, depending on what is on your phone. (All of this also applies to laptops and everything else of course. A phone isn't all that different from a computer these days.)
> In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
I once had a couple of cops kick me out of Kansas for that line of thinking. It's a long story but I'll try to make it brief.
They tried to convince me that my refusing to allow them to search my vehicle is grounds to allow them to search the vehicle, that it constituted probable cause. Yes, I laughed aloud and explained that I was not a teen. I did applaud their effort, quite literally. They then told me to get out of Kansas and that if they ever saw me again, they were going to arrest me.
Oddly, with all the travel I have done (and the condition and manners in which I've done it) that's the worst thing I ever faced. There's more to the story but that's the gist of it. I don't believe the rest is significant but I'll share it if you want to understand the circumstances. I'm not sure if I should be frightened or amused by the treatment. I have to wonder if they use that line often and if anyone falls for it?
I'm also pretty sure they can't just kick me out of Kansas but I didn't figure I'd stick around where I wasn't wanted and I was headed out anyhow - and right on the border. They were even kind enough to give me an escort to the on-ramp at the nearest highway. I didn't have the heart to tell 'em that I'd just gotten done helping clean up after 90% of Greensburg had been destroyed by a tornado and that I'd only cleaned up because I happened to be right there in the area and they needed help. I just figured that I'd avoid Kansas. I've never been back.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If you give up freedom in the name of security you get neither .(butchered from Ben franklin)
FTFY. I happen to agree with the rest of what you said, but that particular misuse of the Ben Franklin misquote needs to be retired.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
Is that so?
I know we have this technology against MITM attacks or wiretaps, provided by SSL and the like. Keys can be securely exchanged, all data is encrypted to a level that makes it virtually impossible to break. But when you have direct hardware access to the device in question? That's a whole different ballgame. You then get someone's private SSL key in your hands and you can start to brute force the password - you could rewrite SSL (open source) if needed to do so. Extra protections have to be in place to prevent just that from happening, and that's what this is all about. The protection of the keys against direct access to the very hardware they're stored on.
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
Guess I should consider looking at OpenBSD
Yeah, I'm also seriously considering to consider the consideration of potentially maybe looking at OpenBSD, or their Website anyway, if Microsoft does this again more than five times, at least if it wasn't for all the Windows-only programs that I need and have no replacement.
I'm sure MS is shaking, considering my consideration.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
"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.
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."
Given that this has potential for some damning consequences, do the ends really justify the means in this case?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
To be Frank, at the time, was a dangerous thing.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
That won't stop the US.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
Access to the money you have hidden in your sock drawer could potentially save lives too. So give it up right now.
You are welcome on my lawn.
God, "free-thinking libertarians" are even more banal than I thought.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The government does NOT have the right to what you know (5th Amendment).
This only applies to self-incrimination.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Because it does depend on the OEM - as Apple is showing the only way to solve this issue is in the hardware because it is too easy to bypass software based solutions.
So there isn't much Google can do with Android itself (now the Nexus hardware is another story, but that's not Android).
So what? The Magna Carta was written 800 years ago, and we still value many of the principles it contains. Much of the beauty of the Constitution is how well engineered it is, and how much of its framework still works and applies today, including the 4th and 5th. The fact that the founders couldn't foresee our technology is irrelevant. What you don't seem to understand (most people, actually) is that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant people rights.
It states that these rights preexist, AND EXPLICITLY STATES THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO INFRINGE UPON THEM.
Whether we are to be secure in papers in our houses, our strongboxes, or letters, or text messages is simply a game of semantics. These are all communications we intend to hold privately ... and therefore the government has no right to them.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I logged in just to see if I had points to mod you up.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
A free-thinking libertarian once gave me a great acid test for weather or not laws should exist: Would the existence of such a law have helped the colonies overthrow King George III or would such a law have helped King George III keep hold of the colonies?
I don't understand. Which condition should the law satisfy in order to exist? Also, what exactly does it mean to "help the colonies overthrow King George III"?
A law that would explicitly enable the revolutionaries to stand up to King George III would be a law that would help the colonies overthrow the King.
"We want guns and cannons and stuff!"
"Okay. Free guns and cannons for all colonists!"
"BOOM BOOM BOOM! We're FREE!"
What about a law freeing the colonies of taxation?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. No taxes then."
"Yaaaay! This king RULES! No revolution!"
What about a law giving the colonies a voice in Parliament?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. You can have some seats."
"Cool. Sounds fair. No need for revolution."
An overly oppressive law could also help the colonies to overthrow the king, by strengthening the resolve and numbers of the opposition.
"This king sucks!"
"Oh yeah! Well I claim primae noctis on all marriages in the colonies. You also have to pay your own way to England. You can't get married otherwise. We'll kill you if you don't comply."
"Let's kill him!"
Does timing matter? Couldn't the same law have different effects during different stages of the revolution? Consider something which, early on, would be non-controversial and "nip in the bud" revolutionary activities. However, if enacted after the colonies were already in revolt, this same law would be seen as oppressive and instead fuel rebellion?
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"Ben who?"
vs.
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"FUCK YOU!"
Is this really a good test? Wouldn't the most oppressive laws imaginable actually pass, because they would incite revolution? Should the gov't really pass crazy laws simply for the purpose of provoking the public?
Oh, and it's "whether". /pedant
I appreciate someone who takes the big picture view and I wish more people were. That said, there are a few points I think are worth adding.
You can be compelled to provide a fingerprint under the current legal system in the US.
(I looked for a better legal reference, but this is a summary http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/20...)
Technically what you know might be called a key, but it's clearer to refer to it as a password or passcode because it is a small piece of information used to decrypt a large key. The large key is a randomly generated string of characters that is held in memory by the phone after the passcode is entered. That real key is used to decrypt the information on the device directly, while the password or passcode is used to decrypt the key. That's important because backdoors are usually considered to be ways of sharing the key with someone rather than the password and because the key is not something most software, like phone software, makes visible to the user. When you change your password or passcode, the phone doesn't get re-encrypted which would take a long time, just the key gets re-encrypted.
It is also worth noting that the 5th amendment doesn't protect you from having to provide what you know to the government; it only protects you from self incrimination. You can be forced to testify against your desire in cases where your testimony doesn't incriminate you. This is an important distinction to make since it prevents people from testifying against friends or people who share your viewpoint when you haven't done anything wrong but might sympathize with them. (Citation: Matlock)
If Apple had the key, they could be compelled to share it with the government. If they don't then they can't. What Apple could create is software that the phone would load without needing a password which would make the process of guessing the passcode easier and not result in a loss of the keys due to incorrect guesses. That's why Apple is focusing on not wanting to create hacking software rather than saying they refuse to provide information they already have.
What many in politics want is for Apple to keep a copy of the actual keys for each phone they sell and turn those keys over to law enforcement. Apple doesn't want to keep the keys, let alone be required to build a system that shares them, but if Apple wins this case, you can expect that will be the next demand.
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
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Would you be willing to give a copy of your house keys to the local police department? Afterall, if everybody did that, then lives could be saved by letting the police enter suspects' homes on a whim. In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
That's a false analogy. The police want help from the local locksmith to get into this house, which he made the lock for, because they have a warrant to search the premises. And the tenant is dead. And the property owner consents.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
That's a false analogy.
No, it isn't. It's a question of if you trust your government. Even your own reply is full of stipulations like having various forms of consent.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
That's a false analogy.
No, it isn't. It's a question of if you trust your government. Even your own reply is full of stipulations like having various forms of consent.
Yes. Trust comes from checks and balances. They have a warrant. No one is disputing any of the facts in this case. Where exactly is the problem?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
iPhones are only secure within themselves. If I send you a text, that's open and easily interceptable.
Military needs secure comms, not secure storage.
(Well okay, they need both... But the storage is cheap and easily handled)
This signature is false.
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?
In a perfect world maybe, but you're not considering the real world where few lives will be saved, but the vulnerability will be abused constantly.
Especially since they immediately demanded to violate those rights 12 additional times in order to break the encryption of 12 more iPhones -- none of which had anything to do with the bogyman of the week, terrorism.
This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or protecting Americans. The FBI decided us using our right to privacy was making their jobs annoyingly difficult, so our right to privacy, in this situation, simply has to go.
That's a false analogy. The police want help from the local locksmith to get into this house, which he made the lock for, because they have a warrant to search the premises. And the tenant is dead. And the property owner consents.
Except that they're not asking for a key to that house. They're asking for a Master Key to 38.58% of the Houses in the country, along with the legal authority to demand a custom built master key for the other 60%.
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.
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Considering how much people divulge about themselves online these days, the government or other actors don't need a back door persecute the innocents. Maybe, if we want protection from prying eyes, we should be more conscious about what we put out for the world to see.
Yes, that is so. These extra protections are secure computing elements. They have been around for decades. Every SIM card has one.
"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.
Well said. We give up what little privacy we have left at our own peril.
Smart phones, like the iPhone, don't give up our privacy. We do, everytime we use them to post our whereabouts, pictures online, etc. The iPhone is just a device. We control the data we put on it or through it. Using the connect features of a smart phone and desiring privacy are an oxymoron. Put differently, those who truly value their privacy don't post their intimate details online, with or without a smart phone.
There are a few. First is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to make all of their phones vulnerable. Second is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to actually do the work to make that possible, as opposed to just providing a simple service. Third is that they're trying to compel Apple to do this because the gov't didn't handle their evidence properly, leaving this overreach as their next resort to get at that data.
The reason to accept this happening is trust in the gov't. If the idea of handing them the keys to your house is unsettling, what they're trying to do with Apple is as well.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget though, Ben Franklin is someone who never had his liberty or his safety threatened. It's an easy platitude when you've got both.
One would think that his involvement with the US Declaration of Independence, the revolution, etc., would certainly be evidence that he felt his safety and liberty were threatened.
That's a false analogy. The police want help from the local locksmith to get into this house, which he made the lock for, because they have a warrant to search the premises. And the tenant is dead. And the property owner consents.
Except that they're not asking for a key to that house. They're asking for a Master Key to 38.58% of the Houses in the country, along with the legal authority to demand a custom built master key for the other 60%.
Wrong.
First of all, you can't build a backdoor or a master key in after the fact -- the backdoor already exists in the 5C. If a there's a "Master Key to 38.58% of the Houses in the country", it's the locksmith's fault for creating that situation, not the police's fault for -- a Master Key being possible -- telling the locksmith to use it on this house they have a warrant for.
Furthermore, the FBI's own affidavit indicates that Apple can keep possession of the software (key).
Finally, nothing here is telling the locksmith to *build* Master Keys into future products -- that's a very separate debate: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/02/encryption-bill-tech-companies-federal-law-enforcement/70734646/
If it helps, think of it this way: The iPhone 5C has a security vulnerability that's fixed in a later version. That security vulnerability enables the use of a search warrant in this case. Said search warrant was lawfully issued.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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?
If the local authorities needed access to your house to save a life, they would just break in the door. They wouldn't need your keys. If police enter a home without probable cause or a warrant, then whatever they find cannot be used.
In the US, you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The shooters in CA, have been shown to be guilty, if they were still alive, they would still have rights, but being dead, it is hard to argue that they have the right to privacy, particularly if others might have been involved.
That sound great, it just doesn't have anything to do with the points I brought up. The gov't isn't kicking down the door, they're asking the manufacturer of the house to spend their own resources to compromise the security of all the houses they've built for this one case, and this is after they threw the keys they HAD legally obtained away.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This is called flaunting.
There are a few. First is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to make all of their phones vulnerable.
No, the search warrant is for this phone only. If that makes all phones vulnerable [which it doesn't, since firmware needs to be loaded onto it for it to get brute forced], then that's Apple's fuck up and no one else's. Apple should be getting the blame for making their shit insecure. A cynic might argue that the very public PR fuss they're making is intended to distract from that point.
Second is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to actually do the work to make that possible, as opposed to just providing a simple service.
There's tons of common law and case law around this. For a live investigation, even a simple county sheriff can compel assistance from private citizens (and, by implication, corps) to assist in an investigation, apprehension, or something similar. If you've never had to respond to a subpoena of any type, trust me, it's more than a "simple service." Additionally, Apple was going to be compensated for their efforts.
Third is that they're trying to compel Apple to do this because the gov't didn't handle their evidence properly, leaving this overreach as their next resort to get at that data.
Although that's indeed very funny, it's irrelevant.
The reason to accept this happening is trust in the gov't. If the idea of handing them the keys to your house is unsettling, what they're trying to do with Apple is as well.
I don't trust "the government", but that doesn't mean the judicial branch doesn't get to issue search warrants and the executive branch doesn't get to execute them. I'm all for the slippery slope argument, but people are getting way ahead of themselves here and hand-waving away challenges.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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 :).
You should re-read it, because it has everything to do with what you posted.
"There are simply no comparisons to be made and the writers could never have comprehended the technologically advanced world we live in today."
Bullshit. I can teach 65+ year old biddies from the ghetto how to repair laptops in a couple of weeks, yet they still can't program a VCR to save their lives. Teaching the founders today by analogy would take about ten minutes, and they'd then look at you and go "You sir, are a fucking moron."
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
[which it doesn't, since firmware needs to be loaded onto it for it to get brute forced]
They have to do the work to do open the first one. After that there will be no convincing the gov't that Apple can say anything but "Yes we can do that." This is software for a mass-produced and popular product, there is no 'doing it once'.
Additionally, Apple was going to be compensated for their efforts.
They were going to be compensated for compromising their entire product line? Heh. K.
Although that's indeed very funny, it's irrelevant.
As I said before, this is about trusting the gov't. Yes, it's very relevant. In fact, we wouldn't even be seeing this challenge go down if not for this sort of incompetence. You're being bought with theater.
I'm all for the slippery slope argument, but people are getting way ahead of themselves here and hand-waving away challenges.
People are showing an interest in the proper functioning of Checks and Balances. The whole purpose of a system like that is to prevent over-reach. The government's argument is unconvincing and the damage it would cause to the citizens of the USA has not been sufficiently justified. It reeks of opportunism.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This is frankly astonishing to me. I use an iPhone because it is what my work gives me. But I've had so many techies deride me for using an iOS instead of Android that I was sure the answer would be that Android devices are far more secure than Apple devices since techies tend to put a lot of value (lip service?) towards security. I guess when it comes to pros and cons, the pro of being able to root your device is more important than the con of the FBI being able to root your device.
You missed the point of the test:
A law that would explicitly enable the revolutionaries to stand up to King George III would be a law that would help the colonies overthrow the King.
"We want guns and cannons and stuff!"
"Okay. Free guns and cannons for all colonists!"
"BOOM BOOM BOOM! We're FREE!"
--Yes! Thats why the second amendment was written. We have a right to bear arms, specifically so that we can overthrow an oppressive government. So that a "militia" can not be overruled and out-gunned by its government. In modern times, its unimaginable how a citizenry in the U.S could overthrow its government, but surely it would be easier with arms than without.
What about a law freeing the colonies of taxation?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. No taxes then."
"Yaaaay! This king RULES! No revolution!"
-- This isn't a good law. Taxation is a form of procurement we exercise as a nation. Eg. we can not procure national defense independently, or pay for a healthy system of courts independently. When the government purchases goods or services, we all collectively purchase them without a choice. Taxation and government procurement is under force, so it should be used sparingly. To put a point on it: No taxation would have hurt the revolutionaries, so no.
What about a law giving the colonies a voice in Parliament?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. You can have some seats."
"Cool. Sounds fair. No need for revolution."
A voice in parliament would have absolutely helped the revolutionaries, and with careful negotiation and a strong bargaining position, the war could have been shorter, or avoided entirely. This would have been a good law, and it would have helped the revolutionaries. Yes.
An overly oppressive law could also help the colonies to overthrow the king, by strengthening the resolve and numbers of the opposition.
"This king sucks!"
"Oh yeah! Well I claim primae noctis on all marriages in the colonies. You also have to pay your own way to England. You can't get married otherwise. We'll kill you if you don't comply."
"Let's kill him!"
This is a bad law for so many reasons. It would not have helped the revolutionaries because it would have strengthened ties to England due to the children, it would have drained the colony of females who could not afford the trip back, and (to humor you) would have resulted in many deaths due to the inability to pay for or survive the Atlantic crossing. Bad law, no.
Does timing matter? Couldn't the same law have different effects during different stages of the revolution? Consider something which, early on, would be non-controversial and "nip in the bud" revolutionary activities. However, if enacted after the colonies were already in revolt, this same law would be seen as oppressive and instead fuel rebellion?
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"Ben who?"
vs.
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"FUCK YOU!"
At no point would such a law have helped the colonies, No. This isn't a good law.
Is this really a good test? Wouldn't the most oppressive laws imaginable actually pass, because they would incite revolution? Should the gov't really pass crazy laws simply for the purpose of provoking the public?
None of the laws you have proposed would have helped the colonials, save for the voice in parliament which would have been a great law at the time. Yes, this is a good test. The goal isn't to incite revolution, the goal is that the will of the governed reign over the will of their government. Laws should enact the peoples choices and beliefs. The colonists wanted freedom and liberties, their government didn't want to give it to them.
No, it doesn't, for the reasons I posted. Re-reading your post didn't make any remarks addressing the scale of the request appear.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!
http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
"Ben Franklin is someone who never had his liberty or his safety threatened"
Say fucking what? February 15, 1739: Franklin’s home was robbed by William Lloyd. November 24, 1737: Franklin and others organized a volunteer militia – the Associators – for the defense of Pennsylvania. December 23, 1750: Franklin was severely shocked, while electrocuting a turkey. June, 1752: Franklin, who has not yet heard of the French success of his 'sentry-box' experiment, experiments with flying a kite in a thunderstorm, and also proves that lightning is electrical in nature. September 16-17, 1765: Franklin’s house threatened by Stamp Act protestors. Deborah refused to flee, and the mob was dissuaded by 8oo Franklin supporters ready to combat them.
Franklin has had his liberty and safety at risk more times than you can possibly imagine. these are just the documented and notable ones.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I guess when it comes to pros and cons, the pro of being able to root your device is more important than the con of the FBI being able to root your device.
That is correct. The multitude of devices and configurations also means that FBI has to work hard at every device rather than around 4 or 5 iPhone models.
Though the multitude also gives a false sense of security to Android phone users - when a security vulnerability is found and publicised in one Android device, owners of other Android devices don't explicitly think theirs is vulnerable too. They should, but they typically don't.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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.
it's like making some areas gun-free zones because we don't like those icky things and people get hurt around guns... shall we ask the Columbine survivors how that worked out for them?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
They say you should never try to be sarcastic in print. Apparently "they" were right. It never once occurred to me that GPP was anything but sarcastic.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
The problem is it's not just this phone. It's the 12 others they have on stand by, it's the 175 NY has lined up and ready to go -- for starters.
As long as they have proper warrants, I don't see what it matters if there is only 1 phone, or 10000.
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 liberty? you cannot post/say anything if it hurts other people (real liberty would allow that).
And how will you protect 'liberty' if there is no way to be able to gather information.. What's the use of liberty if you have to worry about being blown to bits by some lunatic/morons..
People bitch at the goverment after an attack for not having tried to prevent it, but people bitch if the goverment tries to gather information..
It's not an easy subject, society is getting more and more complex and massive each day..
REAL liberty does not belong in a society as real liberty just turns into chaos..
For me, yes privacy is important, if I loose my phone I don't want john doe who finds it not being able to simply retrieve my information, but I don't mind if law enforcement with a court order being able to get to the data on the phone..
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.
Encrypted filesystem, tiny OS kernel stored as on-chip PROM
Of course I meant ROM not PROM.
To avoid distracting replies like this, head on over to my "How can we improve Slashdot?" suggestion that Slashdot implements an edit feature and show your support. Of course, "[That] discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted." so you won't be able to show your support. Maybe send them an email or add it to your sig. I will as soon as I figure out how magnets work. If you work in the same building, pull the fire alarm to get their attention.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Some ideas are timeless...... The government is demanding a society where its impossible to store anything private in a fixed form. Do you really want a world where the only privacy you have is in your own head? Do you think society has a right to read my diary? Do you think i have the right to try and stop you from reading it through technological measures?
Good-bye
I'll just add Wired to my router's block list. I love it, these sites make it so easy for me to say, 'well im never going there again'.
Good-bye
3 score years and ten? When people die before that people tend to think they died too young. Over that, and the phrase "died of old age" starts to kick in.
Not of course that I think people should hang up their boots at 70. But rather that they should start think of those years, if they get them, as a bonus.
The government has the right to search and seize but there is no inherent right to understand what it has searched and seized.
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.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
How about by decryption you could potentially cost lives. How does that balance?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
OMG! What a brave, brave man he must have been. That turkey must certainly have been threatening his safety and liberty.
The Founding Fathers were mainly wine snobs who didn't want to pay their taxes. If you think Ben Franklin's safety and liberty were threatened, you may be mistaking the plot-line of Assassin's Creed Rogue for real life.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?
f the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Exactly, it's really not an exaggeration to say that if the FBI gets their way, when the "just for this phone" (a bald-faced lie anyway) software eventually leaks, dissidents in totalitarian countries will be MURDERED because of it.
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...
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
It will cost many more lives whit loss of eternal freedom. Already the same arguments are used in thugocracies like Russia and China so they can spy on dissidents..
No, we should not force a security camera into everyone's modern living room, their phone. If you do not build the tools of tyrrany, they cannot be misused...everywhere...today.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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 problem is it's not just this phone. It's the 12 others they have on stand by, it's the 175 NY has lined up and ready to go -- for starters.
As long as they have proper warrants, I don't see what it matters if there is only 1 phone, or 10000.
Because there is no precedent or legal reason to force Apple to provide the FBI with evidence they already have. If the Federal government, or any government agency does not have the ways and means to turn that evidence into something useful, how is it Apple's problem? They already have all the NSA collected meta data on every communication these two made. So what value does the phone even provide? The government keeps reaching further and further. By forcing Apple to make new firmware, they are also violating Apple's first amendment rights. Even if they just force Apple to sign the firmware, they are violating Apple's rights. And to save whom? To prosecute what individual? The perpetrators of this act are dead. Their victims have already been harmed. The government should already know who these people are talking to thanks to illegal data collection policies practiced by the federal government. So why do you have so much sympathy for a government that violates your privacy? So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion? Feel free to volunteer all of your privacy, but don't take mine or that of anyone else. You're more likely to win the lottery though, I imagine.
> Don't forget though, Ben Franklin is someone who never had his liberty or his safety threatened.
The signatories of the Declaration of Independence felt that their liberty, and safety, were indeed threatened by a remote and dangerous monarchy. After signing it, Mr. Franklin most certainly was at risk of capture and execution for treason against the British Empire, much as Mr. Snowden is at risk of prosecution if he returns to US soil.
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.
So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion?
When you can guarantee that number won't increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have your privacy back.
So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion?
When you can guarantee that number won't increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have your privacy back.
When you can guarantee that number will increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have my privacy. That's the most asinine argument I've ever heard.
Of course they're doing it for business reasons. The opposition of tech companies to government spying is one of the few situations where corporate interests align (coincidentally) with those of the people. The fact that corporations play a large part in US politics gives a tiny bit of hope that something will be done.
ISIS is sending thousands of fighters into the West, mixed in with the rapefugees. The risk is very real, and people are working hard to make the risk bigger, unlike for instance, the chance of being eaten by a shark, or being killed in traffic.
Yes, if attackers can successfully disseminate software that looks legitimate (e.g. - signed by Apple certificates), then that could allow them to install "keyloggers" or similar that could allow them to skirt around most any security codes. They'd just have to wait until the user enters their password again to unlock whatever secured files there are and then they could leak the contents or the password could later on be used to access the data as needed.
Still, that's a far more difficult hack than simply plugging into the phone and being able to easily brute force defeat any security there.
If you secure the data using AES-128 or AES-256 and the owner uses a decent password, then the only way to get at that data today is through some form of keylogging that subsequently captures the owner accessing their data again.
It does, but its a silly thing to worry about. Remember the "could potentially" means, you don't even know that it would. The entire scenario is based on hypothetical lives that could be saved, in a fantastical scenario.
The real issue is what happens when these things are easy to break. The ability to access data is often abused, its well documented how often and how many people will abuse access they are given, even for mundane reasons. Do you have any idea how many people with access to medical records try looking up their neighbors? Its staggering.
So you have the real risks of bad security, and the imagined risk. The real risks include the obverse scenario. For every "terrorist" whose phone might betray accomplices, there are 10s or 100s of political dissidents whose lives would be endangered by the same.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
Because your phone can't tell whether the person cracking the passcode is an FBI agent with a warrant, or a common thief.
If there are special keys to let other people break into your phone, it can't tell whether they're supposed to have them or not.
Your phone isn't secure unless there's no such special key.
This isn't rocket science: If anyone else can unlock your phone, anyone else can unlock your phone.
>;k
Simple solution: FBI agent hands phone to Apple and shows warrant. Apple installs special firmware on this phone. Apple returns phone to FBI agent.
iPhones are only secure within themselves. If I send you a text, that's open and easily interceptable.
1. Sending a message from one iPhone to another: Not interceptable.
2. Sending a message or calling via Signal from Open Whisper Systems: Not interceptable
3. Using an encrypted carddav- and caldav-provider: Data not accessible as it is encrypted with my long and complex password
4. Using firefox to synch browserdata: Not accessible as it is encrypted end-to-end
So what do you mean by "only secure within themselves"?
Apple counsel gets called into court, ordered to make special firmware that can be installed on anyone's phone by FBI agents, without Apple supervision.
Existence of this firmware is not to be revealed to public. Existence of this court order is not to be revealed to public.
FBI uses this to quietly solve some difficult cases, much high-fiving.
Then FBI agent unknowingly allows a copy to be stolen by his mistress, who sells it to her drug dealer.
Another gives a copy to his buddy, a former agent turned private-eye.
Another (double-agent) gives a copy to his Russian handler.
Within two months, most foreign intelligence agencies have copies
Within a year, ISIS, Mafia, Yakuza, Mexican drug lords, and an unknown number of random hackers have copies.
>;k
"I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too."
That's what the torturers always say.
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.
Yes, the rights preexist and the government can't take away what they didn't grant. The United States Constitution does this the right way, something NO other constitution does. The men who founded the country recognized the evil of government and how it can easily get out of control. All attempts to copy it have failed miserably if preexisting rights are left out. You have to protect basic preexisting human rights at all costs, even if it is detrimental to the state. That's what worries me when people are in favor of "collective" types of government, where the state's survival and rights (not individuals') are paramount.
If the government can't get into this particular iphone, something bad MAY happen. If it can get into it, something worse WILL have happened.
"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.
okay then try this create a document with all of your passwords/logins seal it in a Tyvek bag and mail it to your local police station with instructions to only open the bag if you are arrested.
the big problem is if we allow some sort of Master BackDoor that in effect has a sign on it that says LEO ACCESS ONLY then within 30 days the Entire "Dark Web" will also have access to the MBD.
can you think of the "fun" somebody can have with full ROOT access to your phone??
Im sure your subscription to "Exotic Lolis Gone Wylde" will be very intertesting when you get arrested.
"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.
They were wine snobs who didn't feel like paying taxes.
And yet he traveled freely through Europe, partying at Versailles and making a spectacle of himself. And making spectacles.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A 9/11 or Pearl Harbor like even seems to be a once in a lifetime event so I really wouldn't worry about that probability changing, and if it does change to be 1 in 100 then a lot has gone wrong to get us there. I'm more worried about the things that would get us there and the erosion of rights and the expanded search and seizure powers of government seem to be a way to oppress people who just might snap and turn our country into something that resembles Iraq or Syria. It isn't like Detroit or Baltimore are that far from that now.
Time to offend someone
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
ANYTHING can be conjectured to POTENTIALLY do ANYTHING. That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
From the mouth of Tim Cook himself, can't say it any better:
“The key is for all of the key people to come together and really think through these issues,” Cook said. “Not just look at one — look at all of them and recognize that at the core of this are some of the founding principles of our country, which we should take a huge pause to trample on.”
And don't forget that lawyer (can't find the link ATM), that publicly declared that he's just waiting for the precedent to be set, so he can demand another 180+ iphones can be unlocked.
And that's just one lawyer. Who knows how many others would also jump at this like a starving piranha.
You're conflating two very different issues here: what people want to share with (some) others and what people want to keep private. Even if some, but not all, people put a bunch of stuff online that you wouldn't put online, it doesn't mean that they should lose the right to keep other stuff private. We need to educate people about the impacts of divulging information about themselves to strangers and keep the ability to keep private information private.
Backdoors in devices aren't intended to get at information that people publicly post, but to let those prying eyes get at information that people don't publicly post.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
It states that these rights preexist, AND EXPLICITLY STATES THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO INFRINGE UPON THEM.
What the constitution doesn't handle is that the preservation of ones right can result in the misery of millions.
The problem with the current state of affairs is that we don't truly know how much good truly comes from privacy of data (specifically with the state) because we've been without it for so long. Will this enable ill intentioned corporations, governments, people to do more without fear of being watched? Has this level of transparency been a deterrent? Or is it the opposite?
The current court order is that the FBI wants Apple to produce a customized version of IOS signed for installation on a single iPhone. Done in this case in open court to sway public opinion. And presumably with some custom installation method because they can't auto-update without the password.
But remember that most of these requests are done under seal with Apple not being allowed to talk about it publicly. So once this precedent is set, the next step is a court order to do similar or other customizations to IOS for a specific customer's phone and then simply put that into the normal IOS update system so that the next time that phone is updated (e.g. when the customer sees that a new update is generally available) the customized version of IOS is installed.
I'll leave to the imagination the types of customizations that the FBI or the NSA (or any totalitarian government e.g. China, Iran, etc.) might think to ask for.
This really is the the camel getting it's nose into the tent. Once it is there we won't be able to get it out. And at that point there will simply be no way to trust our phones are doing what we think they are doing. They will be doing whatever the government wants them to do.
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks
At the end of the day we need to pick the road that is most beneficial for society as a whole and I'm willing to believe for the moment that "evildoers" benefit far more from said backdoors than legitimate entities.
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."
My point was that given the history of security in the information age, one should not assume that anything you store on a connected device is save. Regardless of the government gaining access, devices lack enough security for identity theft to be rampant.
Most people would not leave their valuables on the front seat of a locked vehicle because it is easy to gain access. The same is true for our phones and tablets. While that doesn't give somebody the right to your data, there is enough evidence to show that it is not adequately protected, backdoor or not. Therefore, if one is truly concerned with security and privacy, one does not store data on such devices.
It matters not whether people want to share it or not, one should assume that anything stored on these devices is not private.
Apple's signing keys.
You mean, everyone's signing keys.
Because there is this concept of a "legal precedent."
You're a certified fucking moron if you think that this case only applies to Apple, or people with Apple devices.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Nobody ever claimed the iPhone 5C was "unhackable" - to wit, that is exactly what this argument is about. It is hackable, and the FBI want to compel Apple to do it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
This warrant is for one phone only. Apple is resisting it by claiming that the government doesn't have the power to compel them to construct a tool to break it, particularly when it's against Apple's interests. That can be settled in the courts.
However, it's settled case law that the All Writs law can be used to make a company use a tool they've already got. In other words, if Apple caves on this one, it's very clear that they have no ground not to do it with any iPhone with a court order. Apple considers this not in the best interest of their customers.
So, this is not just about one phone. It's about all phones as long as Apple has the technical ability to break into them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Don't forget the war unicorns. Never forget the war unicorns. There's about as much evidence for the "thousands of fighters" and the war unicorns.
This is not a fundamentally new situation. There have been religious fanatics as long as we've had religion. ISIS is not something new. Neither is Islam.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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."
I have copies of Franklin's writings. You know absolutely NOTHING.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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."
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.
And if that something were encrypted, the world would have never known of her.
There is roughly zero reason to believe the phone in question would save anyone. It's about precedent. The government has chosen this phone to set one, as the perp is prominent. Think about it, why would the perp pay for a personal phone only to put something incriminating on a work phone??
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.