Slashdot Mirror
FBI Tells Local Law Enforcement It Will Help Unlock Phones (buzzfeed.com)
Salvador Hernandez, reporting for BuzzFeed: Just days after breaking into a terrorist's iPhone using a mysterious third-party technique, FBI officials on Friday told local law enforcement agencies it will assist them with unlocking phones and other electronic devices. The advisory, obtained by BuzzFeed News, was sent in response to law enforcement inquiries about its new method of unlocking devices. Though the dispatch does not explicitly state if the FBI will use the mysterious third-party method to unlock phones for local authorities, officials said the agency "will of course consider any tool that might be helpful to our partners."
The purpose of a lock is only to keep honest people honest.
Serenity now, insanity later.
why do you think the fbi helping the police unlock iphones is a good thing?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
I have no doubt that the FBI's public proclamation of successfully unlocking the San Bernardino and now this intentionally leaked memo are part of a concerted effort to embarrass Apple by discrediting their encryption and privacy technology. I mean when was the last time you heard of the government bragging about having the ability to hack phones? You would expect the opposite since they wouldn't want such capabilities known. In the end Apple will win because this entire episode will motivate them to double down on their stated encryption/privacy policies and work even harder to lock down the phone to prying eyes.
99% of people in tech--EVERYBODY who does not work with law enforcement and understands the issues--was against the FBI.
I think there's a very important difference between user freedom (FOSS software) and user privacy (what this is about) that you're missing. Apple puts on more of a show about caring than they actually do, but it's also obvious that they take more steps than just about any other company of their size towards protecting user privacy.
I think that their tendency in this direction arises as much from business goals as is does from any form of altruism. It doesn't take much in the way of mental adeptness to see that Apple's biggest competitor is in the business of learning everything it can about a person in order to target advertisements at users. Apple knows it can't succeed in this business, not without years of incredibly costly work and Google dropping the ball once or twice along the way. It's far better for them to try to deprive Google of what makes them successful by making privacy a feature of their devices, much like they've added other functionality that diminishes the ability to collect information or display ads. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually offer some kind of proxy service that makes online tracking practically impossible.
Really though, Apple is no different in this regard from any other company. Google didn't release their Google Docs because they care about users. Instead it was an opportunity to strike at an area where one of their main competitors (Microsoft) was heavily entrenched and disrupt their business model. You don't have to compete directly at something you're not good at if you can find a way to interfere with or outright nullify those advantages.
"Just days after breaking into a terroristÃ(TM)s iPhone ..."
So does this mean that we believe they were successful? Are we going to take their word for it? You are free to agree with this government decree, but not me.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Using that argument, the US would still be a protectorate of Britain. You separatists didn't play nice with the law back then but now you're advocating it?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack?
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
To remind you of the facts, this was the work phone of (one of) the persons who embarked on the terrorist attack... which they planned using burner phones that they took some pains to destroy (along with the hard disk from their computer) and succeeded in doing so in a way that the FBI could not recover information.
https://www.inverse.com/articl...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
So, the question is, would they make an effort to to destroy two phones, and not bother destroying the third phone, if the third phone actually had any information on it?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It will be interesting to watch if phone manufacturers use this to spur better encryption and security in next generation phones. Or will public opinion and government meddling make it go the other way..
It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.
Nope. That's a choice made by society, a trade-off between privacy and authority. Law enforcement may say that they "need" a way to access it, but the extent to which we allow law enforcement to access locked vaults is a decision that is made by society, and one of the possible decisions is "no, find a different way to gather evidence."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
All of this was irony and stupidity. The government agency that the gunman worked or had access to the phone as it belonged to the government agency and FBI stupidity lost them that access. Then they told Apple that they had to provide them the key to the phone. Apple correctly told them that no such thing exists as only the user (and in this case the employer, until they lost it) have the key. So then the FBI tried to make the case that they could force Apple to rewrite their software and then force update the phone to allow the phone to be unlocked without the key. A case that the FBI lost in parallel in a court case in New York shortly after on the same issue citing the same law they were trying to use in California. Seeing the wind blowing against them, the DOJ backed out with as much "dignity" they could muster. The court, not using the legalise, did not like the idea that the government could compel a company, who was under no criminal charges themselves on this, to provide product development and assistance to the government against their will to undermine their own products and services. The FBI deserved to have their asses handed to them in shame on this.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -