Slashdot Mirror


FBI Telling Congress How It Hacked iPhone (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: According to a new report in National Journal, the FBI has already briefed Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on the methods used to break into the iPhone at the center of Apple's recent legal fight. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is also scheduled to be briefed on the topic in the days to come. [Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come.] The disclosures come amid widespread calls for the attack to be made public, particularly from privacy and technology groups. However the FBI's new method works, the ability to unlock an iPhone without knowing its passcode represents a significant break in Apple's security measures, one Apple would surely like to protect against if it hasn't already. Just days after the FBI broke into the terrorist's iPhone, the FBI told law enforcement agencies it would assist them with unlocking phones and other electronic devices. We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked, nor do we know how many iPhones may be able to be unlocked from the hack. The FBI did tell USA Today the hack has not been used in any other case beyond San Bernardino.

346 comments

  1. Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The queen of "laws for thee, but not for me."

    Guns? Why, those should be illegal! But I'm going to need some armed guards for myself, of course.

    Encryption? Consumers can't be allowed to have that! Now how do I configure my secure Senate email account?

    What a hypocritical cunt.

    1. Re:Diane Feinstein by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She is the QUEEN of hypocritical, scaremongering cunts. Naturally it would be her trying to limit this NEW TERRORIST CRIMINAL ENABLING technology.

    2. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The queen of "laws for thee, but not for me."

      Guns? Why, those should be illegal! But I'm going to need some armed guards for myself, of course.

      Encryption? Consumers can't be allowed to have that! Now how do I configure my secure Senate email account?

      What a hypocritical cunt.

      Can't Understand Normal Thinking = CUNT!

    3. Re:Diane Feinstein by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Hey, she gets along with the republicans just fine. Aren't we supposed to want them to cooperate? All this pissing and moaning, yet very few people actually consider voting the republicans AND democrats out of office. Oh well, live with it, I guess. Just don't go around blaming them for their success. Find out why Feinstein and all the other fascists are so popular, and work on that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Diane Feinstein by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A politician who is against the ownership of guns that relies on armed protection (assuming that is even a choice they can make...) is not a hypocrite. The fact that they need those guards supports their message.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Diane Feinstein by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I want to just give you a personal anecdote about terrorism, because less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb was set to detonate at two o'clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn't detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn't usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night, it dropped below freezing, and the bomb didn't detonate. I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.

      - Diane Feinstein, Concealed Weapons Permit holder. Concealed permits and firearm ownership was all fine and welcome and useful for Diane when she felt threatened, but we can't have the general public enjoying such luxury to protection...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re: Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She's royalty. You're peons. Shut up.

    7. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about her concealed handgun permit? It's fine for her to have one but not everyone else?

    8. Re:Diane Feinstein by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I don't know who this person is, so I'm taking your post at face value and.. yes, that's clearly hypocrisy. What the AC wrote, which echos criticisms of other politicians I have heard (without taking the context into account...) ,is not a contradiction.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that bitch Feinstein, and that faggot Burr... bunch of Nazi's they all are.
      You gotta take America back from these Government fucks.
      Or you can kiss that Lady Liberty standing outside Manhattan goodbye forever.

    10. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A politician who is against the ownership of guns that relies on armed protection (assuming that is even a choice they can make...) is not a hypocrite. The fact that they need those guards supports their message.

      You know damn well that if politicians didn't have armed guards she would use it as evidence that no one needs a gun. The fact that she is a politician is sufficient to call her a hypocritical cunt and you an apologist for a politician.

    11. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is the QUEEN of hypocritical, scaremongering cunts. Naturally it would be her trying to limit this NEW TERRORIST CRIMINAL ENABLING technology.

      The American people who voted these fucking idiots into positions of power are the ones ENABLING CRIMINALS.

    12. Re:Diane Feinstein by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 0

      Curtailing legal gun ownership is not going to make guns disappear from the hands of criminals overnight, but you have to start somewhere. The fact that she is asking (or trying to force) citizens to make the first move, yet has not dismissed her own armed guard (or tore up the CCW permit that she has apparently) does seem to make her a hypocrite; she certainly isn't leading by example here. She might claim that she hasn't given up her guard because there are no strict gun-control laws yet, and that she will dismiss them (or at least their firearms) when such a law goes through, but that would be nothing more than asinine posturing.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    13. Re:Diane Feinstein by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know much about this women so won't defend her, but as a gender point can't politicians change their minds? Maybe she decided that carrying a gun was mostly ineffective or even made things worse overall. Not saying she did, but I know there is stuff I did 20 years ago that I wouldn't do today.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Guns? Why, those should be illegal! But I'm going to need some armed guards for myself, of course.

      That's just slightly more hypocritical than the GOP - all about guns everywhere, open carry, concealed carry, armed teachers, guns guns guns. Except at their convention, Congress, and other places where their elites gather.

    15. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the politicians totally mentioned these actions on the campaign trail.

    16. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They put a bomb in my home when my husband was dying of cancer....."

      Of course they did. Because he was dying of cancer of course! Or maybe.......

    17. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    18. Re:Diane Feinstein by operagost · · Score: 1

      And we common peons don't need protection.

      That's hypocrisy. Learn what it is.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the retard. He's over here!

    20. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A criminal with a gun does not prove the statement "we need to disarm law-abiding citizens" correct. It does the complete opposite.

      Getting rid of guns for law-abiding citizens is not going to magically remove that gun from that criminal. That criminal will still have that gun.

      And no, I am actually anti-gun. So no dismissing my words as "just the ramblings of yet another gun nutter".

    21. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, given that the GOP supports the right of private people and businesses to dictate the terms of entering their property, there's no hypocrisy in the 'no guns at the convention' part. That was a decision by the owner of the venue where the convention is being held, not a decision of the party. The number of venues where the convention *could* be held is small, and further restricted by the location they choose for a given year, and the availability during the correct time period. Even if it were hosted in Texas, it would be difficult to find a large enough venue that allowed guns on the premises.

      The 'no guns in government buildings' part? Yeah, that might be hypocrisy, but it's equally at the feet of the Democratic party who has the 'guns are bad, but I must have armed guards' contingent. The current, Republican-controlled congress could, of course decide to wipe those laws from the books (federally, at least), but demonstrate the hypocrisy by failing to do so.

    22. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She still has the permit...

    23. Re:Diane Feinstein by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      Curtailing legal gun ownership is not going to make guns disappear from the hands of criminals overnight, but you have to start somewhere

      No, you don't.

    24. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't let the Army come in either. The 2nd amendment isn't about having guns every possible place, it's about citizens owning the weapons needed to wage war.

    25. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally have feelings that people should have training for firearms, at the minimum, conflict de-escalation and the four rules.

      However, with the demand for anything firearm related, to the point where some gun shops actually wind up having to close their doors between shipments, since they sell everything on the shelves, Feinstein and others are going to force the US to relive the War on Drugs and Prohibition. Here is what will happen, if even just the assault weapon ban bill (which is still in commitee) which will just be amended to add more firearms as time goes on:

      1: The bad guys will have them. The good guys won't. Crime will spike. Venezuela is a good example of this, where all citizen gun ownership is banned. The criminals will have a field day.

      2: Like all demand, a black market will form. AK based weapons can be made at any metal shop. 1911s are almost 1800s technology.

      3: Like all black markets gangs/cartels/syndicates will form. The mob for alcohol, gangs for drugs. A criminal organization, or organizations will form, and being the only guys armed, and they WILL be more armed than the police (hint -- if all guns are banned, the bad guys don't care about selective fire or other NFA regs which are heeded now.)

      4: The gangs will start fighting each other for turf, or just because of racial/religious grounds. Neuvo Laredo anyone? Except this will be all over the US. An average citizen will be dog meat.

      5: The US will have some major stability problems. Trillions were spent on the drug war... and those are just -recreational items-. Imagine the money spent on trying to deal with items that people feel are vital to their lives, so they have a chance of not getting killed/raped/stolen from.

    26. Re: Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the residents of the other 49 States totally had an opportunity to vote against Feinstein.

      Nobody should be surprised though, she's been an authoritarian for decades.

    27. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on this night, it dropped below freezing, and the bomb didn't detonate

      And some of you say there is no upside to global warming??

    28. Re:Diane Feinstein by anegg · · Score: 1

      She probably "brings home the bacon" to her constituents in California, and they like having a powerful Senator like her from their state/district, so they will of course keep electing her, as opposed to whoever runs against her. An alternative might not be so good at bringing home the bacon, and are obviously not as powerful (which would explain why the voters aren't sure they could bring home the bacon).

      The idea that a US Senator is supposed to represent the US as a whole, and not his/her own district doesn't seem to work out in practice. No surprise since any politician who enjoys wielding power wants to keep on wielding it, and the only way they can do that is to keep getting elected, which means keeping the voters who elect you happy. A good reason for term limits, I think.

    29. Re:Diane Feinstein by anegg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To me the point is the fact that she availed herself of the opportunity (to arm herself for self defense) at some point in the past when she felt she needed to, but she would now deny to others the ability to make that same choice to protect themselves. She *may* believe that it is overall for the better, but her current context under which she is reaching that conclusion is nothing like her context previously, and that (to me) makes her conclusion suspect. Strip her of her wealth and power, and all protections not available to the average citizen, place her in a more dangerous home environment, then see how whether she quickly changes her mind again.

    30. Re:Diane Feinstein by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd say her current context gives her current point of view more credibility. When faced with a threat to her life and the life of her family she found carrying a gun comforting. Now that she can think back to that time without any feelings of fear cloud her judgement she came to a different conclusion.

      I like your argument better, because it addresses the reason why she changed her mind. A politician changing their mind should be seen as a good thing, or at least neutral, unless there are other reasons to criticise the new position.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re: Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because taking guns away from law abiding citizens would make her safer, right?

    32. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called 'police', dumb shit.

    33. Re: Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, actually.

    34. Re: Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, take the horns from the gazelles and eventually the lions will leave them alone?

    35. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...can't politicians change their minds? Maybe she decided that carrying a gun was mostly ineffective or even made things worse overall. Not saying she did, but I know there is stuff I did 20 years ago that I wouldn't do today.

      Naturally, I would hope that politicians are capable of assimilating new information and re-evaluating their positions accordingly. This is not one of those cases.

      Here's a bit of salient history (search for the second instance of "San Francisco" on the page):

      When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90-day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties. At that time, I turned in my pistol.

      She did not, however, give up her concealed carry license, and the ordinance in question included the usual exceptions for off-duty and retired police, etc., but also included the unusual exception for city office holders - she allowed herself the option of legally carrying again if she so desired, but not the ordinary civilian citizens of the city. Note that she has claimed that she also surrendered her CC license, but other sources have shown that to be false.

      She claims to have a firm understanding of when firearms are useful and when they are not, and to have a full grasp of the 2nd Amendment, but her legislation and public comments indicate otherwise. I would classify most of her positions in both this area and in the area of national security to be objectively hypocritical and when not, they are most often at least damaging. Note that she was the original Democratic party sponsor of the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. I'll leave further research as an exercise for the reader, but if you're outside the US and not a citizen, then much of it may not interest you. To be fair, she's not all bad; for example, she has been a zealous advocate for victims' rights and supportive of LGBT civil rights issues.

      I suspect that her attitude toward firearms legislation is rooted in finding Milk's body after Milk and Moscone had been assassinated. She was apparently so shaken by the events that she couldn't support herself. She was also the first to positively identify Moscone's body and announce the murders to the public. She actually saw the assassin in-between the murders, and had had a fleeting verbal exchange with him. That had to be horrifying, and I strongly suspect the impact of that day was formative of her view on firearms.

      What's most interesting to me with respect to her positions on gun control is that even though the Milk & Moscone assassinations were almost surely the foundation of her views, none of her legislation, not even the handgun ban in San Francisco, would have prevented those deaths. The assassin, Dan White, was a former police officer, and they are typically excluded from most firearms restrictions, including her San Francisco ban. White used a revolver, so none of her "assault weapon" legislation/votes would have covered it. It was his police service weapon, so none of her "gun show loophole" legislation/votes would have covered it. Revolvers, of course, do not have detachable magazines, and the revolver used by White had a capacity of only five rounds, so none of her "high-capacity magazine" legislation/votes would have covered it. I wonder if at some level she's trying to compensate for a traumatic event for which she somehow feels partially responsible because she didn't stop White before he killed Milk. I don't know, maybe she's still suffering from PTSD resulting from those events, but it is entirely clear to me that her positions on gun control are based on emotion rather than a dispassionate evaluation of facts. Emotions don't belong in any decision-making, especially so for those who enact policy for the populace.

      - T

    36. Re:Diane Feinstein by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 2

      I'd say her current context gives her current point of view more credibility.

      Have to disagree with you on this.

      Her current context is that she has a squad of Secret Service agents armed with a range of concealable weapons, including full auto SMGs, when ever she is in public. So she is still showing that she thinks its OK for her to have guns protecting her but that everyone else is just SOL.

    37. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her armed gaurds aren't there to save her from muggings. They are there to save her from being used by crackpots/foreign operatives to further there nutbag/political motivations. Are you likely to be targeted and used by a foreign power to harm the US? Probably not.

      For encryption she is concerned about people having things the government can't read. Her senate email account can be read by government so arguably she is asking that consumers be brought down to the same level as she is.

      So while I don't agree with her points they are definitely not hypocritical.

    38. Re: Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are enabling criminals because that is exactly what they are. Baddies. Don't kid yourself. These are bad people who point at terrorists to try to make it seem as though they are good by comparison.

      God forbid people retain the ability to protect their own rights such as privacy and free speech.

    39. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish she would drive her car off a cliff or something.

    40. Re:Diane Feinstein by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      More than armed guards... she also bullied her war through the SF Sheriff's Department to get herself a (rare and very seldom granted) concealed carry permit. Google says she eventually let it lapse and is no longer armed herself. But yeah... a loathsome woman, raging hypocrite, and practically the dictionary definition of a DINO.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    41. Re:Diane Feinstein by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      A big problem is also that since it's so hard to unseat incumbent congress critters... senators or representatives... that viable candidates often don't bother running for the office until said incumbent retires. (Or, sometimes, is forced out by a scandal.) Nancy Pelosi, for example, is disliked by a significant portion of the voters here in her district. She is viewed as a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) who is culpable for cooperating with george bush and his lot across the board, especially for allowing the Iraq war to continue when she could have stopped it by withholding funding the day she became speaker, and generally failing to represent the wishes and interests of her district. But the lineup that runs against her every other year may as well have just walked out of a looney tunes cartoon. So people hole their nose and vote for her anyway because she's still better than the alternative. The same goes for Feinstein... I just used Pelosi as an example because, living in her district, I see a lot of the crazy that runs against her moreso than I do in the senate races.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    42. Re:Diane Feinstein by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The idea that a US Senator is supposed to represent the US as a whole, and not his/her own district doesn't seem to work out in practice.

      That will work in practice if and only if the voters decide it should work. We'd have no trouble trimming government expenses considerably if voters would prefer a Representative who will cut half a billion from the budget than one that will bring a million-dollar project into his or her home district, and a Senator who will cut a billion to one who will bring 20 million to the home state. If the voters did prefer that, almost all of them would be better off.

      Term limits aren't going to work if the House candidate who promises a million for the district sounds better than the one who promises half a billion off the budget. It would just replace one politician with another who works the same way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:Diane Feinstein by igobyjoshua · · Score: 0

      i love eating dead babies @ Bohemian Grove with Obama

    44. Re:Diane Feinstein by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      but as a gender point can't politicians change their minds?

      As far as I have heard, Gender is pretty much set, you don't get to change your mind on your gender, or people would be switching back and forth more often. /s

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    45. Re:Diane Feinstein by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The current, Republican-controlled congress could, of course decide to wipe those laws from the books (federally, at least), but demonstrate the hypocrisy by failing to do so.

      So, how exactly would they get that law passed with Obama as the final veto? Do you expect enough Democrats to side with them to get the 2/3 needed to bypass a veto?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    46. Re:Diane Feinstein by kmoser · · Score: 1

      The queen of "laws for thee, but not for me."

      Guns? Why, those should be illegal! But I'm going to need some armed guards for myself, of course.

      So, like every other country in the world that has laws limiting certain things. Or do you believe every citizen should have a Constitutional right to own their own nuclear arsenal?

    47. Re:Diane Feinstein by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of the crazy that runs against her moreso than I do in the senate races.

      This is why conscription for political office is necessary. The people that want the job are disqualified, by default. And our regular 95% reelection rate only reveals the fatal flaw of majority rule.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    48. Re:Diane Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curtailing legal gun ownership is not going to make guns disappear from the hands of criminals overnight, but you have to start somewhere.

      I did. I am highly trained and legally carry a firearm. I can't afford a bodyguard. Truth is I am be more highly trained than her guards.

      I was the target of a terrorist group.

      No one asks this question about terrorist attacks. "What do you do to get them that mad at you?" Groups of people like the PLO don't come after you unless you have done something to harm them in some way. So what did Diane do to have the PLO come after her? Whatever the act was if she hadn't attacked them in some way there wouldn't have been a bomb under her house.

      I saw this in Nam. The news and the government wondering "why do they hate us?" when we are destroying everything a people has including their children. People as a whole want to live in peace and only rise up when attacked. If Diane doesn't want to be a target then she needs to quit painting the target on her back.

      Simple rule of life that needs to be followed. "Live and let live."

    49. Re:Diane Feinstein by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yes they are a hypocrite. They want to take away the protection of others while keeping it for themselves. They believe that they are worthy of protection and that the proles are not worthy of protection. It is practically the definition of hypocrite.

    50. Re:Diane Feinstein by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yes it is.

    51. Re:Diane Feinstein by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      She may be, but the face-value description of what happened was not.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  2. we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so we can't even talk about anything further.

    who is going to tell us the honest truth? all we get is the dishonest truth from every 'official' that speaks up about this.

    disinformation and even more disinformation. you'd be nuts to take anything on face value, given what's at stake.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by rch7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The honest truth is that nothing on Internet or phone or computer is private. You must be nuts to believe in some overhyped security illusion on inherently insecure interconnected devices.

      Ironically, what Apple has achieved is that it will not be able to fix its security issues. The exploits are going to be sold to law enforcement agencies, or just anybody ready to pay around the world, for big money and kept secret. Maybe the times when such bugs were send to vendor for free for fixing are long gone anyway, but such cases make it even worse.

    2. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by exomondo · · Score: 3, Informative

      so we can't even talk about anything further.

      It's pretty silly to assume that in this day and age with complex systems and the device physically in the hands of those wanting to break into it that it still remains unbreakable. Yes it may have needed a bespoke solution for that particular software version but it's pretty naive and stupid to try and sweep this discussion under the rug because you believe Apple's product is completely secure.

    3. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by somenickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We also don't know if the device *needed* to be hacked by a third party. To me it looked like the FBI wanted a precedent, realized it might not get the one it wanted and then decided to back down with a, "Oh, wait, we found another way" story.

      You know it's scary times when the guy wearing the tinfoil hat is starting to seem like the most sane person in the room.

    4. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about things you encrypt before transmitting?

    5. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Key lengths which were considered secure a decade ago can be broken with a small investment in current processing power. Anything that needs to be private and remain private cannot be transmitted over the internet, not even encrypted.

    6. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by geek111 · · Score: 2

      You are right about the days of vulnerabilities being reported to developers for 'free' being gone. This is largely due to the fact that bugs are no longer easily found by accident. It takes a lot of work to find exploitable vulnerabilities in devices and applications and exploits are in high demand. Just one zero-day for IOS can sell for hundreds of thousands $$$. (http://news.softpedia.com/news/exploit-vendor-publishes-price-list-ios-valued-above-android-496449.shtml)

      But Apple can certainly take measures to 'fix its security issues' Their main problem is their lack of ANY bug bounty program. Apple should give researchers some incentive to disclose vulnerabilities... No they aren't going to be able to compete price-wise with the bad guys. Zero-Days will still be sold on the black market. But by offering bounties they show the community at-large that they at least appreciate the effort involved in finding, reproducing, documenting and disclosing exploits. A well-planned bug bounty program also gives ethical hackers the permission, guidelines and communication channels required to 'do the right thing'. Without an explicit policy those who disclose exploits to vendors could be accused of attempting to 'hack' the system even if the bug was discovered accidentally.

      What Apple needs to realize is that for every exploit it only takes one disclosure for them to fix it. Every bug bounty is a personal ad, a search for that one person. If 100 people find the same exploit and 99 of them sell it but 1 person reports it, then Apple and their customers win. Once the exploit is disclosed and patched no one can use it. That one ethical person has undone the efforts of the other 99 jerks and we are all more secure for it.

      (Seriously, United F****ing Airlines has a bug bounty program, how can Apple NOT have one?!?!?)

    7. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      So, no cyber pathogen then?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The honest truth is that nothing on Internet or phone or computer is private. You must be nuts to believe in some overhyped security illusion on inherently insecure interconnected devices.

      Which is of course is why banks process trillions electronically every single day. I would mention hospitals actually having an internet connection, but I think you get the point.

      Ironically, what Apple has achieved is that it will not be able to fix its security issues. The exploits are going to be sold to law enforcement agencies, or just anybody ready to pay around the world, for big money and kept secret.

      The only irony here is you assuming this would not or has not happened already on the black market. And Apple has not "achieved" anything here other than a direct order to make their product better.

      Maybe the times when such bugs were send to vendor for free for fixing are long gone anyway, but such cases make it even worse.

      Well, I guess it's a good thing you don't work at Apple, where they are likely very busy or not even worried about closing this particular "hack" (I term this loosely until validated). Your defeatist mentality would not likely be welcome among engineers hard at work on the next version of hardware and software that can likely defend or is already known to defend against the suspected hack.

    9. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

      (Seriously, United F****ing Airlines has a bug bounty program, how can Apple NOT have one?!?!?)

      Didn't you know? They have no need for one because everything that come from the holy temple of apple is perfect in every way. If one disagrees, it is they who are at fault, not the device, holding it wrong or something. Not like them mooks at a shitty airline, not only are they not in the same league, they aren't even playing the same game as the holy apple.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The honest truth is that nothing on Internet or phone or computer is private.

      That's a daft assertion. If you create a VeraCrypt container with a strong key and upload it to a public server, the contents are still private. Okay, maybe theoretically there might be unknown vulnerabilities or the NSA might have a quantum computer that can crack it, but it's still harder to get in to than a safe in your home or pretty much any other kind of private storage system.

      You have to be pragmatic about privacy. Otherwise you end up covering your walls in tinfoil and never going outside. Take Snowden as an example. He not old managed to liberate all those files, he managed to distribute them to journalists who were then able to work on them and write a great number of stories. If nothing on a computer or the internet was private he would have been caught before leaking anything, and those journalists would have been unable to catch the security services in so many lies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Key lengths which were considered secure a decade ago can be broken with a small investment in current processing power.

      There's your problem. Don't use "key lengths which were considered secure a decade ago". And certainly don't use encryption algorithms which were "considered secure a decade ago" that have long since been found to be flawed. Encryption isn't a static thing. It is a race. If you don't keep up, you'll be left behind.

    12. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ironically, what Apple has achieved is that it will not be able to fix its security issues.

      Wanna bet? Watch them.

      Remember, the San 'Berdino iPhone was an iPhone 5C, which did NOT have the Secure Enclave chip.

      The FBI is too stupid to know the difference; but there IS a difference. A BIG difference!

      And I ASSURE you that Apple is burning the midnight oil searching for, and closing, any security holes in iOS after this FBI debacle; and is likely pushing more security into hardware; where it is MUCH harder to circumvent by anyone, even Apple.

      They are QUITE serious about this.

    13. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by macs4all · · Score: 1

      You know it's scary times when the guy wearing the tinfoil hat is starting to seem like the most sane person in the room.

      Boy, you got THAT right!

    14. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by mlts · · Score: 1

      What really needs to be done is for apps to "pack their own parachutes" and offer their own encryption, separate from Apple. Of course, the problem is that PINs used by applications are trivial to brute force, and typing a real password is a PITA on a phone. However, I can see an open source utility/app/library being written whose purpose is to hold application keys in secure memory, as one switches between them, (similar to Firefox's key store or Kwallet) which is independent of the OS, requires the full unlock key on first use in a session, then only a PIN to unlock it until the user's session is complete.

      This is not a 100% effective means, but if phone makers are required to have useless encryption, it will fall to third parties to provide this.

    15. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Ok, you don't know whether or not the iPhone 5C is the first ever 21st-century personal computer that doesn't have a fuckton of bugs. It is theoretically possible that a modern network-enabled mass-market Gigabyte-sized chunk of code written by many teams of people, and never audited by outsiders, rushed to meet marketing deadlines, might not have a fuckton of bugs. And so all the people who are always looking for ways to run their own software on iPhones (of which the FBI is an insignificant under-resourced and under-motivated member) have been wasting their time looking for an exploit, because there is no bug to exploit.

      You're right. We don't know. The truth could be anything!

      Hey, BTW, what's your guess? Just a guess, idle and acknowledged half-assed uninformed speculation. Want me to go first? Will you tell me your guess if I tell you mine?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    16. Re: we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont really understand encryption, do you? Ill bet you that I can encrypt a message that will be guaranteed secure FOREVER.

    17. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Are you sure there aren't back doors? Notice how there is all this talk about the need to unlock iPhones. But nothing about encrypted hard drives using BitLocker, TrueCrypt, VeraCrypt, etc.

      Either it's not a concern as they have a way to decrypt the information. Or it's all a smoke screen where they don't want people to know about it.

    18. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Much more interesting is if "that little Israeli firm", or freezing and disconnecting quickly the chips, really helped or is just a "parallel construction" to cover industrial strength encryption cracking deep in a billion dollar black money building somewhere.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      But Apple can certainly take measures to 'fix its security issues' Their main problem is their lack of ANY bug bounty program. Apple should give researchers some incentive to disclose vulnerabilities... No they aren't going to be able to compete price-wise with the bad guys. Zero-Days will still be sold on the black market. But by offering bounties they show the community at-large that they at least appreciate the effort involved in finding, reproducing, documenting and disclosing exploits. A well-planned bug bounty program also gives ethical hackers the permission, guidelines and communication channels required to 'do the right thing'. Without an explicit policy those who disclose exploits to vendors could be accused of attempting to 'hack' the system even if the bug was discovered accidentally.

      You know how much Apple bugs go for? Apple can offer a bug bounty, but third parties and governments pay more.

      Last December, an offer closed - $1M (yes, a million dollars) for an iOS9 bug and the offer was good for THREE bugs. Of the 3, only one was claimed.

      The richest bug bounties are barely in the 5 digit range. If you found a bug, would you report it to Apple for $10,000, the darknet for $50,000, or the government vulnerability who will pay $1,000,000 for it?

      And hell, $1,000,000 for a bug, if you can charge out at $15K a pop is only 67 iPhones. If you can crack more than 67 iPhones with this bug, you've made a profit. Last I heard there were over 200 waiting to be cracked in the US.

    20. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day though, bug bounty or no, the question is white hat or black hat? Do you aspire to be a legitimate security researcher? Or do you want to be part of the criminal underground or a thug for an oppressive government? Do you have a sense of ethics and integrity?

      Consider also that Apple has, on a number of documented occasions, hired people who've discovered and reported vulnerabilities to improve the very products reported on; as have other tech companies. Alternately, finding and responsibly reporting a major exploit is also a nice line on the resume even if you never work for the reportee. And while black hat hackers are sometimes rehabilitated, that's a much rarer thing.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    21. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Use AES-256 with a random key. Key management is a pain, but it can't be brute-forced using only the resources available in the Solar System.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also, if you'd get $10K for finding a bug in iOS or OSX, would that be incentive for you to look for one? If you can find only one every other month, you can make a much better living doing something else. To collect, not only do you have to find a bug, you have to be the first to submit, so there's no certainty of collecting. How much white-hat cracking do bug bounties inspire?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:we do not even know IF the phone was hacked by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The encryption is AES-256. The NSA encourages its use for secret stuff. I really don't think the NSA would do that if it were that insecure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Backdoor is named Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The backdoor exists. Apple can toggle a bit server side to allow Siri to access a locked iPhone.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-fixes-siri-bug-allowing-access-to-photos-and-contacts-on-locked-device.1966071/

  4. FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple isn't willing to play ball with the FBI.. so why should the FBI help Apple out here?
    How do you like them Apples? (bad pun)

    1. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by xaosflux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Apple helps to fund the FBI, the FBI doesn't help to fund Apple.

    2. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the FBI helping Apple contributes to the security of the United States of America, while in this case, Apple helping the FBI detracted from the security of the United States of America.

      That's why Apple agreed to help the FBI in cases where it didn't detract from the security of the United States of America.

    3. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple helping the FBI detracted from the security of the United States of America.

      What an enormouse pile of bullshit! I don't condone this idea that the government should be able to compel companies to hack their own products for them but don't pretend you're that retarded that you think Apple couldn't have just unlocked that device for the FBI. They didn't have to release some custom version of iOS or even provide any software to the FBI, they could do it all in house and delete the software when done. Don't be so willfully stupid as to pretend that you think this couldn't have been done without compromising the security of all iphones.

    4. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do privacy concerns come before finding the bomb before it detonates?

      Yes, they do...

      If you don't have principles to stand on, then you stand for nothing and will fall, sooner or later.

    5. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As with most theoretical ethics problems, it only seems as if there is a conflict because the proposed scenario is too vague. This is why I find philosophy irritating sometimes, once you define enough details (as you would have in a real world scenario) you'll often find that the "right" thing to do is less ambiguous than it seems.

      How do we know there is a nuke that is about to go off at all, if we don't know where it is? How did we locate the person who delivered the bomb in the first place? We were tracking them closely enough to know that they planted the bomb, but not closely enough to know where? How do we know that the location and the disarming codes are on the iPhone at all? What kind of guarantees do we have that if we do get into the iPhone we can stop the bomb going off in time anyway?

      If we have a 100%, no bones about it, guarantee that gaining access to this one particular iPhone will prevent a nuke going off somewhere, then by all means, break into this particular iPhone. But you'll never have that kind of guarantee, so people will always argue that we need to be able to get into all the iPhones just in case.

      This is always the problem with this kind of reasoning, it leads inexorably to mass surveillance: "We have to watch everybody because somebody, somewhere, at some time will do something dangerous, and this is the only way to stop them." How about: most people are good, so let them be free.

      I'd rather die in a nuclear blast in a free country, than live a long life in a police state. The real fight is not to prevent deaths due to terrorism, the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are. They can only win that fight if we let them.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    6. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Because Apple helps to fund the FBI, the FBI doesn't help to fund Apple.

      I bet they have a shit load of ipads and iphones.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but it is not a mistake that we are going down this road. We are being driven very deliberately down this road and it isn't ISIS/alqaida/whoever that is driving us.

      When you say 'the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are' - it is ambiguous who you are fighting against.

      Our corporate and political elite are doing the driving. The terrorists are the sleight of hand distraction.

      It is important to make that distinction or nothing will change until our societies are on full lock-down and unable to fix it. We must fight both.

    8. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by alexhs · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't willing to play ball with the FBI.. so why should the FBI help Apple out here?

      Because Apple helps to fund the FBI, the FBI doesn't help to fund Apple.

      I bet they have a shit load of ipads and iphones.

      Did they pay for them ?
      I guess most of them are in a locked state :)

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >most people are good,

      Most people are assholes. But being an asshole is an american duty.

      >so let them be free.

    10. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you'll never have that kind of guarantee, so people will always argue that we need to be able to get into all the iPhones just in case.

      I believe this is the same reasoning used to justify torture. As you pointed out, it is equally flawed.

      For a country to be truly morally just, they need to not do the right thing every time except when it might conceivably lead to a situation they really don't like. They need to simply do the right thing every time and accept that freedom does have a price.

    11. Re: FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you do or do not want is irrelevant. The majority would rather live so you can take your privacy rights and stuff them up your craphole.

    12. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people are "cut you off in traffic" assholes, not "plant a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan" assholes. Most people are good in that they're not violent criminals, even if they are uncourteous (and Americans are not even close to being the most uncourteous people in the world).

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    13. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      The case is not only extreme, it is valueless. When law enforcement knows that much about the situation, they already know what to do. The contents on the iPhone will not help them at all.

      That illustrates no conflict at all. The answer is clear; privacy wins in this case. There exist no guarantees at all that the bomb exists, that the iPhone contains anything which will help defuse it, or that the information on the iPhone even is correct.

      And if the bomb exists, and law enforcement have been so mind bogglingly incompetent that getting inside the iPhone is the only way to locate it, then the answer is to get less mind bogglingly incompetent law enforcement. Not to destroy the privacy of every iPhone owner in the world.

    14. Re: FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it that you can be so thick not to understand that if the FBI can compel Apple to unlock even ONE phone, they can compel them to unlock ALL phones. This has nothing to do with sharing how it is done. They dont need to know how it is done. The FBI gets any phone unlocked that they want. Dont you GET this?

    15. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Do privacy concerns come before finding the bomb before it detonates?

      The Constitution says yes, absolutely.
      If you don't like it, push for an amendment to the Constitution.
      If you don't like guns, push for an amendment to the Constitution.
      If you don't like the rules, push for an appropriate change to the rules.

      Shitting on the rules or applying them only when (and to whom) it is convenient is tyranny.

    16. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that (almost) all leaders are sociopaths, and naturally assume all people are like themselves.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by QuestorTapes · · Score: 1

      "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark
      "Give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
      "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves" -- Abraham Lincoln
      "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter" -- George Washington

    18. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I'd rather die in a nuclear blast in a free country, than live a long life in a police state. The real fight is not to prevent deaths due to terrorism, the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are. They can only win that fight if we let them.

      Truer words were never spoken. Spot on, my freedom-loving friend!!!

    19. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... there are also worse things than a quick death.

      long tortuous pain-filled life, ending in bleeding out like a dog in the dirt, bent and broken.

      nuclear fire is not the most horrifying thing i can imagine.

    20. Re:FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone plants a nuclear device in the US. The bomb is set to detonate in 2 hours.

      Looks like someone is bitter that The Bruce isn't doing Yet Another Movie-Plot Threat Contest this year.

      Get over it, dude. It was getting old and tired, and your entry wouldn't have won anyway.

    21. Re: FBI hack should not be made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it that you can be so thick not to understand that if the FBI can compel Apple to unlock even ONE phone, they can compel them to unlock ALL phones.

      Have you not been following? Apple has unlocked phones for the FBI (and other federal agencies) many times already. They've done it in the past and they could do it again, obviously your idea that it sets a precedent is completely false.

      The FBI gets any phone unlocked that they want. Dont you GET this?

      No i dont, if it is going to set a precedent then what about all the iphones apple has already unlocked for them? Why did they not set a precedent but you think this one will?

  5. More alarming than the "hack"... by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More alarming than the hack is the following bit in TFS:

    [Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come.]

    The "hack", as I understand, was on an 5C, which is weak by comparison to the 5S and beyond. Non-event.

    But the bit I quoted? Really? Limit what encryption consumers can have? I find that more alarming than "old-ass insecure phone got cracked."

    I hope this dies a flaming painful death before it goes anywhere.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come.]

      Limit what encryption consumers can have? I find that more alarming than "old-ass insecure phone got cracked."

      I hope this dies a flaming painful death before it goes anywhere.

      Agreed.

      The scary bit, is I think limits could be passed. Encryption was listed as a munition before. It can be again. All it would take is a big enough event to shock the masses into giving up more freedom for security.

      Of course, actually implementing such a bill is another matter. Any recent Intel processor has AES built in. Admittedly you have to write a tiny bit of assembly language to access it, or, well use any of the provided Intel libraries.

    2. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the numerous open-source, credible encryption implementations, I don't think this is a concern of the average consumer.

      Now, as a tech company seeking to protect their users' privacy - if they pass legislation saying encryption must be below a certain standard, a reasonable person could present the argument that this infringes on the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure. We have a social agreement that reading someone's private diary/journal without their permission is infringing on their privacy.

    4. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banning encryption would be unconstitutional.

    5. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An encryption device (hardware or software) was defined as a munition for export control, not domestic use. However, you could print out the source code and export that because it was then deemed speech.

    6. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I studied cryptography in college in the 1980s - and all the same old methods still work, maybe the keys need to be a little longer today, but symmetric, asymmetric, time locks, etc, all still apply.

      So, are we going to stop teaching encryption methods in school? How about burning the textbooks, making it illegal to post on the internet, flagging people who talk about it or search for it? Every semester institutions of higher learning are training our youth in the dangerous art of secure communication, when will it stop?

    7. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.

      Already been there, thought common sense was starting to break through, apparently not.

    8. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      It (encryption tech) is already a controlled export - why not just turn those same standards around on the citizens?

      http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.p...

      http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.p...

    9. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Blackberry, etc should all come out publicly and say
      "We will produce secure encryption for the rest of the world, however the US government has mandated that US citizens are only entitled to 2nd best, now here is a list of YOUR representatives who voted for the bill"

      If the representative were Named, Shamed and Blamed they might just loose their cushy jobs.

    10. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Banning encryption would be unconstitutional.

      Lol, and what's your point? It's not going to stop scumbags like Feinstein and Burr. The Constitution is optional for people like them.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Except you've already willingly allowed the government to define acceptable standards for software, and also gleefully put your entire personal computing infrastructure in couple large baskets. I'd be scared if I wasnt enjoying so much the last 3 decades of horrible decisions coming crashing down on all these morons.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    12. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Be careful, or they will outlaw mathematics.

    13. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Doesn't need to be banned, just regulated - like the right to bear arms - so, no full auto weapons and no symmetric keys > 56 bits...

    14. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I hope this dies a flaming painful death before it goes anywhere.

      Yeah, well, the numbers are on their side. All these politicians are still winning reelection, so the two options are either to vote them out or reduce your expectations. Every little event draws us closer to lockdown. And I don't see a hell of a lot of resistance. We're are once again looking at a 95% reelection rate in November (100% when you consider that no one outside the ruling incumbent party is going to win a seat, lizards all the way down). Thank god for drugs!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      like the right to bear arms

      which means, you have the right to encrypt using as many bits as you can write on your bare arm ;)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    16. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't have to stop teaching it, just outlaw using it. It's relatively easy to tell if some one is using it and punish them for it.

    17. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      mathematics, hell: here in the US they've been trying to kill EDUCATION since the 1980s.

    18. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How do you stop steganography, exactly?

      No, it is not relatively easy to tell if someone is using encryption, and can always be contrived so as to be impossible.

      The only people who would fail to get away with using encryption if it were actually outlawed are people that are too stupid to know how to not get caught.

      But those aren't the people that are the problem that law enforcement is worried about.

    19. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have to be ever vigilant on that front, or they'll take it away from us like everything else.

      We're actually allowed to use it more than we were before. I mean, the FCC outlaws encryption for some things like HAM radio, there used to be tighter export controls listing it as a "munition", they've long been proposing to backdoor everything by law with the Clipper chip, etc.

      I tend to worry that Clinton II will revive Clinton I's bad ideas regarding encryption and that Clinton III will boomerang with them if Clinton I & II both fail to enact that nonsense.

    20. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are not the worst! Yeah USA!

      I that really your yardstick for excellence?

    21. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by youngone · · Score: 2

      Limit what encryption consumers can have?

      They've done it once before, when encryption was classed as a munition, so could not be exported from the US without Government authorization.

    22. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by youngone · · Score: 1

      Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.

      The problem for me is that while I do not live in the US, I wind up subject to US laws, because if my Government looks like it might step out of line with what the US wants, our Prime Minister gets a round of golf with the President. I imagine he is told in private what the US wants, and the great photo ops are his payment.

    23. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If encryption is a "munition" then this is not just a First Amendment issue, the Second Amendment also applies.

      Along that same train of thought, anyone besides me remember those Apple commercials touting that the then new PowerMac was considered a weapon? That same law that considers encryption a weapon also controls what kind of computers we can export. That's because computers are weapons too, I guess.

      They want to ban "undetectable" plastic guns, and the 3D printers that can create them. Then they tell us we can't even share the design files for the 3D printed guns. Can't have encryption that they cannot break, which I assume is so we can't share these gun designs without them knowing. Or even order a pizza without them knowing.

      What are these people so afraid of?

      Perhaps they fear us "peasants" might revolt.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    24. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      Simple. When you setup your new iPhone, there'll be an options page;
      "Are you currently living in an oppressive fascist regime that wants to spy on everything you do?"
      And if you click that, then all the encryption is disabled. If you don't click it, then your phone is protected.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    25. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I suspect that quite a few might say they've been largely successful.

      I went to a private Catholic school while many of my cousins went to the local public schools. I remember a few family reunions where we'd hear stories of the shenanigans that they'd let the student get away with. One memorable story was of some students that stole some dry cleaning and wore some of the work uniforms they found to school. Turns out that those uniforms were from the welding shop my brother worked at over the summer. What kind of kid think that they can wear stolen property to school and get away with it? I guess kids that get away with bringing pillows to study hall so they can take a nap. Or kids that set off "MacGyver bombs" in the parking lot.

      Parents are now tending to home school, or use private schools. Then the government seeing enrollment go down want to take those choices from parents.

      They are "thinking of the children" I'm sure.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    26. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the American way is to pass a law redefining the mathematical constants. Good luck getting your fancy dancy terror equations to work when computers in the US think e = 2.7 and pi = 3!

      </us-gov-logic>

    27. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.

      Except for England, Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to ban it also.

      And France.

    28. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working on a new bill...
      Make that TWO utterly wortlhess bills
      1) basically banning strong crypto and mandataing backdoors
      2) forcing you to register prepaid cell phones to your SSN and ID so when someone with access is stalking and raping you, you have nowhere to turn.
      Fuck the Govt.
      Take your USA back from them.

    29. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption was listed as a munition before. It can be again.

      That was 24 years ago now, at lot has happened since then. The rise of the Internet, for example and the explosion of essential electronic data services that rely upon encryption for day to day economic activities. Never mind all of the existing products and code out there, both commercial and open source, that implement strong encryption. Strong encryption in the hands of the consumer is a fait accompli. Any attempt to un-ring that bell is bound to accomplish nothing of value while causing serious economic harm, but then again the Democrats are good at that; harming the economy that is.

    30. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by jonwil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US government should realize by now that Islamic State and other terrorist groups (and increasingly even small cells or lone-wolf attackers like the ones in San Bernadino) already have (and are using) encryption software that even the NSA cant currently break and that further restrictions on cryptography wont make it any easier to catch the bad guys despite the rhetoric of the FBI, NSA and others.

      That said, the whole "terrorists around every corner" angle is just a cover story to disguise the fact that the "5 eyes" governments have created a worldwide surveillance network far moire powerful than anything that has come before it and is willing to do anything they can to prevent that surveillance network going dark and cutting off their access to the world's data.

    31. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by imboboage0 · · Score: 0

      I'm replying strictly because you have none, and I usually lurk. This one is too interesting to let go.

      I am highly intelligent, and went to public school (I likely could have used a private school or otherwise if it was anywhere near my parents means). Yes, shenanigans go on there. You don't have to be a part of it though - it really usually is a small group of those out to just break the rules. It's not that crazy, I often befriended such types to keep from getting bulllied (verbally was the worst part, I'm quite capable of the physical but it should really not come to that). It's not the outlaw country you're portraying, though I can see how you would get that from a private school POV.

      It's funny to watch private school types melt when presented with real life problems or someone thinking irrationally.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    32. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC for obvious reasons, I have a logged in account.

      I was pulled over by local police just two hours ago. I blew a 0.12 BAC and had 3.5g of marijuana on me. I was let go, free of charge or punishment, and I have absolutely zero ties in to connections like that. twenty minutes from the USA capitol. They took the weed, other then leaving me enough for one solid bowl in the center console (shout out county cops wooo) .

      tl;dr: i was way over the legal limit (surprise) and I got let go - not all law enforcement is bad - sometimes the laws are just bad. and i quote

      "everybody smokes weed. I'm just gonna get rid of it and you're gonna get a ride."

    33. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      But the bit I quoted? Really? Limit what encryption consumers can have? I find that more alarming than "old-ass insecure phone got cracked."

      They can attempt to pass whatever laws they want. There's no putting the encryption genie back into the bottle, sorry. And ultimately, any such laws passing would be an economic blow to our nation and therefore, hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of actually becoming law.

      And just like with attempts to pass guns laws, such laws would not stop criminals from employing strong encryption, just like they won't be taking any guns away from criminals. Just silly nonsense that makes zero sense.

    34. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 0

      If the representative were Named, Shamed and Blamed they might just loose their cushy jobs.

      While somewhat off-topic.. Ennnhh.. after the most recent John Oliver episode, I don't think those representatives have quite the cushy job you think they do. They're basically glorified telemarketers, and I don't envy a single one of them.

    35. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      I that really your yardstick for excellence?

      Most of Europe doesn't even have freedom of speech as a basic right.

    36. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you sure?

    37. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they fear us "peasants" might revolt.

      Then perhaps they need to fear their jobs, since their own fucking actions of late is the catalyst.

    38. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Troll

      And yet most of Europe send to be functioning rather well and with less government intrusion on their lives than the good old land of the free-to-have-all-aspects-of-life-recorded-by-the-government.

    39. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Perhaps they fear us "peasants" might revolt.

      If that were the case, they'd stop. Unfortunately, we're afraid of our government. It should be the other way around.

      If they thought we'd revolt, they'd stop trying to take our liberties away. A good government has a healthy respect, which is fear, the citizenry. I want my government to know they have limits and that bad things will happen if they cross the line. I want my government to remember that we're armed and how hard it is to deal with an insurgency. I want my government to know that if the country ends up in a civil war that they'll be the first in front of the wall or at the gallows.

      When the government has no fear of repercussions for their misdeeds, you get tyranny.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    40. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Because that effort already failed with browser encryption export restrictions. For years it was illegal to export browsers capable of encrypting data at higher than 40bit encryption. But that ban totally failed. The internet ignored it and the US standard 128 bit browsers (Netscape and IE) were widely used outside the US.

      Fighting encryption is a losing battle. At most they will put US citizens' data at greater risk by limiting what we can use while the rest of the world pushes forward into better security.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    41. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people in Australia that have done their thesis on cryptography and they swear that they had to release their thesis in Germany in order to defeat US "intelligence" agencies that routinely bring pressure to bear resulting in a ban on the release of such works, which subsequently also denies them of their PHDs as they can't provide a thesis.
      Once released in Germany, Russian and other peers' knowledge of the work helps entry into "public domain", thwarting US government censorship.
      The Russians are MUCH more "generous" in releasing scientific research than the US, who are always claiming "national secrecy" around scientific discoveries.

    42. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      like the right to bear arms

      which means, you have the right to encrypt using as many bits as you can write on your bare arm ;)

      Nah, you have to go find a bear and take its arm. On the upside bear arms are bigger than human arms so you can have more bits.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    43. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course in Russia run the same ad with the names replaced.

      "We will produce secure encryption for the rest of the world, however the Russian government has mandated that Russian citizens are only entitled to 2nd best, now here is a list of YOUR government officials which wanted that"

    44. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose that we all use double ROT-13 encryption in all of our future slashdot conversations. This will make it harder for them to eaves-drop on us.

      --
      This post secured with double ROT-13 encryption.

    45. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like the right to bear arms

      which means, you have the right to encrypt using as many bits as you can write on your bare arm ;)

      Nah, you have to go find a bear and take its arm. On the upside bear arms are bigger than human arms so you can have more bits.

      And another advantage. As it's much hairier the key will be easier to conceal.

    46. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because Russia, North Korea, China, are much more open and free societies than that evil Amerika!!!!!

      WOOSH! And at 50.000 feet no less...

    47. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If encryption is a "munition" then this is not just a First Amendment issue, the Second Amendment also applies.

      Great, because the second is the only one protected by economic interests.

      Really, the whole "need guns to keep the government in line" argument falls pretty flat when every part of the constitution can be eroded without any form of reaction as long as the second is kept intact.
      It's a bit like how the "All life is sacred." crowd doesn't show up to protest executions or whenever someone gets gunned down by the cops.

    48. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Well, if you read slashdot, USA is the worst. Excuse me for injecting a little reality.

    49. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ECHR rights are nice on paper but weak in courtroom.
      You still can't run a comparison ad ffs.

    50. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember a time when the US had all the good encryption and wasn't allowed to export it. Now the rest of the world will have good encryption and the US won't be allowed to import it.

    51. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'll try that again. Back then they mistakenly thought that only the US had good encryption, so export controls would prevent other countries from keeping stuff secret.

      A more likely strategy will be to simply mandate weak security on consumer devices sold in the US. The goal here is not to screw other countries, it's to screw yourselves.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    52. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      Limiting the encryption people can have will be extremely difficult when there are multiple open-source encryption libraries available in the wild. Even without access to sources, there are also many papers describing the principles behind popular ciphers which people can use as a starting point for a design of their own.

      Sounds like an unwinnable war to me. Even if the USA declares strong consumer encryption illegal and gets it removed from Google Play, iTunes, Amazon apps, etc., people who still want to use it can still sideload apps with strong encryption from alternate distribution channels.

    53. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

    54. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, then. Pointing out the flaws of our elected leadership means we think the "USA is the worst". I think you're projecting.

      In fact, the reason we like to come down so hard on our government is because that's why freedom exists, but you're too busy calling anyone who points out glitches in the matrix as "America Haters(TM)" to realize that, aren't you?

    55. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already have (and are using) encryption

      They may have it, but they have not actually used it in their plots. Paris attackers were text-only SMS. 9/11 was messages saved in drafts on Google. San Bernardino acted alone and did not organize with other groups. Bin Laden used physical couriers.

      What electronic evidence exists has already been in the hands of the "good guys" since the beginning. The truth is that we cannot adequately sift the data to find the plots ahead of time, the haystack is too big to find the needle even with billions of dollars of equipment and some of the best algorithmic minds working on it.

    56. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah the problem is that governments and law enforcement.intelligence agencies want the ability to build an even bigger haystack to search through when what they SHOULD be doing is hiring more guys with the skills to find the needles in the haystack they already have.

      More money spent on HUMINT and less spent collecting every piece of data in the known universe might actually lead to the next guys who want to blow up a sports stadium or an airport or a train station or a skyscraper being caught BEFORE they do whatever evil things they plan to do.

    57. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Be careful, or they will outlaw mathematics.

      I am seriously thinking about writing them a satirical letter thanking them for their courageous and valiant fight against mathematics but that their constituents and future constituents will not be happy until they've replaced high school algebra with a less dangerous subject like household chemistry

    58. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.

      If that becomes true, then phones sold in the US will have to conform or they will be considered contraband.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    59. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Blackberry, etc should all come out publicly and say
      "We will produce secure encryption for the rest of the world, however the US government has mandated that US citizens are only entitled to 2nd best, now here is a list of YOUR representatives who voted for the bill"

      If the representative were Named, Shamed and Blamed they might just loose their cushy jobs.

      The problem being that most Americans won't understand and/or won't mind as 'they have nothing to hide'.

      The root cause of the problem is civilian complacence and I don't see that changing any time soon.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    60. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      insightful
      interested
      informative

      damn... no ignorant option

    61. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Agripa · · Score: 2

      And when they do that, their CEOs can join the Quest CEO in prison.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    62. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption is still classified as a munition. Secondly, the toothpaste is already out of the tube, as it's officially been branded an, "arms." Thirdly, this is the very reason the second amendment absolutely says, "arms", and not, "firearms", or, "musket." Not only that, but precedence and writings of our founding fathers clearly define anything with which to make war is defined as arms. This ranges from everything from weaponry to full logical support; of which encryption would absolutely, unquestionably, fit. So by any and all possible definition, encryption is protected by the second amendment.

      All attacks against encryption is an attack against the US Constitution. As such, you can clearly see who supports fascism and who supports liberty.

      Plus, this country would literally not exist if it were not for privacy from government. Those who attack encryption attack the very foundation of this country. I would go so far as to say, those who attack encryption are literally enemies of the people of the United States of America. After all, it's impossible to attack encryption and to not support the ideology that our Founding Fathers are themselves enemies of the people. And if our Founding Fathers and the US Constitution are their enemies, then liberty and the people of the United States are literally their enemies.

    63. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      When it comes to the people here on Slashdot, then yes, that might work. However the Common Person barely knows what encryption is, what the implications are, and is far more interested in "what free stuff can I get from the government" than keeping their communications safe. Because after all, they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, what do they care? Besides, it helps the government get those darn terrorists and child pornographers.

      The vast majority of America has fallen asleep and will remain asleep. They honestly don't give a crap as long as they have a roof, warm food, and Dancing With the Stars.

      Ideals? Principals? Yeah, right... Good luck on that one.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    64. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      When people are getting arrested for posts on Twitter and Facebook, then I am quite sure that the freedom of speech in Europe is gone.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    65. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite sure:

      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

      There is an exception for morals. Let you mind run free as to what that would allow in the USA.

    66. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an unwinnable war to me.

      Like the war on drugs? The war on poverty?

      It is absolutely winnable except in the sense of producing a Pyrrhic victory.

    67. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I agree it would be crippling to the US in many way but I do not agree that it would be impossible to do.

      Pass a law requiring all use of encryption to be approved and/or licensed; encryption designs which do not provide for plaintext recovery simply do not get approved. Monitoring data at various locations is easy enough; it does not count as a search (according to the DOJ) if it is done in an automated way. When someone uses unapproved and/or unlicensed encryption, then you have an endpoint to track.

    68. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by swb · · Score: 1

      They don't have a sense of humor. It'd get suddenly hard to get on an airplane.

      I was just in DC a couple of weeks ago as a tourist and the level of *visible* security is high. I can only surmise this means that the level of paranoia is higher yet, and that's kind of scary in and of itself.

      (The FBI building has a bunch of squad cars labeled "FBI Police" -- I never realized the FBI had their own police force. I wasn't sure if it was a redundancy for people who wouldn't know that a squad car labeled FBI was a law enforcement vehicle, or if, indeed, the FBI has its own uniformed security force...)

    69. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, back when OpenPGP started, there were limitations on exporting crypto software. The author went around it by publishing the source code as a book. So yeah, its not like books don't raise red flags.

      For the details, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

    70. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 times is obviously not enough. You need to use a higher power of two.

    71. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Encryption was listed as a munition before. It can be again.

      That could actually help more than it hurts. Second Amendment, bitch!

      (Another reason everyone should support the entire Bill of Rights instead of trying to pick and choose... every single one of them is there for a damn good reason.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    72. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Export controls dont limit what consumers can use in this country.

    73. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I disagree.

      While I agree that average citizens are in knee-jerk "support the nation" mode on security and encryption, something else will overcome this. It's American Exceptionalism and the citizen's image of the US as #1, always.

      Once it is widely advertised that America is #2 (or worse) in terms of phone and other security, the attitude of the citizens will change. America cannot be #2, it must be #1! It might take a while but American Exceptionalism is a mighty and fearsome political force.

    74. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you read the entire contents of what you linked?

      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

      That sure is a lot of exceptions and qualifications on the freedom of speech.
      I suggest you look at the US Bill of Rights for true protection of the right to free speech: Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech. No law. Period. Whatsoever. End of story. Now tell me that Europe truly has freedom of speech as a basic right.

    75. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now look at how it is handled in the U.S. Those same sorts of exceptions do happen, they're just not explicitly laid out.

    76. Re: More alarming than the "hack"... by sjames · · Score: 1

      As if the Constitution gets it's due these days.

    77. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Like this?

    78. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now look at the Supreme Court approved exceptions. How's that freedom of speech working out for Snowden?

    79. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be as many bits as I can write on a bear arm?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    80. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Encryption was listed as a munition before. It can be again.

      But so was a G4 Macintosh.

    81. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Russia, North Korea, China, are much more open and free societies than that evil Amerika!!!!!

      Not yet, but we're getting there...

    82. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I remember a time when the US had all the good encryption and wasn't allowed to export it. Now the rest of the world will have good encryption and the US won't be allowed to import it.

      Isn't THAT the truth!

    83. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.

      If that becomes true, then phones sold in the US will have to conform or they will be considered contraband.

      Or stated another way:

      "When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."

    84. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Be careful, or they will outlaw mathematics.

      Too late.

      Indiana already tried that.

    85. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      /sarcasm

    86. Re:More alarming than the "hack"... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Europeans are being recorded by a bunch of governments though. You can write, but you can't read. If you could, you'd already know that, because you spend time claiming to care about the subject.

      Europeans are much more heavily monitored and recorded than Americans. In addition to being monitored in all the same ways as Americans, they also have all their domestic communications added to the same database, and they also have government cameras all over the place on public streets.

      They also have weird hipsters who think that they have lots of privacy, presumably because they force google to remove links to stories about criminal history and bankruptcy.

  6. Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diane Fienstein was born in the wrong country

    She fits much more snugly in a fascist state

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then she is in the right country.

    2. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may have missed it but she's a US senator.

    3. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or a communist one.

    4. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Enough with the social commentary already!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by quenda · · Score: 0

      Wooosh!
      Why is it that most of the really dumb people post as AC? Is it too hard to log in?
      I'm not complaining, just makes it easy to filter them . I'm only seeing it this time because I have mod points and looking for smart AC posts - but its a challenge.

    6. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diane Fienstein was born in the wrong country

      She fits much more snugly in a fascist state

      She's a californian. That's all you need to really know.
      What a disgrace of a politician.

    7. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strom Thurmond's opinions on racial segregation were not unpopular when he expressed them(using a name that could be linked to him retroactively). Something to think about as you're leaving a temporal breadcrumb trail of ex post facto thought-crime. ;-)

      My point is: maybe the dumb ones are the people spewing their opinions in public while their nameless enemies silently observe them from the shadows?

    8. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're on slashdot. Probably half the users live in California. Near her.

    9. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Wooosh! Why is it that most of the really dumb people post as AC? Is it too hard to log in? I'm not complaining, just makes it easy to filter them . I'm only seeing it this time because I have mod points and looking for smart AC posts - but its a challenge.

      What are you talking about? The dumb AC comments are one of the best bits about /..

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have missed it but she's a US senator.

      If you were fishing for a 'funny' mod you got one now.

    11. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Funny

      Once upon a time maybe, back when you first joined. Now, I would guess that 3/4 of the users are spread evenly across the high schools in every state...

    12. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time maybe, back when you first joined. Now, I would guess that 3/4 of the users are spread evenly across the high schools in every state...

      Speaking from first hand experience huh? Always good to know.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      She is in a fascist State. I take it you're not in California?

    14. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The 15 million identity theft victims a year will probably not like that she is helping the criminals by attempting to make that theft easier. Perhaps she should work on something that is important to the voting public and not fear mongering.

    15. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant, how is it so many dumb people are able to figure out how to log in? After all, quenda figured it out.

      And you're right. Commonly see the anonymous posts as more informative and insightful than logged in users. Which pretty well confirms my first two sentences.

    16. Re:Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      That's the direction AMerica is headed, it's just in recent years the slope has grown from about 10 degrees to 45+....

    17. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a bad idea to take into account the thoughts of others. :D

    18. Re: Diane Feinstein - Queen of a fascist state by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why is it that most of the really dumb people post as AC? Is it too hard to log in?

      You missed the "Coward" bit of "Anonymous Coward".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. We need phones running OpenBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's becoming clearer every day that we need phones that run OpenBSD. The OpenBSD developers have showed us time and time again that they're completely dedicated to writing damn secure software. They will even fork, fix and maintain software written by other projects if it doesn't meet their high standards, like we've seen them do with their LibreSSL project.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that Mozilla could do to redeem themselves. Instead of wasting so much time and effort on Firefox OS, they could have instead provided the resources necessary to get OpenBSD to run well on Nexus phones. It's clear that Mozilla doesn't have much of a chance when it comes to the web these days, after how they've driven away so many Firefox users with unwanted and unnecessary changes. But Mozilla could reinvent itself as a provider of secure consumer-oriented software.

    1. Re:We need phones running OpenBSD. by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      It's becoming clearer every day that we need phones that run OpenBSD. The OpenBSD developers have showed us time and time again that they're completely dedicated to writing damn secure software. They will even fork, fix and maintain software written by other projects if it doesn't meet their high standards, like we've seen them do with their LibreSSL project.

      This is exactly the kind of thing that Mozilla could do to redeem themselves. Instead of wasting so much time and effort on Firefox OS, they could have instead provided the resources necessary to get OpenBSD to run well on Nexus phones. It's clear that Mozilla doesn't have much of a chance when it comes to the web these days, after how they've driven away so many Firefox users with unwanted and unnecessary changes. But Mozilla could reinvent itself as a provider of secure consumer-oriented software.

      Hopefully they won't suck as hard as the Ubuntu Phones have so far.

    2. Re:We need phones running OpenBSD. by tom229 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Doesn't PlayStation run on FreeBSD? They get hacked like every 30 minutes. FreeBSD, at best, enjoys security through obscurity. Or, more accurately, nobody giving a shit.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    3. Re:We need phones running OpenBSD. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I believe that FreeBSD is just a little different from OpenBSD.. But I haven't really kept up lately. And if the government locks down all the phones, it won't matter anyway. There will be NoBSD

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:We need phones running OpenBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it the problem, especially in the US, is that you need the carrier to allow your baseband/cellular radio to be on their network. Furthermore you need a way to secure it and isolate it from the phone. I believe the isolation has been accomplished on some modular phones. In nearly all other phones though the baseband that handles to mobile radio is essentially another computer within your device, one with complete access to the radio io.

    5. Re:We need phones running OpenBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's not the FreeBSD kernel that's getting broken, it's their app libraries, and the extra hooks they leave in for their dev environments and everything else getting exploited. BSD is unfortunately just an innocent bystander on this one; doing what it's being told to do. Unfortunately it's not like you've got Theo de Raadt or Linus Torvalds doing code review on everything all the game developers write.

    6. Re:We need phones running OpenBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The OpenBSD developers have showed us time and time again that they're completely dedicated to writing damn secure software.

      Which is why OpenSSH, or ssh-keygen in particular, still creates encryption free passphrases by default, and why there is no way to reliably accept a reset public hostkey and so everyone doing bulk SSH work has to do this and thrown out a working known_hosts ( https://www.joedog.org/2012/07... ), And oh, yes, it's why they refuse to support working sftp cages for SCP or SSH. That absurdity they call a chroot cage for SFTP is a horror show.

      What's even more embarassing is that all of these problems had patches published way back with the original "ssh-1" and "ssh-2" 20 years ago. When OpenBSD repackaged them and screwed up the licensing, switching from GPL to the OpenBSD license, they could have brought those over and integrated them. But n-o-o-o, they had to burn their cycles screwing up SFTP.

  8. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burr hates privacy.

  9. Re:Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    always stand against freedom. Burr is a jerk.

    And what about Feinstein?

  10. do we know the phone was hacked by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    or are we just believing the FBI said it was?

    1. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wondering the same thing... Wasn't the whole point to retrieve evidence of a third shooter and a 'cyber pathogen' that infected the county network? Surely if the phone had been cracked they would have their evidence by now?

    2. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The theatrics are over. Just assume it was, and act accordingly. It would be naive to believe otherwise.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Right. They are presenting a non-existent technology to congress and instructing every member to not make their political career by exposing the facade. Makes sense.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    4. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Depends on how a person now or later a legal team with real experts requesting case details understands the term "help", "everything", "requests" Hundreds of requests to unlock phones flood FBI (April 6, 2016)
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
      "... the agency was being inundated with requests from state and local law enforcement seeking help accessing the contents of hundreds of encrypted or damaged cellphones linked to unrelated criminal investigations scattered across the country."
      "Requests involving more than 500 such devices..."
      FBI Offers to Help Local Law Enforcement With Locked iPhones (April 2, 2016)
      http://time.com/4279841/fbi-un...
      "Please know that we will continue to do everything we can to help you consistent with our legal and policy constraints.’’

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      Not only that, but to then turn around and offer it as a service to other law enforcement agencies would strongly imply that they are confident they have a technique to open at least one type of iPhone.

      It may not be an exploit... perhaps it is an "undocumented" backdoor.... who knows what it is... but the facts strongly imply that they have the means.

      I say good for them. Apple thumbed their nose at the FBI... the FBI has no obligation to reveal their secrets to Apple.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    6. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's a dangerous game Apple is playing. The FBI asking Apple to help them circumvent their kill switch is not extraordinary. An encryption killswitch is a runtime process, it's circumventable regardless. To then spin this into an argument about freedom and encryption was just disingenuous. Furthermore, they've stirred up an angry mob based on false information, and stirred congress into passing legislation against strong encryption. With companies like Apple working so hard for us (as they'd love for you to believe) we don't need enemies.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    7. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a low probability that the FBI is outright lying. They probably did get the phone unlocked.

      Whether they did it by exploiting a flash replay attack or typing "123456" as the PIN is as yet unclear. I'd lean towards the former as I don't think they'd be calling this much attention to it if it was the latter.

    8. Re:do we know the phone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that any congress members would be able to a working iPhone hacking technology from a fake mocked-up one?

  11. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the way of his kind.

  12. am I misrememberinfg by Swampash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    or wasn't there some law about circumventing security measures on a computer device?

    1. Re:am I misrememberinfg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that conveniently doesn't apply to LE.

    2. Re:am I misrememberinfg by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The DMCA only applies to circumventing encryption for the purpose of violating copyright. The phone is widely misreported in the media as belonging to the shooter. It actually belongs to the San Bernardino County government - it was assigned to the shooter as his work phone. Consequently, the county holds the copyright to everything on the phone (or more precisely since the government cannot hold a copyright, it is not copyrighted). Hence the DMCA doesn't apply.

      When they tell you not to use your work phone for personal stuff, this is why - ultimately you don't own the phone, your employer does. Most employers would rather not get into a situation where they forcibly have to repossess a phone, while you refuse on the grounds it contains personal video of you having sex with your SO. So they tell you up-front not to store your personal stuff on a work phone (or laptop or whatever). That way you've been duly notified of the consequences, and it's your own damn fault for making/keeping such materials on the phone.

      (And before you start thinking about getting too clever, there's actually a provision in the DMCA which prevents using it to protect yourself for the purpose of violating copyright. So encrypting your emails about illegally copying movies doesn't mean the Copyright Police is violating the DMCA by decrypting your emails. Hollywood was very thorough when they bought this law.)

    3. Re:am I misrememberinfg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your points are valid but it wouldn't be the DMCA that would be at play, it'd be the CFAA. (If in fact this was actual unauthorized access to a protected computer)

    4. Re:am I misrememberinfg by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      or wasn't there some law about circumventing security measures on a computer device?

      Police has the right to break into a phone any way they can if they have a search warrant. If they come to your door with a search warrant, and you don't let the police in, they will break the door open. If they have a search warrant for your phone, it may be harder to break in, but absolutely legal.

  13. Physical access by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why the passphrase even matters when they've had complete physical access to the phone all along. The lawsuit was certainly an attempt to coerce apple into providing a backdoor--the FBI knew damn well it didn't ultimately need one.

    1. Re:Physical access by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It depends on what the US gov finally got.
      What is public is the request was for a computer related solution that would fit on any gov hard drive and open any branded phone.
      Portable to take to any city, state, county, other nation and fully access any waiting phone.
      http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/f... (March 2, 2016)
      "“The request we got from the government in this case is, ‘Take this tool and put it on a hard drive, send it to the FBI,’ and they’d load it onto their computer,”"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a hate law. Seeing a penis won't ruin some little girl's life.

  15. More importantly ... by mattyj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What info did the FBI get off the phone? I think it's generally considered that time was a crucial element in getting any meaningful info from the phone, and perhaps days or hours after the event, anything in there would be useless.

    I'm not sure anyone has yet to convince me that more encryption = more terrorism.

    1. Re: More importantly ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's less encryption = more terrorism.
      All online business and all banking would be wrecked within minutes of removing good encryption.
      And yes, your question needs to be answered immediately.

    2. Re:More importantly ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They got ABSOLUTELY nothing useful off the phone.
      They ALREADY HAD *both* the phone number and IMEI, and plugged that into they fucking top secret NSA call database and found NOTHING newsworthy enough to inform the press about.
      Your Government is LYING to you, and injecting FUD in your ass so that you are scared into giving them all your remaining rights.
      BE A MAN / WOMAN.
      Public Enemy said it best... Don't believe the hype.

    3. Re:More importantly ... by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      Given the crap storm they put us through, they owe us at least a rough idea of what was found. My guess is nothing. Given the diligence to use and then destroy a burner phone, he likely had nothing of note on a work phone that I'm sure they expected was not private from his employer.

  16. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hate us and want us to die.

  17. Inquiring minds want to know... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    How many cat videos were found on the terrorist's iPhone?

  18. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you understand the multiplicity of meaning, you'll understand the true meaning of that law.

  19. Home brew crypto. Help me get more people involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like this will just help me get more people involved in writing home brew crypto.

    Can't wait to feel like I'm breaking some kind of law which should make it much more fun than it currently is.

    This should be fun.

  20. hack me bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise
    Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise

  21. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The death of everyone that isn't an old white man is their global endgame. They only care about profit, not people.

  22. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The death of everyone that isn't an old white man is their global endgame. They only care about profit, not people.

    Are you talking about Republicans or Ferengi?

  23. The whole issue by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That this episode of the FBI vs Apple has come to public attention proves that the FBI is grossly incompetent. When the public (and therefor terrorists) no longer believes that phone information is absolutely safe, other means of communication will be used: government loses a powerful tool against its enemies. This is a hideous strategic blunder.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:The whole issue by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's little wonder the Boston Bombers managed to do what they did. All that data and all it demonstrates is that the security services are populated by complete morons.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:The whole issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Snowden said it best a couple of weeks ago: (para) the agencies have been swimming in so much data swept up from the general populace for so long that it's nearly impossible to find any meaningful intelligence within the noise.

    3. Re:The whole issue by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The NSA and GCHQ warned against this for decades. Let people around the world think they had anonymity and privacy. Trust and enjoy the fax, phone, cell phone, computer networks for decades. The policy of collect it all ensured a constant flow of information back to the security services.

      A limitation on crypto and going to open court with a log from a phone just gets interesting people very interested in not talking on any phone.
      All this was predicted decades ago via the GCHQ that ensured it never went to court and kept the UK legal system guessing as to the role of informants, luck, undercover law enforcement that got a case started.
      Parallel construction held in the UK. The US seems to need the publicity of a short term win in the nations media and will risk decades of quality collection for a few days press coverage telling the world that all US telco crypto is junk.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:The whole issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be that they want to scare "terrorists" away from using devices that are getting too hard to crack.

      It could be that they aren't actually worried about "terrorists", but that they are worried about what the electorate thinks about "terrorists". They need to look like they are competent enough to get into these devices whether they are or not, whether the court forces compliance or not.

      It could be that the FBI (and where did they get it from?) didn't actually even "break into" the device.

      It could be that some component has a back door that we will never hear about.

      Just sit back and think of all the possible lies we could be told. Chances are that one of them is actually what is happening.

    5. Re:The whole issue by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      That this episode of the FBI vs Apple has come to public attention proves that the FBI is grossly incompetent. When the public (and therefor terrorists) no longer believes that phone information is absolutely safe, other means of communication will be used: government loses a powerful tool against its enemies. This is a hideous strategic blunder.

      You are assuming that this attack on cryptologist actually has something to do with terrorism.

      It doesn't.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:The whole issue by phorm · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's a case of incompetence, I think it's a case of deliberately f***ing things up so as to make a case for undermining private security. What better case than a big bad terrorist that killed a bunch of people? Maybe next time they'll get lucky and find somebody with an encrypted phone who is an accused terrorist *and* child molester.

  24. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a hate law. Seeing a penis won't ruin some little girl's life.

    But seeing "Trump 2016" chalked onto a sidewalk will make those same weak-willed twits wail in horror?

    Awww, such special snowflakes!

    (And I'm willing to bet you don't have a daughter, no do you?)

  25. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The death of everyone that isn't an old white man is their global endgame. They only care about profit, not people.

    Yeah, gotta love how the most likely cause of death for a young black person is to be murdered by another black person - in a city that's been under single-party Democrat control for a fucking century...

  26. Feinstein and Burr are scum by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come."

    Not only is this extremely stupid and utterly unworkable, but fuck these two maggots who think that it's their right to weaken our privacy.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Feinstein and Burr are scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah but, she keeps getting re-elected. I'm less familiar with Burr, but Feinstein is an institution. Year in and year out, one bad grandstanding piece of legislation after another; so what does that tell you about the voters?

      I mean it's perfectly fine to chastise her yet again for her hypocrisy, but she will still be in the seat of power long after all of your rights have been obliterated.

    2. Re:Feinstein and Burr are scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the more reason for congressional reform: Term limits and outlaw the gerrymandering of districts.

    3. Re:Feinstein and Burr are scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but, she keeps getting re-elected. I'm less familiar with Burr, but Feinstein is an institution. Year in and year out, one bad grandstanding piece of legislation after another; so what does that tell you about the voters?

      What does it tell me? It tells me We get what We deserve.

      That said, I don't live in California, and have never voted for her to represent me or the American People. There's another 200 million Americans who can also say that (also known as the overwhelming majority), so what does that tell you about the ability of corruption and ignorance to rise above all? Our system is broken, and Senator Feinsteins reign is scientific proof of that.

      And people bitch about Texas acting like a damn rebel when you've got California speaking on behalf of the country. Fucking hell...

    4. Re:Feinstein and Burr are scum by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Year in and year out, one bad grandstanding piece of legislation after another; so what does that tell you about the voters?

      It tells me that she is a senator from California and that Silicon Valley tacitly supports her. Having this law enforced on them will not be as bad as seemingly volunteering for it.

    5. Re:Feinstein and Burr are scum by wirelessjb · · Score: 1

      I concur. As a Californian I have some standing to at least write to Feinstein and express my opinion. I would urge others to do the same. Here's what I submitted through her Senate web page: Dear Senator Feinstein, I am a constituent of yours. It has come to my attention that you are working on a bill concerning the use of encryption in consumer technology such as mobile phones. I would like to urge you to ensure that there are never any limitations on the use of encryption technology by private citizens. I strongly feel that our system of government was designed to promote the privacy of citizens over the authority of the government to collect information. I believe that fear of terrorism and other violence understandibly leads to legislative measures that strengthen law enforcement and seem resonable at the time, and it is the natural tendency of many people to latch on to that fear and support such measures. Donald Trump's active supporters are proof that such a demographic exists. But as a powerful force in the legislative branch, you have the opportunity to promote the idea that America will not react to fear. You can help ensure that the government protects and promotes the rights of American citizens, rather than increasing the power and reach of government agencies at the expense of personal freedom and privacy. I recently read a comment that I agree with: I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a constant state of fear and the ever-expanding intrusion of the government into my everyday life. I suspect that you have a firm idea in your mind on the balance between citizens' privacy and government authority, and I would like to think it is tilted heavily in favor of privacy. However I'm not sure your public statements and voting record support that hope. Even so I felt that it was important to register my feelings on the matter. Please take them into consideration. If there is any chance that you or your staff could respond with a note about your legislative intentions with regard to limiting encryption on consumer products, I would appreciate it. Sincerely, [my name]

    6. Re:Feinstein and Burr are scum by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I like what you wrote- it's thoughtful and reasoned, and it's written in an open and non-confrontational tone.

      This means that they'll immediately shitcan it, and probably add your name to the "harassers" list before forwarding it to the FBI.

      Seriously, if I know anything about Ms Feinstein, this is the likely outcome. She doesn't like to hear from mere mortals unless they're slavishly agreeing with everything she does and support her positions to the hilt. She's a consummate politician, and I don't mean that in a good way.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  27. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If rather look at a penis than Trump's name.

  28. How will the government elide encryption? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Will the government be retroactively censoring all of the public details of encryption algorithms and wiping all of our memories? Diffie, Hellman and Merkle better watch their backs!

  29. Re: Those Republicans... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

    But seeing "Trump 2016" chalked onto a sidewalk will make those same weak-willed twits wail in horror?

    Awww, such special snowflakes!

    I'm older, but at 18 or 20 years old my father and grandfather were jumping out of troopships while being shelled and shot at....but millennials shit their pants if the rice in the school cafeteria isn't "authentic" to the way they make sushi in Japan. I'm not making this up.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  30. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But from a gun made by whitepeople.

  31. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is part of the Republican war against human thought. They hate people that think.

  32. Hasn't been used in other cases... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on the FBI's previous behavior (lying through their teeth), I'm not inclined to believe them.

  33. When math is outlawed... by ZipK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Feinstein and Burr are both working on a new bill to limit the use of encryption in consumer technology, expected to be made public in the weeks to come.

    When math is outlawed, only mathematicians and those who can read their papers will have math.

    1. Re:When math is outlawed... by mea2214 · · Score: 1

      When math is outlawed only outlaws can do math.

    2. Re:When math is outlawed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you outlawed math, I think the plebes would rejoice(while getting fucked by their ignorance of it on a daily basis).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1C6kqXT9XU

  34. Several things wrong with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OK. There are several things wrong with this. The first and most glaring is that if the FBI wunderkin can't bust into an IPHONE with their crime fighters, then surely the NSA could. Its never been made public, but I have little doubt that before the "Official Crack", the NSA offered to bust that puppy wide open. Another glaring omission is that we won't know how much data is left on the phone (possibly only volume settings and recently phoned numbers). Apple/FBI had access to *all* of their cloud data months ago. Now I don't know the innards of the IPhone intimately, but if there is a separate Hynix (or other) memory chip, separate from the main processor, then you can just bypass the whole operating system chip, suck all the data off the memory card however encrypted, then just spread that memory image among about the NSA's "Acres of cores"(tm) and have a crack-o-rama(tm). Old timers can make book on how long it will take to break. (Remember, when brute-force cracking, half the total number of combinations is the average time needed to break any given encryption scheme). And none of that "three guesses or we delete" crap either. Actually you could just lift the write pin on the memory chip (give it a little snip) and go hard against the phone itself, but that wouldn't be nearly as fun. Closest to the time it takes to crack Apple encryption gets taken out for pizza by the rest. Oh? What was that? You asked how many electrical engineers and computer scientists work for the NSA? Well sparky, the answer is: enough to design and fab their own chips and build their own hardware, and likewise make their own operating systems and software (although COTS software is used whenever available, we *are* a taxpayer funded federal agency after all).

  35. FBI did tell USA Today the hack has not been used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. in any other case..

    considering that they LIE about this sort of thing all the time.. it is now certain that they have employed the same hack in other cases, and that other agencies have also used it... and of course, not always with valid warrants leading the way.

  36. no, not FreeBSD. After 20 year career in comp secu by raymorris · · Score: 1

    No, the Playstation doesn't run FreeBSD, or free anything. It runs a proprietary operating system which includes a lot of code from another proprietary operating system which once borrowed some code from FreeBSD.

    Every few years, somebody figures out a way that if you have full access to the hardware, you can open it up and do this and that and boot another OS. I don't know that ANY popular hardware is secure against that.

    Going on 20 years working full time in computer security, it's my informed opinion that FreeBSD and OpenBSD are both more secure than any of the more popular operating systems. FreeBSD can be more secure than Linux by giving up some of the flexibility and the cutting-edge features. FreeBSD is one OS, Linux is a bunch of related operating systems, including Android. Windows not only has the focus on new features, but is also just now overcoming some security decisions that made sense when they were made, but turned out to be disastrous for security as the world changed.

    OS X is in some ways similar to the BSDs - it's based on a solid multi-user, network OS pedigree, and it's not required to be flexible. With OS X, things work the way Apple chooses. They choose the exact hardware they'll support and the OS does things the way Apple chooses , they don't support a dozen different alternatives for each thing like Linux does and Windows somewhat does. This allows Apple to make that one supported way more secure and reliable.

  37. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talking about the differences in rice is racist as fuck. How would your white ass felt if I confused Jerry Seinfeld with Chandler from Friends.

  38. I'll tell you what the method is... by BlueCoder · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's called man in the middle. They remove the memory chip from the iphone. The contents of the chip are read and saved with a chip reader. A device emulates that chip and hooks into the screen and touch screen input. It then brute forces all possible passcodes. It only requires someone with decent desoldering skills with a hot air wand.

    1. Re:I'll tell you what the method is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem you have in your argument is that the encryption keys needed to decode that memory reside in the CPU. It doesn't erase the memory, it wipes the crypto keys in the CPU, not external memory. Big difference. That's the problem here.

    2. Re:I'll tell you what the method is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible that so many of you haven't understood what the issue is given that it has been explained in every single story about this?

      The passcode is not the key to the system image. The passcode is the key to a separate device which holds the encryption key. That device is not a memory chip that you can pop into a reader to extract the contents.

    3. Re:I'll tell you what the method is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what would be so secret (and new) about this? This (making a copy of the chip+brute force) was known earlier.

    4. Re:I'll tell you what the method is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. So once they've imaged the phone's storage, they only need to determine the encryption algorithm, and then brute-force the key, rather than the password.

    5. Re:I'll tell you what the method is... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The CPU has to run the encryption because it has a permanent part of the key but the CPU does not have any non-volatile memory to store state so there is nothing to erase there.

    6. Re:I'll tell you what the method is... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It does that after a certain number of failed tries. Guess where that number is stored.

  39. So they are banning Math? by trout007 · · Score: 1

    That's what it all comes down to.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  40. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had an argument you'd have made it.

  41. Um..yeah, it's been made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone from the company that did it showed the media days ago how they take the board out of the phone, try the code until it locks up, and then reset the failed attempts counter with hardware. Dead simple, and pretty much "Duh" to the computer industry.

    1. Re:Um..yeah, it's been made public by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      URL please? I somehow managed to miss that news.

      Resetting the failed attempts counter is only part of the problem. How could the company run a brute force attack given the limitations of the i-Phone hardware? i.e. The i-Phone doesn't have thousands of fast parallel processors dedicated to handling password requests. Unless the owner was using a guessable password or something vulnerable to a dictionary attack, wouldn't it take years(centuries?) to brute-force it?

       

    2. Re:Um..yeah, it's been made public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The default is only a 4 digit number, so only 10000 possibilities. It doesn't take a massively parallel setup to crack that, just a couple of days.

  42. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet a lot of gun parts are actually made by chinese.

  43. Polite, but .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Playing devil's advocate here, but if I asked Apple for assistance and they told me to fuck off, I'd return them the same polite message if I had to figure it out myself (or in this case, through someone else) if they asked me how I did it....

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out though.

  44. We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked by khz6955 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why you're being modded down. I haven't heard anyone on Slashdot talk about an attack like this before. The basics is it brute forces the PINs. If a PIN fails, it cuts power before the firmware can update the unlock attempts counter.

    2. Re:We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was fixed in iOS 9 though.

    3. Re:We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked by khz6955 · · Score: 1

      @Anonymous Coward: "I'm not sure why you're being modded down. I haven't heard anyone on Slashdot talk about an attack like this before. The basics is it brute forces the PINs. If a PIN fails, it cuts power before the firmware can update the unlock attempts counter".

      Some peoples mod policy leave me puzzled too.

      @Anonymous Coward: "That was fixed in iOS 9 though"

      Seeing as it involved a hardware hack, I would have thought that was difficult. Maybe the FBI and Cellebrite are using some kind of varient. Do you have a link to where the iOS 9 fix was posted?

    4. Re:We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as it involved a hardware hack, I would have thought that was difficult. Maybe the FBI and Cellebrite are using some kind of varient. Do you have a link to where the iOS 9 fix was posted?

      Read the article about the device, in that it says:

      Apple appears to have fixed the vulnerability in iOS 8.1.1, as companies selling the kit note that it is not compatible with this version of iOS.

    5. Re:We still do not know how the iPhone was hacked by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Seems like it would be easy to fix; update the counter before checking the PIN.

  45. Re:no, not FreeBSD. After 20 year career in comp s by tom229 · · Score: 1

    I've thought about this for a long time as well. I've only been in the industry a bit over one decade, so admittedly less time than you, but I believe I've come to a different conclusion. When you buy an Apple computer only Apple gets paid. As you mentioned, it's Apple hardware ruining Apple software, which run a core of Apple programs that work well with Apple services, network equipment, and peripherals. They even now, of course, have an Apple store so they can get a 30% cut on anything they still haven't provided. Now assuming that this closed exclusive system is more secure (which I consider to be a dubious claim), is that even worth it? You don't have to have a very powerful imagination to think up some of the problems that could occur giving one company this much control over your computing needs. This FBI case is a great example. The world is in a state right now where those inclined to do so really only have to infiltrate a handful of companies to compromise everyone's data. If anything the world needs it's less consolidation and control, not more. We've spent the last three decades giving up freedom, choice, and healthy competition for convenience, ease of use, and ultimately a false sense of security. It's time for a new approach.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  46. What great secrets did FBI extract from the iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was expecting a cure for cancer, the email addresses of every spermlicking ISIL and bocoharam member and pictures of Trump's stump.

  47. brute f@@k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sure its not true, but isn't cracking illegal?

  48. With apologies to the NRA by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

    They'll get my math when they pry it out of my cold, dead cerebral cortex.

  49. More disinformation by BancheroMedia · · Score: 2

    A large agency, such as the NSA, has the necessary resources to get into the phone that was behind all this noise. This is yet another attempt to use fear and misinformation to persuade Americans to sacrifice liberty in the name of 'security.'

  50. Re:Home brew crypto. Help me get more people invol by TroII · · Score: 2, Informative

    Crypto and homebrew don't belong in the same sentence. Even the experts occasionally get it wrong and they have decades of design and implementation experience behind them. This one is best left to the pros, with audits of their work.

  51. The right tool for the job by raymorris · · Score: 2

    For a very long time I ran Linux on everything- not just my desktops, laptops, laptops, and servers, but also my routers and everything else. Linux is so flexible that it runs 98% of all supercomputers, and also runs fine with 8 MB of RAM. For many purposes, there is a Linux distribution that's the right tool for the job.

    In some cases, FreeBSD or OpenBSD is the right tool for the job. Firewalls are a great example, you want your firewall to be secure and reliable ; you don't care if it supports the latest graphics card well. FreeBSD is secure, reliable and very network-centric. There's a great user-friendly storage server system that happens to be BSD based.

    For a corporate desktop, in an environment with Active Directory, ldap, etc, and little tolerance for downtime and "fiddling" wjth your computer to make it work, sometimes you still want a UNIX box rather than Windows. OS X fits that role nicely, in my opinion. Note OS X is a completely different beast than iOS. Nobody that I know uses the damn app store for OS X. It's simply a well built UNIX which will run all of your favorite FOSS software, reliably without fiddling with sysctl and X graphics drivers, while integrating pretty seamlessly into the Windows-centric corporate environment.

    1. Re:The right tool for the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you even talking about? Linux doesn't even support the "latest graphics" card well. You either have outdated binary blobs or half assed open source drivers.

    2. Re:The right tool for the job by tom229 · · Score: 1

      You didn't really address what I said at all. I'm well aware of the "simply use the best tool for the job at this moment" mentality, I simply disagree with it. I actually wrote a 230 word explanation why I disagree with it.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  52. Re:no, not FreeBSD. After 20 year career in comp s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct it doesn't run Freebsd but it does run a system based on the freebsd 9 kernel, at least the ps4 does. In fact this is one way the ps4 has been hacked see https://cturt.github.io/ps4.html.

  53. bash, Outlook, Photoshop, grep, awk, make by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I could have said that more concisely as:
    --
    My last two employers needed me to use Outlook and Photoshop.
    My personal workflow uses bash, perl, grep, awk, and make.

    All of those required tools work great on my Mac, even after I've dropped it on the concrete.
    ---
    Mac is full-fledged certified UNIX, and it's corporate helpdesk approved. Where else are you going find that combination ?

    My MacBook Pro does run Linux, Windows, and FreeBSD virtual machines all the time too, though. I click whichever OS is suited to the moment. Last week, in 18 hours, we found thousands of vulnerabilities in 14 machines running those operating systems plus Cisco, so I know none are bulletproof, but I also know some are much more secure than others. (Out full vulnerability report for 14 targets was over 1600 pages long - for the exposures we found in 18 hours).

  54. Feinstein needs to go. by Halo5 · · Score: 1

    She is obviously not a true democrat. In the one state that upholds these values, they need to use their money for a good cause. She is bad news for business. And this is coming from a guy (a Democrat, atheist) from Mississippi, so I kinda know what I'm talking about. I think we're about to lose a LOT of federal funding for research. Morons at the helm...

    --
    665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
    1. Re:Feinstein needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a true Democrat? Is Obama? He supports the same things she does. I am still waiting for transparency and rule of law.

  55. Lies, Lies and more Lies by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    So we only have the FBI's word that they have hacked the iPhone, they may have found the password via other means for all we know. This may be an attempt by the FBI/NSA/CIA to scare people away from using iPhones as a secure communications medium. Also US laws on restricting encryption mean nothing to criminals because they will just buy a stock android phone of ebay and install a secure locked down firmware package that has encryption built in.

  56. California Keeps Votering for Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The irony here is so thick you could spread it with a putty knife.

    California Democrats have long kept this woman in office. She goes after gun rights, which are rights of citizens, all the time. I'm reminded of the old line regarding them coming for the drug users, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a drug user. Or something like that...

    Now, the woman and the party who's been coming for our guns, is coming for our encryption. A law limiting such technology will drive even more jobs in California, and the whole USA offshore where such laws don't exist. If this happens, it will actually screw the people who keep voting her in.

  57. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The FBI did tell USA Today the hack has not been used in any other case beyond San Bernardino."

    http://9to5mac.com/2016/03/30/arkansas-iphone-ipod-unlock-case/

    So they have agreed to help and use the hack to unlock basically any iPhone that law enforcement needs to them unlock. But as of this writing they haven't actually done that yet? Oh ok, that makes it true. Until tomorrow.

  58. Apple refused to help by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

    No one in America wanted to help the FBI. Now they want to FBI to disclose how they did it?

    1. Re:Apple refused to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. no, John McAfee offered to crack it for them for free.

    2. Re:Apple refused to help by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Because we do not trust the FBI or our other federal investigatory agencies to operate transparently. Nor should we: they've a long history of relying on untrustworthy informants, and of pursuing ridiculous charges for criminal activity. Look up the David LaMacchia case for a prime example of stupidly handled criminal charges, and the Kevin Mitnick case for how badly the FBI handles hacker informants. Most of their limited number of successful investigations and prosecutions for computer crime do not actually involve investigation by the FBI, the data is handed to them by the victims or by outraged private citizens as the only agency empowered to investigate crimes that cross state lines. And they normally say "no", because the crimes do not reach the fiscal threshold to justify assigning any manpower to the case.

      The result is that the FBI is a passive roadblock to investigation and prosecution of the massive amounts of computer cracking and computer based fraud that flood many networks.

    3. Re:Apple refused to help by jittles · · Score: 1

      No one in America wanted to help the FBI. Now they want to FBI to disclose how they did it?

      Have you been living under a rock? Apple gave them all the data from iCloud. The FBI then performed a reset password on iCloud AND lost the data that apple provided. That basically prevented Apple from being able to access the data anymore. So then the FBI was like 'Hey I know we screwed up, but you have to go even further and help us no matter what the cost"

    4. Re:Apple refused to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask yourself: Why did the FBI need help?

      This is core to the job we expect the FBI to perform. If they need "help" to do it, then why do we need the FBI? Let's cut out the middleman, save billions, create efficiencies and leverage our core competencies. Ahem. Got a little carried away there.

      Back to the main point, the original statement is entirely wrong. "No one in America wanted to help the FBI", that is 100% authentic bullshit right there. Apple helps the FBI daily, as does the entire technology industry. In fact many observers believe that the tech industry has been far too compliant in helping the Three Letter Agencies. You don't have to believe me, the information is widely published. We'll wait while you educate yourself.

      Regardless, Apple felt a line had been crossed with this most recent "request" from the FBI and said No. And then the FBI had a hissie fit, went public, and discovered that there was significant support for Apple both in and outside the tech sector. None of which was in the FBI's playbook.

      And yes, as a matter of public policy, made that way by the FBI itself, we think they should disclose. They don't have to give the details and allow others to perform the hack you understand. Just an overview of who did it, when, the cost, and a simplified, high level description of the attack method. It should be enough to make the FBI's public statements on the matter credible.

      Also the FBI should clarify whether any terrorist-y information was found on the hacked phone. Many have already come to conclusions on this matter but the agency itself has been mute on the subject.

  59. They hacked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now they're felons.

  60. Pretty sure they can do it by Lennie · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure they can do it:

    http://blog.trailofbits.com/20...

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  61. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as far as I can see all they did is take lots of tax payers money and pay someone else to do the work,

  62. The hack was easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple sent an employee to a third party company. The FBI went to said third party company. The 'non-Apple employee' then unlocked the phone.

  63. Pound sand ./ nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See title of post.

  64. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the Republicans moved to the sub burbs and created their own city with no income taxes to screw over the big city. They put up building code income restrictions to keep poor people and their problems out, and sucked money out of the city to selfishly use it.

    And the governors and congress have been republican. There is plenty of gerrymandering to screw over fair representation too. Over policing and passing minor laws that minorities get caught for and have their lives ruined is a GOP strategy, along with the big money from the rich Kick brothers and Sheldon to brainwash the stupid masses by buying the media.

    The FBI should be investigating the GOP. That is where the corruption is.

  65. Next.... by 1080bogus · · Score: 1

    they will pass laws saying we can't lock our doors with deadbolts or reinforce them.
    Car alarms, who needs them?
    bars on windows, psh.
    machettes, we live in america not the jungle.

    All because those are things terrorists might use along with a long list of other consumer items.

  66. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's unfair. They don't shit their pants, they scream about cultural appropriation and then issue death threats to anybody who doesn't agree with them.

    I miss the old days, when diametrically opposed sides could argue heatedly, go home, and mutter about each other being assholes instead of being subject to social pogroms.

  67. Infringing on legal ownership results in?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this video just the other day regarding the rapid deterioration of Venezuela where they have all sorts of bans going on along with a hyper-inflating currency. Perhaps the out of control criminal elements that dominate there will be a nice blueprint for criminal activity in the U.S. as well. Video indicates how people and security (because they no longer have protection such as through a weapon) have become...what is a good metaphor here...sheep among wolves.

    Like you, I can't wait for that day to arrive in the U.S. The people really need to be helpless and totally dependent upon their benevolent gov to hold their hands.
    Here's the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOQb7Y5QVO8

  68. Yes, it is worth it, for my employer's source code by raymorris · · Score: 2

    I'll more directly answer your post. You posed the question of whether concerns that the government can lean on big companies and thereby get access to your computer should override other benefits of using a particular operating system. "Is it really worth it?", you asked.

    In my opinion, it IS worth that risk of government finding a way to access my employee email etc, particularly if they have the laptop in custody and a warrant, like the San Bernardino case, when the alternative is that -I- don't have proper access to my work email, calendar, etc. If the FBI seizes my employer's computers, they'll have 16 ways to read the email regardless of which OS I use on my laptop. It's stored on the Exchange server. The source code I write is in our git, cvs, and hg repos, unencrypted and ready for the FBI to seize. So trying to use a non-standard OS on my work laptop wouldn't even INCONVENIENCE the FBI, but it sure would inconvenience me and my co-workers. In this instance, there is nothing to be gained from trying to keep the FBI out of my laptop.

    At my last employer, I also had three Macs. All of the information on a those computers was property of my employer, a government agency. Most of it was and is available, free, to the public. Does it make any sense to try to prevent the FBI from reading the course material for security courses that we provide free online? Are they going to use it to cheat on the test? Are we protecting the GPL source code of the online campus we used to deliver the training? They can get that at Moodle.org. If they want to specifically look at the code I wrote, they can look in the Moodle git repository, which is open to the public.

    So for those jobs, the right tool for the job doesn't need to be FBI proof.

    If I was going to pull a Snowden, obviously the requirements change. I might care about making certain data not readable by the feds. Even for my own personal laptop I prefer Linux.

  69. ISIS already did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they are more advanced than we thought...

  70. 2nd, 1st amendment and export controls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The munitions list only applies if you want to export something that is on the list (for what it's worth, ALL guns of whatever size are on the munitions list, always have been, always will be: if a gun isn't a munition, what is?)

    You're perfectly free to make export controlled items in the United States with no supervision, limitation, etc. (at least from export control standpoint). It's when you send one to some other country, or give/sell/transfer it to someone who is not a U.S. Person (i.e. a foreign national or representative of a foreign national, who doesn't have a green card) that the export control laws come into play.

  71. The Ignorance Card? Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the politicians totally mentioned these actions on the campaign trail.

    These people aren't freshmen. Many of these individuals have been re-elected multiple times, and these parties have dominated America longer than you have been alive.

    Just imagine if the name of the party were Khmer Rouge or Nazi, and someone who supports them told you, "You can't damn them for what their party has done in the past, or for what this individual did last term. That was two years ago! So I voted to re-elect them. And then they surprised me by being evil, even though they didn't mention their intent to be evil during the re-election campaign." Would you take such an argument seriously, or would you say that when some asshole calls themselves Khmer Rouge, it's ok to judge the book by its cover?

    Any voter who plays the ignorance card to defend their support for Republicrats, is claiming to be more stupid than anyone can possibly believe. I don't think you people are that stupid: I think you're simply lying. Which alternative is the most believable? You people generally show moderate competence throughout your life (yes, we all make mistakes and I'm not saying you usually show amazing genius (though some of you do!)), but then when campaign season comes around, you shifty-eyedly explain, "no, we all have a 40 IQ. 40 is average! We're all really this dumb, forgetful and illiterate, so you should excuse us." Bullshit.

    America believes in fascism. We agree with it. We think it's a good idea. Fascism and the desire to destroy freedom and justice are among our core family values. This isn't something being done to us; it's who we are and it's what we want. We don't say it, but we reliably vote for it, and we know when we're doing it.

    C'mon, my fellow countrymen, let's stop being cowards and come out of the closet. Put on the armbands and you'll feel better, no longer burdened by trying to maintain a web of lies.

  72. The Cryptography Wars has begun by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    So here we go, the crypto wars are upon us. Even if legislation is passed restricting use of encryption, there will be services, software and tools that will be
    available to circumvent it. Just like gun control, criminals and terrorists will find a way around these supposed restrictions. This will hurt American technology companies who'll be handcuffed by stupid restrictions that won't save any lives nor lead to any foresight into nefarious activities. Of course it will erode your privacy and give the government new ways to fuck with your lives but hey, terrorism right?

    It's foolish to think you can put the Genie back in the bottle and it points out how valuable the concept of term limits on members of congress would be. You see the glad-handers and baby kissers, the ones that feign outrage and get re-elected by their gullible constituents; rising to power in congress because of the seniority system. You don't get the best leadership, you get the ones who are best at getting re-elected.

    Feinbitch there's a special place in hell for retards like yourself.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  73. Re:Yes, it is worth it, for my employer's source c by tom229 · · Score: 1

    Again you're being unimaginative and just considering your one short term use case. What I am arguing for is ideals. Ideals that consider long term implications for the whole of society. So you don't have much to worry about right now with having all your eggs in one basket. But you might if you were a member of an opposition party in east Berlin. The status quo would be to dismiss extraordinary concerns like that as irrelevant and paranoid, but history that is forgotten is doomed to repeat. This FBI case is a sign of things to come. The NSA revelations before it were a sign of things to come. When you put all your eggs in one basket, and trust that basket to someone else, eventually they will drop it... every time. And things are getting worse, not better. With the popularity of the cloud and the apathetic perpetuation of walled gardens, were making the concerns of the "Microsoft monopoly generation" before us look adorable. The state of personal computing and telecom is really scary. It's the most uncompetitive, unchecked, closed and controlled industry in the whole of free western civilization. And every day it gets worse and worse as we rely more and more on it.

    Now we can't expect everyone to consider this before they make their choices. But I think it's fair to expect that technical people act with a bit more long term planning than "use whats best for the job". It is the responsibility of people in the tech industry to not just use whats best today, but whats going to be best tomorrow, and in the next decade, and for our children. Leave short term thinking to the business types. Technicians are supposed to value being proactive over being reactive.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  74. Bullshit. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Just days after the FBI broke into the terrorist's iPhone

    They broke into San Bernadino County's iPhone. The county may have assigned the phone to Farook, but it was not Farook's phone. Farook's phone(s) were found in a dumpster, destroyed; and they were destroyed because they contained incriminating evidence. It doesn't take too high of an IQ to deduct this, as it's farily obvious; and I'm not calling the FBI a bunch of idiots, I'm saying they're calling all of us a bunch of idiots by presenting such blatant bullshit to us and thinking we'll actually buy it.

    Don't be the idiot the FBI thinks you are.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  75. Feinstein and the problems with that logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people have already pointed out the clear contradictions in Feinstein's desire for laws to limit other peoples' rights to have guns (while having armed bodyguards and having had a concealed carry permit). She very clearly thinks she can have the privilege of defense with guns while taking the right of citizens to have guns away (she thinks she can still have it after it's taken away, and she's probably right - if she could not have it after, she would not go down that route).

    We all know that encryption is used heavily in commerce and banking for obvious reasons. We also know the problems the police are having with ethics and the questionable foreign policy we are using. Personally, I know of many instances in which the FBI was used as a political enforcement organization to further the aims of one group of people.

    In short, Feinstein is engaged in class warfare and not representing the interests of the majority.

  76. Re: Those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some millennials fought in what was arguably the hardest and most violent conflic yet seen, with a battle rythm 3 orders of magnitude beyond what previous generations could have comprehended... It was not uncommon in 2007 to see 20:1, sometimes 200:1 mercenaries for every soldier in a Panjway firefight. There was also no generation gap when it came to those that hid under their desks refused to fight, they were young and old alike.

    But I am sure you wouldn't understand, your country is failing because the undeducated would rather generalize and give in to fear.

  77. The last nail in CA's coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You go girl! Hella!

  78. Re:no, not FreeBSD. After 20 year career in comp s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the Playstation doesn't run FreeBSD,

    The Orbis OS for the PS4 is built using FreeBSD 9, which was current when the PS4 was in development. Obviously, Sony adds its own proprietary software, including drivers, but they have also used other open source software such as WebKit in their UI layer.

  79. Complete protection by Macdude · · Score: 1

    The only way to have complete safety against "terrorists" is to allow the government to have total control over our lives.

    The question of how do we have complete safety from our government is left as an exercise for the reader.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  80. Re:Home brew crypto. Help me get more people invol by J053 · · Score: 1

    I'll just leave this here: CipherSabre.

  81. Business Privacy is major concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it no one speaks of business privacy and tradesecrets being stolen and sold via the FBI or NSA?