Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSA Couldn't Hack San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone; Now Working On Exploiting IoT (theintercept.com)

Posted by msmash on from the act-surprised dept.

The FBI did turn to NSA when it was trying to hack into the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, according to an NSA official. But to many's surprise, one of the world's most powerful intelligence agencies couldn't hack into that particular iPhone 5c model. "We don't do every phone, every variation of phone," said Richard Ledgett, the NSA's deputy director. "If we don't have a bad guy who's using it, we don't do that." According to Ledgett, apparently the agency has to prioritize its resources and thus it doesn't know how to get into every popular gadget. According to the report, the agency is now looking to exploit Internet of Things, including biomedical devices. The Intercept reports: Biomedical devices could be a new source of information for the NSA's data hoards -- "maybe a niche kind of thing ... a tool in the toolbox," he said, though he added that there are easier ways to keep track of overseas terrorists and foreign intelligence agents. When asked if the entire scope of the Internet of Things -- billions of interconnected devices -- would be "a security nightmare or a signals intelligence bonanza," he replied, "Both."

90 comments

  1. Why would they have admitted they could? by hsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone with a brain knew there was nothing of value on that phone. They shredded their two personal phones. If the NSA has the capabilities why would they have wasted them on such a dumb fucking case that was a loser?

    1. Re: Why would they have admitted they could? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like "can't be bothered to" than "can't"

    2. Re:Why would they have admitted they could? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone with a brain knew there was nothing of value on that phone. They shredded their two personal phones. If the NSA has the capabilities why would they have wasted them on such a dumb fucking case that was a loser?

      The hell makes you think the NSAs hacking capabilities have fuck-all to do with some loser of a legal case?

      Regardless if they want to admit they have the capabilities or not, they don't have to ask permission. They tried that with Mr. Cook solely to establish legal precedent and failed. This would have purely been an intelligence organization breaking in, which hardly requires a pretty please may I...

      I have a hard time even swallowing the claim that they could not break in to the damn thing. Chances are that's just smoke and mirrors too.

    3. Re:Why would they have admitted they could? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > If the NSA has the capabilities why would they have wasted them on such a dumb fucking case that was a loser?

      Especially if it would have revealed resources that they rely on for more important monitoring. The infamous historic example of this is the "Coventry Blitz" in World War II. According to some witnesses, the Allies had warning of attacks on Coventry from successfully decrypting the "Enigma" military encryption. According to the commander of Allied intelligence, they refused to improve defenses against those attacks lest they reveal the decryption and imperil other, more critical military operations.

    4. Re:Why would they have admitted they could? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps not, if they deemed it unimportant enough to them today they might not currently have an easy to use all in one tool for getting into it, if it became important tomorrow you know they damn well will have.

    5. Re: Why would they have admitted they could? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably already knew what was on the phone from their datamining, realized there was no use in cracking it, and wouldn't want to reveal that they could anyhow.

    6. Re:Why would they have admitted they could? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His first name is Tim, not Richard.

    7. Re: Why would they have admitted they could? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. These stories are about informing the public that they don't have the capability that they do so as to lull people into continued use of these devices. Thereby providing access to data as desired.

    8. Re:Why would they have admitted they could? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMFTFY "We don't do every phone, every variation of phone," sounds dangerously close to, "[there are enough other ways in we don't have to hack a specific phone]"

    9. Re: Why would they have admitted they could? by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      The NSA is not well known for revealing what it can and cannot do. It has secrets and values them. Why would we care what any NSA employee says that it CAN do, when we know that it's mission is to keep quiet about that. I don't even know why I am saying this. You already know that the NSA can do more than they are willing to admit publicly or even privately to government agencies to which they report.

  2. Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:

    1) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I sleep.

    2) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pee.

    3) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make kaka.

    4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

    5) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I wash my body in the shower.

    6) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I relax in the tub.

    7) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my teeth.

    8) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make passionate love to my wife.

    9) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my hair.

    10) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read a book.

    11) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read Slashdot.

    12) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I bake cake.

    13) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I put in my contact lenses.

    14) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I get ready to play golf.

    15) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my laundry.

    16) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I think about rugby.

    17) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I tie my shoes.

    18) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I celebrate the 4th of July.

    19) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I water my flowers.

    20) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I eat ham.

    21) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I use my stapler to staple documents.

    22) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I chew bubble gum.

    23) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I check the oil in my car.

    24) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I look for my TV remote.

    25) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I blow my nose.

    26) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I rearrange my stamp collection.

    27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

    28) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my calisthenics.

    29) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I search for a paper clip.

    30) Internet of Things devices could send information about me to advertisers.

    31) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I sleep.

    32) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pee.

    33) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make kaka.

    34) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pleasure myself.

    35) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I wash my body in the shower.

    36) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I relax in the tub.

    37) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my teeth.

    38) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make passionate love to my wife.

    39) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my hair.

    40) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read a book.

    41) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read Slashdot.

    42) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I bake cake.

    43) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly coll

  3. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously? Who believes anything the NSA says at this point?

    I don't know if they can hack that phone or not, but I'm not believing what they tell me about it.

    It might coincidentally be the truth, but I'm not taking their word for it.

    1. Re:Seriously? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Who believes anything the NSA says at this point?

      Well, when they say that IoT is going to be a security nightmare, and they think the NSA will be able to exploit it.. well I trust that they're telling the truth on that.

  4. NSA's Death Note? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So if the NSA want their own Death Note we are going to need a few more L Sonwdens.

    1. Re:NSA's Death Note? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. you post in English, on an English speaking site, and link to the Spanish language wiki article about a Japanese cartoon.

      At first, I thought you were an idiot. Then I realized this obfuscation is clever enough to mimic the nsa misdirection illustrated in so many articles where they admit to not admitting something of importance which is claimed to not be important.

      I write this as a commercial on TV is trying to sell a night light for the crapper. Evidently multiple colors help the shit in the night or something (volume is off). The first thing that popped into my head was oh noes, a spycam you install yourself then i thought the nsa might want to know what you are flushing away. Then I started wondering why you cannot find tinfoil easily any more - just aluminum foils.

    2. Re:NSA's Death Note? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems pretty much spot on,... and scary to become real.

      The core plot device of the story is the "Death Note" itself, which is a black notebook with instructions (known as "Rules of the Death Note") written on the inside. When used correctly, it allows anyone to commit a murder, knowing only the victim's name and face.

      L is the world's greatest detective. He takes on the task of tracking down and exposing the Death Note's killer.

  5. I don't believe you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe you

  6. IoT is the new mesh. We should exploit it too by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Urbanites won't need an ISP once everything connects to each other. It shouldn't be too difficult to spy on the NSA while they're spying on us. Surf's up. Catch the wave.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: IoT is the new mesh. We should exploit it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does IoT have to do with it? APs have been able to mesh for years. It doesn't make the internet it makes a crappy wireless LAN even crappier.
      When everyone is on the same LAN they have no separation from each other. Meaning your neighbors can packet sniff you ezpz, no effort. Spoofing is trivial on LAN as well.
      This is literally not even good enough for video games... All those wireless hops are going to add up. And who's going to provide the fat pipe for the internet that 99% of the neighborhood wants? And how could you trust it when DNS spoofing is so easy on LAN?
      I've heard tons of people saying things about wireless mesh networks like, "it's possible" and "neat." Never have I heard any body say they are secure.

    2. Re: IoT is the new mesh. We should exploit it too by NotAPK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're absolutely right about the mesh network being insecure: but SO IS THE INTERNET (see NSA and Snowdon) and the physical and routing layers should always be regarded as untrusted.

      The only solution is to use a secure VPN at all times. Of course you'll need an end point at some point, but I'd rather my end point was on a different continent, and ideally a country with minimal treaties with my own.

      Of course performance for such a thing will be in the toilet. Ever used Tor? It's slow as well. But if faced with a choice between security and privacy (lumping them together) vs convenience, I know exactly which one I choose every time. Of course I'm not normal.

  7. iphone sales surge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If we don't have a bad guy who's using it, we don't do that."

  8. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    61 ) Internet of Things devices could be watching me fold this sheet of Reynolds Oven Strength Wrap into a hat!

  9. Pinocchio nose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What a bunch of fucking liars. Some private company contracted by FBI could do it and the NSA couldn't ? Maybe the Sheeple believe it, but I don't.

    1. Re:Pinocchio nose by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      While I have a healthy skepticism about NSA claims it actually aligns with my expectations that they're not really prepared for this sort of work. The NSA is a bureau of lawyers, just like the engineer-free NTSB and NRC or the analyst-free SEC, etc. There are some limited number of people with actual technical skills in these TLAs, but they have no authority and they are kept carefully on a leash lest they notice something inconvenient to the horde of lawyers.

      Maybe the NSA had real in-house talent during the cold war, back when the adversary was a hostile nation and they couldn't just have some star-chamber court force the Soviets to open up their telecom systems. Today it's a big collection of lawyers that spend their time directing and coercing third-parties into compromising their systems for the NSA's convenience. It's a lot more efficient to make some telecom build the road in and tap tens of millions of devices and users than to maintain the talent, equipment and do the difficult and costly R&D necessary to pick apart some phone at the board level.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Pinocchio nose by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (holds up sign) citation needed.

      collecting and analyzing data is not the work of lawyers and managers. maybe those were the people you dealt with (?) but should we think the nsa is understaffed wrt hacking talent?

      its funny that people argue about this or that news report regarding the three letter agencies. as if we'd even know or anyone who could talk about it, would know a fucking thing.

      argue about whether batman could beat jesus in a go-kart race. if you like fantasy and guessing, at least be creative about it and don't kid yourself that its really real.

      the nsa could have the most advanced computing center in the world. or it may not. how the hell would we know? the point is that they are secret and the bigger point is that we, somehow, as a people, have allowed an agency to grow to the point where we have zero insight as to what goes on.

      is this something the founding fathers would have thought to be OK? again, playing the fantasy/guess game, I don't think they'd approve of where we have gone and what level of power we've signed away to countless government orgs.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re: Pinocchio nose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ask for citation and can't be bothered enough to hit shift key? Fuck you.

      It makes a difference to readability.

  10. The NSA is All Powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA is a bunch of Bloody Incompetent Bumblers.

    Which is it. Throw everything you can find at the wall and see what sticks?

  11. Internet of Deez Nuts by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In ten years, when the NSA is monitoring your insulin pump and IUD, maybe Sir Tim Berners-Lee can come out with another think piece about he's shocked, shocked, I tell you that the "Internet of Things" has become the biggest surveillance network in history.

    And we can all go, "If we'd only had some inkling that this could happen".

    Now go shopping with your digital wallet because all you have to do is wave your magic smartphone and everybody behind you in line will think you're just the coolest.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. The good guys :) by axewolf · · Score: 1, Interesting

    See, the NSA isn't the evil organization that is treating you as an active threat to your own country for no reason.

    They are the good guys, the ones who try to stop the terrorists from doing mass shootings! And they aren't even omnipotent, they can't even crack your iPhone!

    You know it's true because it's in the news.

    1. Re:The good guys :) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The Star Trek set thing, among others, showed that they are toy soldiers and a very very long way from being professional let alone omnipotent. Sure, they have some people who know how to work for a living instead of play but the ones who made the right friends partying at school are the ones that get to give them orders.

    2. Re:The good guys :) by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you seem really gullible saying something like that.

      Yes obviously they are incredibly flawed overgrown infants with no real consciousness and thereby no conscience.
      That is how they are able to do something so utterly evil every day and live with it.
      That was the plan in raising a generation man-babies. Skilled workers that will do anything you ask and that are too absorbed in their diversions to question anything. Zombies.

    3. Re:The good guys :) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you seem really gullible saying something like that.

      After what has come out I'd say someone would have to be gullible to think other than what I have written.

      They should be shut down and replaced by professional military intelligence.

      The casual evil they do springs more from incompetence producing a poor chain of command and no enforcement of ethics than any sort of ability.

    4. Re:The good guys :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They should be [...] replaced by professional military intelligence.

      In your world: does professionalism include morals? Does it includecritically thinking about the orders given and (when no other choice) blowing the whistle?

      Or is it the ultimate division of labor, everyone doing his/her "job" to professional perfection without even thinking further?

    5. Re: The good guys :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know anyone who works there then? Anyone?

    6. Re:The good guys :) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Professionals have a code of ethics. Professional military have rules of engagement. These toy soldiers appear to have neither, just "ends justify the means" and then lying to their bosses (Congress etc).

    7. Re:The good guys :) by axewolf · · Score: 1

      The NSA is the "professional military intelligence" you speak of.

      How would changing the personnel of the agency affect its directive? They are all following orders.

      You are honestly so idiotic as to believe this whole thing was cooked up and executed entirely within that agency with no support or direction from outside? Are you totally unaware of the history of this program? The NSA inherited this program, tools and all, from the TIA "research project".

      The casual evil they do and the ignorance under which they do it are intended consequences of their conditioning and training. The root of the evil are people who benefit immensely from these kinds of programs and who have a stable of totally loyal servants who look for every opportunity to "serve their country". Which really just means to serve these powerful people.

      I can only imagine your shattered view of reality that you've constructed from TV and movies.

    8. Re:The good guys :) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How would changing the personnel of the agency affect its directive? They are all following orders.

      Orders from highly unprofessional but well connected idiots (eg. Star Trek set thing that was a fuckup on every level - the designer should never have been let on site for security reasons for a start) and plenty of anecdotes about unprofessional staff before even the outsourcing to the bunch that employed Snowden got out. Even that outsourcing was a bit of nepotism that never should have happened but a former employee (Booz or the other guy) was thought to be deserving of a reward at the expense of the taxpayer - thus in-house secrets were outsourced.

      I can only imagine your shattered view of reality that you've constructed from TV and movies.

      I wish. It turns out that the way things were run in "Dr Strangelove" is far more professional than the reality with these toy soldiers

    9. Re:The good guys :) by axewolf · · Score: 1

      You just aren't getting it I guess.

      This is all business as usual. Things ALWAYS go like this.

      You are trying to give your government an out by saying what a tragedy it is they were tricked into hiring these incompetent people.
      It. Was. All. Intentional.
      These people's incompetence is valuable. They are still good at their trained tasks, they are easily manipulable, and they allow for central command to go blameless because people like you assume that when something goes wrong it was a personal mistake of the people directly executing programs.

  13. We don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We don't do every phone,

    *COUGH* BULLSHIT *COUGH*

    every variation of phone,"

    *COUGH* BULLSHIT *COUGH*

    1. Re: We don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant they do black colour versions, but not white or gold.

  14. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by grub · · Score: 1

    This is /. : #8 and #11 are mutually exclusive.
    #3 and #4 likely occur simultaneously. You can list them under one bullet point.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  15. Wow real life NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't actually have a giant exploit database for everything... hmm go figure.., now what do I do with all this tinfoil.

  16. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I'd check into and support Freedombox!

  17. Give that guy an award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 beer

  18. dey r no haxx0rz l0l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cant hack it dey de suxx0r r0fl

  19. WTF kind of idiot question is this? by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

    When asked if the entire scope of the Internet of Things -- billions of interconnected devices -- would be "a security nightmare or a signals intelligence bonanza,"

    The very fact that it's a security nightmare means that it's a SIGINT bonanza.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  20. device manufacturers are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they optimize for cost and cost only. I was on a project recenty where I proposed to include security and privacy into the device from day one the manager told verbatim: who cares?

  21. Supplies! I'm behind seven proxies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck...

  22. So... by tsotha · · Score: 1

    So the NSA could have hacked it, but since it wasn't a priority for them they didn't bother?

    I don't know how to feel about that. Will our privacy be saved by bureaucratic inefficiency?

  23. Easy to test by cdsparrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Get an identical 5c and ios version that the SB phone was using.
    2. Put tons of links in the web history to places you can monitor hits.
    3. Lock the phone and reset the appleid password.
    4. Throw the phone over a fence at Fort Meade.
    5. Sit back and watch for those hits. I bet it won't take long.
    6. ???
    7. Profit!

    1. Re:Easy to test by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I believe that some links that were never public (blind) were 'clicked on' by a bot or even a human, via an ENCRYPTED skype chat, years ago. this was a proof that skype was broken and not secure, even before ebay bought them.

      nothing can resist links ;) if your link get triggered and there was only 1 place it was published, that's that. its all the proof you need.

      so yeah, that's a good idea. not the part about throwing it over the fence. can't think that would be very healthy for the person doing it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Easy to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.1 Wipe it down with a rag soaked in bleach before you throw it over the fence to get rid of any forensics and fingerprints.

  24. You're not thinking like an intelligence agency by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The San Bernardino iPhone was too high-profile a case. If the NSA had cracked it for the FBI, then everyone would've known they could crack the iPhone's encryption. Apple would've immediately set about changing it, people with stuff to hide from the NSA would've immediately started adding an additional layer(s) of encryption on top, sources of intel the NSA was getting fro iPhones would've dried up. If the NSA could crack it, the last thing they would do is reveal they could. If you reveal it, that's the last time you get to use it. If you keep it secret, you get to use it over and over again.

    So the "fact" that the NSA couldn't crack it for the FBI doesn't really tell us anything - that would've been their story whether or not they could crack it. Heck, for all we know, the NSA did crack it, and this whole story about the FBI paying some random hacker is a charade to cover it up.

    1. Re:You're not thinking like an intelligence agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The San Bernardino iPhone was too high-profile a case. If the NSA had cracked it for the FBI, then everyone would've known they could crack the iPhone's encryption.

      Apple should have assumed they could anyway.

      Apple would've immediately set about changing it...

      Apple should have assumed they could anyway.

      ..., people with stuff to hide from the NSA would've immediately started adding an additional layer(s) of encryption on top, sources of intel the NSA was getting fro iPhones would've dried up. If the NSA could crack it...

      Apple should have assumed they could anyway.

      ..., the last thing they would do is reveal they could. If you reveal it, that's the last time you get to use it. If you keep it secret, you get to use it over and over again.

      Apple should have assumed they could anyway.

      So the "fact" that the NSA couldn't crack it for the FBI doesn't really tell us anything - that would've been their story whether or not they could crack it. Heck, for all we know, the NSA did crack it, and this whole story about the FBI paying some random hacker is a charade to cover it up.

      I wonder how many fucking times it should be said.

    2. Re:You're not thinking like an intelligence agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, I don't know how this inter-agency help set up in the US, but it seems realistic to assume that the NSA does not have to help the FBI with cracking a phone even if they have the capability to do so. The FBI is probably full of moles and traitors anyway.

    3. Re:You're not thinking like an intelligence agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Title 50 USC actually is very clear about what the NSA may and may not do to help civil law enforcement agencies. If the NSA already has the tools to do it, they may, in certain cases, provide technical assistance. However, they may not, in any way, use Title 50 money to develop tools for civil law enforcement. I'm not seing a business case for the NSA to crack encryption on a smart phone with physical access (not in their job drawer) and consequently, this is not a surprise and says nothing about the NSA's ability to crack encryption.

    4. Re:You're not thinking like an intelligence agency by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The security model in the iPhone 6 is different and a bit more robust than the 5C. If they cracked the San Bernardino phone they would have figured out how to crack an insignificant number of iPhones.

      Besides the FBI isn't the NSA. They likely don't even want to talk to each other much less trade hard won information.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:You're not thinking like an intelligence agency by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      If whatever J. Random Hacker the FBI wound up paying to do so could have that iPhone, theres no way the NSA doesn't have the ability as well. So, really, the secret is out and everyone does know that they have the ability.

      They just didn't want to do so. Whether that's because they're keeping their heads down for a while post-Snowden, or they didn't think it was worth their time, or they had some *other* backdoor they didn't want to reveal, or if it was political wrangling and/or acrimony between the two agencies, is the question.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  25. Translation into English by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    "We don't do every phone, every variation of phone," said Richard Ledgett, the NSA's deputy director.

    English Translation: "We had every bit of data that phone had to offer within five minutes. There was nothing interesting on it, so we told the FBI to go pound sand and told everybody else that we just couldn't beat Apple's encryption. LOL"

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Translation into English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further translation: "If we didn't depend on funding from you brainless sheep I wouldn't even deign to answer your inane bleating. Go feed on some more celebrity gossip and cry about your spoiled, entitled lives while we do our jobs: making sure you still have a country to live in."

  26. I wouldn't either by WaffleMonster · · Score: 0

    Why would NSA piss away capability on something as trivial and unimportant as this? If I were an NSA goon I would do what I do best... LIE.. encryption...what's that? Way over our heads...

    It was already widely believe odds of finding anything of importance on iPhone were slim going in and surprise nothing was found. The whole exercise was primarily FBI making a political statement in a case where they believed they would have maximal political advantage. Would have been disappointed in NSA if they gave FBI anything.

  27. Re: You're not thinking like an intelligence agenc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to see a grown up posting today

  28. Walki talki and transmit numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    133, 44, 88, 10. Then the other guy has a book that the both of you have a copy of. The numbers correspond to characters. Unbreakable one-time-pad style using low-tech radio from the eighties. No WiFi needed. Works great for communicating evil plans.

    1. Re:Walki talki and transmit numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      133, 44, 88, 10. Then the other guy has a book that the both of you have a copy of. The numbers correspond to characters. Unbreakable one-time-pad style using low-tech radio from the eighties. No WiFi needed. Works great for communicating evil plans.

      Frequency analysis breaks this old school method every time. This was one thing that the United States used as leverage for their superior computing power in the cold war against the USSR. That technique still works now.

    2. Re: Walki talki and transmit numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it works so well, show me where a numbers station has been destroyed.

      OTP rules all

  29. Wording by kqc7011 · · Score: 1

    All that the "We don't do every phone, every variation of phone," says to me is that the NSA might not do the cracking, but their sub-contractors do.

    --
    Passionately Indifferent
    1. Re:Wording by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      It's rather stupid to believe that the NSA would rely on misleading half truths.

      If they want you to know something, they will tell you the truth. If they don't want you to know something, they either don't tell, or they lie. There is absolutely no reason why the NSA would try to to tell you misleading truths, when they can much easier tell you misleading lies.

  30. Internet of Total Control by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 3, Informative

    When we know for a fact that IoT will only subject us to even more intrusive data collection, spying and constant privacy violations, why would anyone willingly put something like that in their homes? We can also assume that bad actors know of these capabilities and they're practically useless in preventing them from carrying out whatever they would do. To me it seems this is all about mass crowd control. Creating an extensive backlog of every citizens life, one that can be revisited when necessary.

    --
    -SR
    1. Re:Internet of Total Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I just flashed on the late great Robin Williams talking about Bill Gates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZcFrmaNjd0

  31. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NSA Couldn't Hack" = "We can neither confirm nor deny that we have the capability"

    Breaking into it would be a confirmation that they can

  32. More likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't want to tell the FBI what they could and could not do, and didn't want to get dragged into an legal challenges so played dumb officially, and perhaps even unofficially.

  33. ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its all on && off .... and all insurance is invalid when you set a new-k off ... when you crack any system similar to a bolt of lightning all those failed branches get discharged (similar to TD training porn 'AI' with the right hand rule and Maxwell's equations)... MI calculus is similar to deriving PI from the other end || nuclear disarming the French --> that means CERN is getting RAND sacked similar in saying in that those CSRI-scrotes got sacked for BS-ing people about F gases those who's math is only ever 97% and statistically always incorrect --> dumb ass science does NOT compute || your math is still dominos pizza paper you can wipe you ass with and the associations and differences you see are insignificant as your collective inferrior intellect - stoopid + stoopid + ....+ stoopid = stoopid I may P on you as MI wiz .IS currency not3 stoopid^stoopid = stoopid ( we already know 97% of scientist agree they are 'g-tards' and stoopid ) that and AD 4 U similar to a bright illumination --> yes the new '4's'

    1. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eye && stein || genius .is stoopid classification ... a new '4's' .is that similar to holding two sets of fingers up at the rest of you crypto sporidium 'CS' for brains ?? .. victory ^ victory = euro zone , google chome -> polishers are frothy CS foam sucking the Number 2 p0p3

    2. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clearly 5th level normalized here

    3. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the above can only be the work of NSA + A

    4. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ann AC3 2 MI

      whiskey006+!+Q&&U23*

    5. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey Y bother spinning up a mobile phone right hand rule brain system in your sand pit, a brain stem has more switches to play with and is more thingy than the internet

    6. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No silver bullet in this load for you 2 min3 - propriety systems are not patented - compared to that stack of academic statistical chrome polishers ... all the big 'strokes' of science are achieved, the rest just polish chrome and perform the Sherman act - roosters suckers and p0p3 2 plugs with bit flipped brains licking fingers and gambling

    7. Re:ABS brakes are great to test failures on n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for pure 'eve-ale' 'in-furring' AND 'in-joosing' delta --> wet panty ops ON opm girlies - OR is that an inside job with secret servicing ? some hendrix for those >min$ AND dehydrated 'BOT-tang-i-calls' roo-fee$

      Real Ale AND Gin - make your 'load' obvious similar to smelting zinc to rub on your nose as its gets illuminated by the sun beaming out of her Oscar

  34. stop relying on spies that scare you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    without crimes there are no need for cops. they like to play "save you from secretly us"

  35. Shift key by mcswell · · Score: 1

    Perhaps not using the shift key is, for you, a form of encryption? I didn't find his post at all hard to read.

  36. One-time pads by mcswell · · Score: 1

    WRONG. A one-time pad, used correctly, is unbreakable. "Used correctly" means you only use a page to encode a single message (hence the moniker), the message must be no longer than that page, and the numbers on the pad are truly random (ok, as random as can be); plus you have to ensure that the custody chain of the one-time pads, and (preferably) destroy the page after use.

    If you don't believe me, then look it up. Hint: google, wikipedia.

  37. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just peed a little.

  38. Your strawman was never here by dbIII · · Score: 1

    This is all business as usual. Things ALWAYS go like this

    Good reason to shut them down and go back to the sort of professional military intelligence that they replaced some decades back.

    people like you assume that when something goes wrong it was a personal mistake of the people directly executing programs

    Really? Try actually reading posts before writing something so STUPID in response. Your strawman was never here.

    1. Re:Your strawman was never here by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Good reason to shut them down and go back to the sort of professional military intelligence that they replaced some decades back.

      What makes you think "that kind" of professional military intelligence was replaced? That it doesn't exist and deals with a higher level of information refinement?
      Of course this is the scheme.

      If you have the sense to guess that this is true, then you might start to realize that the object of intelligence is less defense and more governance. Military governance. That is the reality of our society.