The IRS does not and would not *EVER* request any information that is confidential between you and the IRS to be sent via email.
I'm not sure that the IRS even uses email to contact taxpayers at all, although if they did, it would probably be for things that are irrelevant to the matter of filing taxes, like maybe informing them of new services or something similar.
So the trick then becomes how does Apple force a device that has been locked by the OS to update itself to a compromised version of the OS for the FBI to hack? This may still be outside of Apple's ability.
Apple hasn't said they couldn't cooperate, they said that they wouldn't.
Actually, they *HAVE* said in the past that they cannot decrypt iPhone content with IOS8 or later. Arguably, they are only saying they wouldn't *BECAUSE* they couldn't.
It seems likely there is at least something they could do if they were willing to cooperate.
Lots of people seem to believe this... but I don't think any of them are experts in encryption. Ultimately it baselessly presumes that Apple is lying about their inability to break the encryption. There are mathematical reasons why breaking strong encryption is hard, and those reasons are just as inviolable for Apple as they are for the FBI.
Er... I forgot to mention that that size variance of a few microns would actually be across the whole brick.... while any individual stud would deviate in position by no more than a fraction of that. The small variances that occur with only a few degrees of difference are well accommodated by the flexibility of the ABS plastic itself.
My point is that the request (to decrypt the existing phone or any existing phone that is using the encryption they have said that they have no ability to decrypt) is *NOT* technologically possible. We're not talking ww2 codes here.... this is comparatively strong encryption, and the mathematics involved is not simply a version of what was being used before that only requires more computing power to be thrown at it now, but operating on fundamentally different premises from what they used back then.
Apple has said previously that they do not have the ability to decrypt the phones running certain versions of IOS or later. As I said.... one can either take their claim at their word, assuming that the experts at Apple might know someone that one does not, come to the utterly baseless conclusion that they are lying about the notion that they have no more ability to crack the encryption than anyone else does, or else learn for oneself the underlying mathematics of what makes it hard to break in the first place (and in turn why it is unreasonable to expect compliance with). The last choice is hard, and most people aren't interested in doing it, although it is ultimately the only way to objectively prove their position.
Yes, but but ABS plastic is flexible enough at room temperature to accommodate such tiny deviations. The example I mentioned of putting a piece of Lego in the freezer and then trying to fit it with another piece at room temperature would indeed show difficulty in fitting, in part due to thermal contraction, and in part because frozen ABS plastic is more rigid, and less tolerant of less than perfect fits.
1. In this case, we have a lawful order from a court. Legally and morally, Apple should comply.
How can Apple comply with an order that they have no ability to follow? The court order is for Apple to help decrypt a specific phone, not to change how they make phones.
2. Seems to me the SDK would include a way to dump the contents of a phone and a simulator.
Believing in something does not mean that it is true.
So one is then left with a choice of taking one of three options: Either 1) learn the mathematics behind why breaking strong encryption is hard; 2) take Apple's word for it that they have no more ability to break the encryption than anyone else would; or 3) blindly believe without any basis whatsoever that the people who are saying that they cannot break the encryption on the phone are lying.
This is why you pay a team of lawyers to show what extravagant actions were done in order to comply with the court order, and convince the judge.
Such extravagant actions would, in this case, amount to trying to break the rules of mathematics, since there are mathematical reasons why breaking encryption is hard. This is absurd. There isn't even anything one could begin to actually do to even give an appearance of trying to break such rules, let alone succeeding.
if they need 2 micron accuracy to work over all dimensions, pieces warmed up by your hand would not fit ones at room temperature.
First of all, ABS plastic such as what is used for Lego isn't affected that much by temperature change at the scales that things like Lego are made, in general the difference in size for that tiny a temperature change would be about on the order of a fraction of a micron. Secondly, the expansion or contraction for larger temperature changes could indeed pose a problem for some Lego pieces to fit together if they were made of something other than ABS. A Lego piece taken out of a freezer that has been there for some time, for instance, may have a difficult time fitting room temperature pieces because the former has become more rigid, and connectivity will certainly be affected by the temperature variance.
Contempt requires disrespect or willful disobedience. A few expert witnesses and I am sure the judge can be presented with sufficient evidence that what is asked is beyond the ability to obtain in one's lifetime.
There are distinctly mathematical reasons why breaking encryption is hard, and those reasons are why the fbi was having a hard time breaking it. Apple can't break the rules of mathematics any more than the fbi can, but try explaining that to somebody who doesn't understand the mathematics behind encryption. They will end up either having to take it on faith that you are telling the truth or else they will simply doubt the conclusion you might present that it is genuinely as hard for you as for anyone else in the first place. This judge probably isn't the sort of person to just take Apple at their word if they say they can't do it, but there's no way they or anyone else can really prove that they can't do it to a person who doesn't appear to understand the mathematical reasons why breaking strong encryption is genuinely hard unless the person is prepared to accept that fact on faith.
We have a six figure priced printer in the shop where I work, which is actual now several years old, and it can easily make the tolerances for Lego bricks
The tolerances for Lego are at only 2 microns. Still think it "easily" makes it? Considering the printer you describe is a few years old, I'd be surprised if it is even within an order of magnitude of that tolerance. I know of absolutely no 3d printer, at any price, that can reliably create parts at the levels of precision that can be ordinarily met with injection molding.
how do you show that you tried when it is something you cannot really show progress on until you succeed, and you do not have any ability to guarantee success?
The reason the fbi is blocked is because they don't know the passcode, and this would be equally true for Apple. Apple may be utterly unable to do anything that the fbi cannot do and may have even already tried
The judge may as well have told them to try and go faster than light. There are mathematical reasons why breaking encryption is hard, and being a big company with lots of money doesn't allow one to break the rules of mathematics
The summary faithfully describes the article content, however... so it's not a submitter error. I'm curious though... was the error caused by computer (such as an OCR error), or by a human (eg: typo)?
... is what percentage of connections that were *NOT* using vpn were falsely detected as still being from another country? The article only claims that the tech can identify 97% of out-of-country vpn users as such, but says nothing about the accuracy of identifying actual in-country users. Is it higher? Is it lower? Article leaves it as completely unspoken
The people that are best suited to go to mars are those who either explicitly have a death wish or else those who are simply too naive to realize that going there at the technology that we have right now is suicide. Heck, do you know how many people died just trying to sail halfway around the world to the Americas from Europe only a few centuries ago? And that was on a planet with a hospitable atmosphere!
The moon, at least, has more merit as a place to go to in that, at least theoretically, we can reach it from Earth in less time than it would take people who might get stranded there to starve to death.
... although I am worried that I be labelled as a misogynist for even suggesting it, I believe that the reason there may be fewer women working in that industry than there used to be is because back then it was more likely that women had keyboarding skills they may have acquired in training for secretary type positions that men were simply not as likely to aspire to become. While obviously technical training was still required to do the job, the additional factor of being more likely to have acquired the auxiliary training of being able to type quickly I feel would have doubtless led to fewer men being competitive for those positions in that era.
In the 1980's, I remember seeing a mainframe computer which had completely modular stackable components.... they plugged into eachother almost like lego, and apparently with few exceptions, the components could be placed in different order. I remember at the time thinking that it was kind of like the ISA bus on a PC, only instead of some fixed number of them you could just keep on adding more components to get whatever functionality you desired.
and i see this as being on the path toward the point where money/property/power etc become immaterial..
Possibly.... but probably not before several generations have gone by who will be living heavily under the control of those who will try to hold onto the older ideals, never to realize the futility of doing so before they themselves die.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they are aware of that, but if the bill were to pass, they would probably ask again.
What will you do if other router manufacturers also do this?
The IRS does not and would not *EVER* request any information that is confidential between you and the IRS to be sent via email.
I'm not sure that the IRS even uses email to contact taxpayers at all, although if they did, it would probably be for things that are irrelevant to the matter of filing taxes, like maybe informing them of new services or something similar.
If it were that simple, all the FBI would have had to do is jailbreak the phone wouldn't they?
How do you propose to update it without unlocking it first to accept the update?
So the trick then becomes how does Apple force a device that has been locked by the OS to update itself to a compromised version of the OS for the FBI to hack? This may still be outside of Apple's ability.
Actually, they *HAVE* said in the past that they cannot decrypt iPhone content with IOS8 or later. Arguably, they are only saying they wouldn't *BECAUSE* they couldn't.
Lots of people seem to believe this... but I don't think any of them are experts in encryption. Ultimately it baselessly presumes that Apple is lying about their inability to break the encryption. There are mathematical reasons why breaking strong encryption is hard, and those reasons are just as inviolable for Apple as they are for the FBI.
Er... I forgot to mention that that size variance of a few microns would actually be across the whole brick.... while any individual stud would deviate in position by no more than a fraction of that. The small variances that occur with only a few degrees of difference are well accommodated by the flexibility of the ABS plastic itself.
My point is that the request (to decrypt the existing phone or any existing phone that is using the encryption they have said that they have no ability to decrypt) is *NOT* technologically possible. We're not talking ww2 codes here.... this is comparatively strong encryption, and the mathematics involved is not simply a version of what was being used before that only requires more computing power to be thrown at it now, but operating on fundamentally different premises from what they used back then.
Apple has said previously that they do not have the ability to decrypt the phones running certain versions of IOS or later. As I said.... one can either take their claim at their word, assuming that the experts at Apple might know someone that one does not, come to the utterly baseless conclusion that they are lying about the notion that they have no more ability to crack the encryption than anyone else does, or else learn for oneself the underlying mathematics of what makes it hard to break in the first place (and in turn why it is unreasonable to expect compliance with). The last choice is hard, and most people aren't interested in doing it, although it is ultimately the only way to objectively prove their position.
Yes, but but ABS plastic is flexible enough at room temperature to accommodate such tiny deviations. The example I mentioned of putting a piece of Lego in the freezer and then trying to fit it with another piece at room temperature would indeed show difficulty in fitting, in part due to thermal contraction, and in part because frozen ABS plastic is more rigid, and less tolerant of less than perfect fits.
How can Apple comply with an order that they have no ability to follow? The court order is for Apple to help decrypt a specific phone, not to change how they make phones.
Believing in something does not mean that it is true.
So one is then left with a choice of taking one of three options: Either 1) learn the mathematics behind why breaking strong encryption is hard; 2) take Apple's word for it that they have no more ability to break the encryption than anyone else would; or 3) blindly believe without any basis whatsoever that the people who are saying that they cannot break the encryption on the phone are lying.
Such extravagant actions would, in this case, amount to trying to break the rules of mathematics, since there are mathematical reasons why breaking encryption is hard. This is absurd. There isn't even anything one could begin to actually do to even give an appearance of trying to break such rules, let alone succeeding.
First of all, ABS plastic such as what is used for Lego isn't affected that much by temperature change at the scales that things like Lego are made, in general the difference in size for that tiny a temperature change would be about on the order of a fraction of a micron. Secondly, the expansion or contraction for larger temperature changes could indeed pose a problem for some Lego pieces to fit together if they were made of something other than ABS. A Lego piece taken out of a freezer that has been there for some time, for instance, may have a difficult time fitting room temperature pieces because the former has become more rigid, and connectivity will certainly be affected by the temperature variance.
There are distinctly mathematical reasons why breaking encryption is hard, and those reasons are why the fbi was having a hard time breaking it. Apple can't break the rules of mathematics any more than the fbi can, but try explaining that to somebody who doesn't understand the mathematics behind encryption. They will end up either having to take it on faith that you are telling the truth or else they will simply doubt the conclusion you might present that it is genuinely as hard for you as for anyone else in the first place. This judge probably isn't the sort of person to just take Apple at their word if they say they can't do it, but there's no way they or anyone else can really prove that they can't do it to a person who doesn't appear to understand the mathematical reasons why breaking strong encryption is genuinely hard unless the person is prepared to accept that fact on faith.
The tolerances for Lego are at only 2 microns. Still think it "easily" makes it? Considering the printer you describe is a few years old, I'd be surprised if it is even within an order of magnitude of that tolerance. I know of absolutely no 3d printer, at any price, that can reliably create parts at the levels of precision that can be ordinarily met with injection molding.
Not with any current 3d printing technology, at least. Give the tech a few more years, and maybe...
how do you show that you tried when it is something you cannot really show progress on until you succeed, and you do not have any ability to guarantee success?
The reason the fbi is blocked is because they don't know the passcode, and this would be equally true for Apple. Apple may be utterly unable to do anything that the fbi cannot do and may have even already tried
The judge may as well have told them to try and go faster than light. There are mathematical reasons why breaking encryption is hard, and being a big company with lots of money doesn't allow one to break the rules of mathematics
Is it contempt of court to refuse to try and do something that one already knows they cannot possibly do?
19 degrees C is about room temperature, not 190.
The summary faithfully describes the article content, however... so it's not a submitter error. I'm curious though... was the error caused by computer (such as an OCR error), or by a human (eg: typo)?
... is what percentage of connections that were *NOT* using vpn were falsely detected as still being from another country? The article only claims that the tech can identify 97% of out-of-country vpn users as such, but says nothing about the accuracy of identifying actual in-country users. Is it higher? Is it lower? Article leaves it as completely unspoken
If the latter... wow.
The people that are best suited to go to mars are those who either explicitly have a death wish or else those who are simply too naive to realize that going there at the technology that we have right now is suicide. Heck, do you know how many people died just trying to sail halfway around the world to the Americas from Europe only a few centuries ago? And that was on a planet with a hospitable atmosphere!
The moon, at least, has more merit as a place to go to in that, at least theoretically, we can reach it from Earth in less time than it would take people who might get stranded there to starve to death.
... although I am worried that I be labelled as a misogynist for even suggesting it, I believe that the reason there may be fewer women working in that industry than there used to be is because back then it was more likely that women had keyboarding skills they may have acquired in training for secretary type positions that men were simply not as likely to aspire to become. While obviously technical training was still required to do the job, the additional factor of being more likely to have acquired the auxiliary training of being able to type quickly I feel would have doubtless led to fewer men being competitive for those positions in that era.
In the 1980's, I remember seeing a mainframe computer which had completely modular stackable components.... they plugged into eachother almost like lego, and apparently with few exceptions, the components could be placed in different order. I remember at the time thinking that it was kind of like the ISA bus on a PC, only instead of some fixed number of them you could just keep on adding more components to get whatever functionality you desired.
Possibly.... but probably not before several generations have gone by who will be living heavily under the control of those who will try to hold onto the older ideals, never to realize the futility of doing so before they themselves die.