181–190 of 364 posts
this is smoke screen. Purely. they can already desolder the flash memory chips and brute force the data, programatically no less, all they want.
iOS's security is quite sophisticated: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
Does Apple get to bill the FBI for the time that their engineers and legal department will be busy on this request?
Ok someone murders a bunch of defenseless people... Why is Apple dragging their feet? This is tasteless. I'm NOT for backdoors, but this is ridiculous.
> I'm NOT for backdoors I think you've just learned that you are, in fact, for backdoors. A backdoor doesn't become any less of a backdoor when it's only used against bad people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. You can feel free to disengage from this conversation if you find it troubling. If you are incredulous that someone might be concerned with the privacy of these people (and their friends and family) in the particular way I am, then I'm not sure what I can do to make you believe. I am a person. These are my true thoughts. I actually and hone…
..... I currently have a lot of time on my hands, so sure, I'll bite.... > I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so Given that the answer to CAN they is a solid no, and that random searches of homes is in no way related to searching devices used in a conspiracy to commit murder, what…
You said that the state should be able to search the phone because it was likely to have evidence of crimes. I am arguing that higher than normal likelihood, as you might expect in a high-crime neighborhood, is not sufficient to justify a search. Instead, I am arguing that evidence (indicative of finding things that will help solve or prevent crimes), not likelihood of finding such things, should be the standard for a warrant.
> A conspiracy took place.
I should have said "a conspiracy beyond the two dead perpetrators".
> one of the participants declared that they were part of a larger group
Did she? I thought she said she "pledged allegiance" to a larger group, like one might do to a Pope you have never met or spoken with.
> what information is missing that would motivate you to think that a search of the attackers' phones should be conducted?
I discussed this elsewhere in the thread, but you may not have seen that post yet. Here is a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115698
> Are you really asserting that there is no evidence of conspiracy that extends beyond the deceased
No, I am /asking/ if there is any such evidence.
> I don't imagine that you're arguing that the post-mortem privacy interests of the terrorists prohibit investigation.
No, I don't think it prohibits investigation, but I do think that state searches of their personal effects ought to require evidence that searching their personal effects would solve old crimes or prevent new ones.
> Are you suggesting that the risk from not knowing the contents of the phone are so low as to not rise to outweigh the privacy interests of anyone incidentally mentioned on the device?
I am suggesting that those privacy interests can be balanced against evidence that searching the phone would solve old crimes or prevent new ones. I do not believe that risk is the only question. That is what I was trying to get at with my distinction between "high likelihood of" and "evidence of", above.
> What is the moral base from which you are arguing that this nearly universally accepted standard is somehow deficient?
The reason I think that evidence of solving (or helping to solve) old crimes or preventing new ones should be required before searching the possessions of any person, living or dead, murderer or pacifist, is a traditional one about privacy, but it seems like the balance I use is different than your balance.
That "societies generally allow" the state to do something, or that societies "nearly universally" do so, is not a big factor in my feelings on whether or not it is fair and just.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1: Yes. 2: Yes. 3: No, but they will probably be the ones asked anyway, and then yes, they would be legally required. 4: Apple. 5: What's the question? Is the question will they be compensated? Then yes. 6: They can't. They don't own their stock. Bad PR is not a good enough reason. You are treating the court like a mathematical proof and finding edge cases. I used to as well. But courts don't work that way at all - t…
[deleted]
Till then......
Edit: The deleted post was suggesting that it would be wonderful if the law would be entirely axiomatic. The post was getting a lot of downvotes.
Ok someone murders a bunch of defenseless people... Why is Apple dragging their feet? This is tasteless. I'm NOT for backdoors, but this is ridiculous.
It's more than just that. It's about setting a precedent. If you let the government walk all over your security, then where do you draw the line? What's the point of security at that point? Security doesn't favor good or bad.
However I don't understand why everyone on hn thinks it's impossible to design things in this manner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1: Yes. 2: Yes. 3: No, but they will probably be the ones asked anyway, and then yes, they would be legally required. 4: Apple. 5: What's the question? Is the question will they be compensated? Then yes. 6: They can't. They don't own their stock. Bad PR is not a good enough reason. You are treating the court like a mathematical proof and finding edge cases. I used to as well. But courts don't work that way at all - t…
Specifically regarding question 5 - how does the burden of proof work? How do statues of limitations apply?
I don't see how statues of limitations is connected to the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? To be clear, I don't think the order to Apple is necessaril…
In response to your (first?) edit: > The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0]. I'm not questioning that she declared allegiance. I'm asking if she was in private contact with anyone. If you were responding to that, can you show me where that is in the NYT article you linked? I don't see it. > Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased? Let's try to keep this civil, please. > Do you reall…
The legality of searching for evidence is pretty open and shut because you need probable cause. The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.
Shooting a bunch of people and saying you're with ISIS is plenty of probable cause for a search. I don't see how you're waiting for "all the evidence" here since all the relevant facts are in and they're sufficient. Whether or not she was conversing privately with ISIS counterparts would be the resulting information of the search.
> One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US.
The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs, instead they need to say "I'm in ISIS and there are a bunch of us!" and then shoot a bunch of civilians.
Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. You can feel free to disengage from this conversation if you find it troubling. If you are incredulous that someone might be concerned with the privacy of these people (and their friends and family) in the particular way I am, then I'm not sure what I can do to make you believe. I am a person. These are my true thoughts. I actually and hone…
..... I currently have a lot of time on my hands, so sure, I'll bite.... > I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so Given that the answer to CAN they is a solid no, and that random searches of homes is in no way related to searching devices used in a conspiracy to commit murder, what…
> Sorry for all the questions
There is no need to be sorry. They are useful for me to understand your POV and to have a conversation. I am happy to answer them as best I can.