Live data from Hacker News

Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

techdirt.com

211–220 of 364 posts

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#211
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right? Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. This wasn't some random emotional attack like a b…

> Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. What, in your opinion, are the limits of that investigation. So 1. Alice announces she's looking to attack someone. 2. She attacks Bob. 3. She dies. I gather that, in your opinion, we can search her possessions. Let's say she has a living mother and a best frie…

Humans are not computers with fixed rules.

You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that.

I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, don't use your actual fingerprint, since it's becoming harder to avoid giving it to the government, even if you're not a criminal.

What is the alternative approach?

Some people are using their nose-print instead of a fingerprint. I'm assuming you can also use a knuckle or some other part of your anatomy.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#213
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Ah yes, that worked great for Asimov.

No robot ever lobbied government for special exemptions to robot-owned businesses, which it then used to completely trash the economy while accumulating vast amounts of wealth, which it in turn used to strengthen its grip on government. Also, no robot ever argued that it must own every single thing it says for life+95 years or it will stop speaking.

The occasional malfunction is to be expected.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#214
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. What, in your opinion, are the limits of that investigation. So 1. Alice announces she's looking to attack someone. 2. She attacks Bob. 3. She dies. I gather that, in your opinion, we can search her possessions. Let's say she has a living mother and a best frie…

Humans are not computers with fixed rules. You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that. I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.

Sorry, meant to say "ought", not "is". I'm mostly interested in what you think is appropriate, not what the justice system would do, today, with the laws and courts as they are.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. We disagree on the 4th amendment in the same way that scientists and climate change deniers disagree about global warming. You have a fringe understanding of it with no support from the relevant literature and your arguments about it are poorly structured, deny evidence, and rely on intentionally misunderstanding context and terms of art. The legality of se…

> You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. If I did so, it was a mistake. My reference to the 4th Amendment, for instance, should have said "how the 4th Amendment ought to protect us". I did not mean to imply that I am trying to predict what warrants the justice system will or will not grant. > You have a fringe understanding of it I think I mentioned the 4th amendment just the once. I have been t…

> Did the shooter say she was "in ISIS", or that she pledged allegiance to the leader?

Either one would seem to constitute probable cause for an association. Of course we don't know if she was actually in ISIS, or just agreed with their beliefs. But how would we know without conducting further investigation? You seem to be demanding a somewhat unreasonably large burden of proof, when all that is needed in this case is probable cause. Frankly, even if she hadn't verbally declared allegiance to ISIS, I don't think it's a stretch to say there's probable cause for connection to other terrorist groups. The fact that she did say that makes it a slam dunk.

> I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight.

We do have such a system. The evidence you're describing is called probable cause, and that's the whole point. I'm not sure of any reasonable definition of probable cause that this situation wouldn't satisfy. Moreover, your objections seem to be in the form of vague misgivings rather than concrete arguments. You haven't precisely described what would constitute sufficient evidence for an investigation, but instead seem to just be saying "there's not enough right now." I think this is what's behind GPs frustrations responding to your posts.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#216
post #198
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After five failed fingerprint attempts, your password is required to unlock the phone. That seems pretty safe to me. If you're ever ordered to unlock the phone, just touch an unregistered finger to it. Fingerprint sensors aren't foolproof. It'd be hard to prove you deliberately sabotaged the effort. Though, one feature I'd like would be to register a distress fingerprint. Then I could touch say... my left index finge…

Sidenote: Fingerprints should most certainly not be used as passwords at all and only serve as usernames (imo). Mostly because it's pretty hard to change your fingerprint which is a desirable feature for passwords ;)

If one is really paranoid, register only a toe print. I've currently got my right big toe registered to my phone as an experiment and it works as often as finger scanning

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#217
post #4

Remember, this is an iPhone 5C, which doesn't have Touch ID or the Secure Enclave; the security model for this phone is significantly different from that of more recent iPhones. On phones with a Secure Enclave, the wipe-on-failures state is managed in the coprocessor (which runs L4), and is not straightforwardly backdoor-able. If you're worried about the police brute-forcing your phone, enable Touch ID and set a pass…

[deleted]

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#218
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are not computers with fixed rules. You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that. I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.

Sorry, meant to say "ought", not "is". I'm mostly interested in what you think is appropriate, not what the justice system would do, today, with the laws and courts as they are.

I think it's appropriate to search anyone who might be relevant.

There is no blanket rule, each situation is different.

You need to have some reason to go searching someone, it doesn't have to be a great reason, but you do need a reason.

Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone

#219
For me, the most interesting question I would have is absent from the article.

The court is basically ordering Apple to produce new firmware that doesn't block brute forcing. If Apple were to comply, who keeps this firmware after the fact?

There's no mention of this at all, but if the firmware image stays with the FBI then the implications are much more profound with regard to privacy.

Post reply on HN