Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 364 posts

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

#291

Post by Zigurd »

BWStearns wrote: post #110
dplgk wrote: post #85

The 5th amendment protects evidence inside the brain of the accused. As devices becomes more and more an extension of the brain, the more I think we'll need to adjust the rule of the 5th amendment to cover things outside of the brain.

Think about what we want as a society though. If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you. The reason the 5th protects you from compelled self-incrimination is to prevent unjust interrogation and investigation techniques from the cops[0], not to make the overall likelihood of conviction lower, although it incidentally has this effect. From a policy standpoint the ideal world would be one where all criminals are…

>If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you.

That's a massive assumption in an age when there is a law, somewhere, that make you and me criminals. It's a small ask for laws that are impractical to enforce remain impractical.

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

#292

Post by Lawtonfogle »

ars wrote: post #157
philip1209 wrote: post #70

A thought experiment: Let's say the government makes hardware encryption standards in the style of FedRAMP that sets standards for preventing tampering by foreign governments. Then, imagine that a consumer electronics company voluntarily makes all devices comply with this standard. Could a court attempt to compel the company to defeat the standards which the government set as tamper-proof against governments? A secon…

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…

>They analyze things on a human level

This (and the job prospects) are the reason I choose computer science/software engineering over being a lawyer even though most people who commented on what I should be say I should be a lawyer. The law requires not just thinking like a human, but accepting such thought as valid. To me the logic is exactly the same behind any racist who makes special exceptions for all minority people they know while still holding their view in general. In effect the system is built on a mix of emotion and logic, and in doing such it is insanely unjust to those who fall on the unpopular side. A President who admits to smoking pot leading a government that ruins the lives of people who use pot... it is just as bad as some older men I know who admit to having tried pot but who think anyone currently trying it deserves to be put in prison.

Analyzing something on the human level is always a horrible standard when viewed outside the context of our own emotional fallacies.

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

#293

Post by briankwest »

ggreer wrote: post #13
randyrand wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if touch id, it would be of no use. TouchID requires a password after 48 hours. or after the device resets. Which is interesting. If you happen to use TouchID, is your best bet to hope a court will not be able to compel you to unlock it within 48 hours of arrest? That sounds very probable.

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…

They first have to guess which body part needs to be placed on the TouchID sensor! :)

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

#294

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Spooky23 wrote: post #80
philip1209 wrote: post #70

A thought experiment: Let's say the government makes hardware encryption standards in the style of FedRAMP that sets standards for preventing tampering by foreign governments. Then, imagine that a consumer electronics company voluntarily makes all devices comply with this standard. Could a court attempt to compel the company to defeat the standards which the government set as tamper-proof against governments? A secon…

Ironically, many .gov organizations are rolling out iPhones by the thousand because of the strong security controls available on the platform.

While I only have anecdotes, when I've encountered governments rolling out Apple devices it is far more about being able to have an Apple device than any technical ability it provides. This comes from talking with those in charge of the roll out who admit such. Granted, this is only 3 very much non-random anecdotes.

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

#295

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Spooky23 wrote: post #77
spdustin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem to me that the "fingerprint = key" analogy is flawed. Physical keys can be trivially copied, and even reverse engineered from the locking mechanism. A key is a physical object that is required to disengage a lock. A fingerprint, when used on an electronic lock of this kind, is not a key. It's attributable to one person only, not trivially duplicated, and not able to be reverse engineered from a locking…

I think the courts have this one right. Your finger is a characteristic of you, not compelled speech. If you can compel a suspect to stand up on a lineup, or produce id, there's no reason why the court shouldn't be able to compel you to produce a finger. In technical terms, the finger is really a "something you have" second authentication factor. If you think of it on those terms, it's more like looking at someone's…

>Your finger is a characteristic of you, not compelled speech.

So is all your knowledge. The technology to extract it doesn't yet exist, but once it does, should it be deployed by the courts without a challenge from the 5th Amendment?

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

#296

Post by feld »

exabrial wrote: post #183
bbatsell wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, don't put words into my mouth. I think Apple should go to some extraordinary means to assist here. Any system is hackable if have physical possession and control over the input.

Do you know what a HSM is?

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

#297

Post by feld »

exabrial wrote: post #183
bbatsell wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, don't put words into my mouth. I think Apple should go to some extraordinary means to assist here. Any system is hackable if have physical possession and control over the input.

Do you know what a HSM is?

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

#298

Post by stinkytaco »

bsbechtel wrote: post #226
ars wrote: post #157

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…

The fact that courts don't have ways to handle edge cases is a huge problem with our case law style legal system.

They do have ways to handle edge cases: judges.

They are imperfect and I'm sure you can find much wrong with the courts, but attempting to codify every edge case is not only impossible, but dangerous. The more laws you create, the more likely you can find a way you're breaking one. It's not a perfect system, but a cornerstone of American democracy is that you are judge by people, people like you, not by an algorithm.

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

#299

Post by Lawtonfogle »

BWStearns wrote: post #110
dplgk wrote: post #85

The 5th amendment protects evidence inside the brain of the accused. As devices becomes more and more an extension of the brain, the more I think we'll need to adjust the rule of the 5th amendment to cover things outside of the brain.

Think about what we want as a society though. If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you. The reason the 5th protects you from compelled self-incrimination is to prevent unjust interrogation and investigation techniques from the cops[0], not to make the overall likelihood of conviction lower, although it incidentally has this effect. From a policy standpoint the ideal world would be one where all criminals are…

>If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you.

There are too many bad laws out there. If I meet a bad guy, I can defend myself. If I cross the government, I'm doomed. I much rather support things that increase my likelihood of meeting a bad guy that I can defend myself against while reducing my ability to cross the government and being doomed without recourse. This is the whole reason I justify that it is better to let 99 guilty go free than to jail 1 innocent (assuming the government doesn't also take away my ability to defend myself, which it does seem intent on doing).

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

#300

Post by stinkytaco »

jbapple wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here. The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks. They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened.

> They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened. Right, but we don't go searching everyone's papers just in case they are conspirators. 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? Is there any ev…

What should be sufficient to get a warrant? It seems to me that making warrants harder to get (or impossible), would actually be bad for society at large. In the case of warrant you have a targeted tool, one aimed at a specific person or group, and a demonstrated need approved by a third party that is not law enforcement.

The alternative is dragnetting. Or not having investigative tools. I don't know that I like either option as a citizen.

Post reply on HN