31–40 of 142 posts
When the government revokes the Gulf of Tonkin resolution I will again put faith in its ability to act responsibly with emergency powers and provisions that might, just might set a precedence. Until then, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, fuck you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except he did go to Congress, and came back with nothing, forcing him to use the AWA. So who is pushing who exactly? And who has a louder voice in criminal justice matters than the FBI?
Hadn't thought about it this way before, but he might be turning to the AWA because a reasonable piece of legislation can't make it through congress.
The FBI would love a federal law that forces Apple to crack phones for them. Since they don't have one, they are trying to get a court to invent one by stretching the All Writs Act.
> We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land. This directly contradicts Tim Cook's statement, in fact he used the same term "master key": > In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. It either is a master key or it isn't.
> We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land. This directly contradicts Tim Cook's statement, in fact he used the same term "master key": > In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. It either is a master key or it isn't.
The precedent is a master key that can be used to compel Apple (or any other company) to do this again in the future for any device.
"Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."
I hate this narrative so much. Just because we happen to be storing everything we do now, doesn't suddenly create tension between privacy and safety. We used to not store it at all! It's really just a question of keeping privacy with new tech.
> We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land. This directly contradicts Tim Cook's statement, in fact he used the same term "master key": > In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. It either is a master key or it isn't.
It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant
Edit: LOL, downvotes because you don't like it. Apple made a bad design decision, and it's coming to bite them in the ass. Yeah, it sucks, but I'm not the one who designed the backdoor. Blame the corporate culture, not the messenger. Fix the problem and tell your customers about it. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant
And next week they ask for them to sign the next thing to work on the next phone. At this point, the only valid answer from Apple is that any future devices (if they aren't this way already) should either require the password to do a software update, or wipe the phone.
The core thing that makes this not a master key is that Apple has to make the decision to comply on each phone (and warrant). Which gives them the opportunity to push back if it chooses to. If the FBI has somebody's phone and secretly wants to unlock it, it can't without going through the courts and Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't. the FBI asked for a specialised OS image that would have a check so that it could only work on this specific phone. Combined with Apple's encryption/signing of the update, this image could not be applied to any other device. So the "work" asked of Apple would produce something that would only work on the phone with the warrant
So Tim Cook was wrong? Look at what he wrote: "Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. The FBI may use different wo…
These people are either being intentionally deceitful or are simply incompetent in understanding the full implications of what they're asking. Either possibility is disturbing.
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/70115236890220134...
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/70115264061335142...
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/70115296105404006...
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/70115860701918412...
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/70115891912992768...
It should be resolved by the American people deciding how we want to govern ourselves in a world we have never seen before. We shouldn’t drift to a place—or be pushed to a place by the loudest voices—because finding the right place, the right balance, will matter to every American for a very long time. So why are they asking the courts to stretch the 1789 All Writs Act beyond its breaking point, instead of going to C…
I hate to be in the position of defending the FBI, but this new law would be irrelevant if it's ex post facto, yeah?