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

FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 142 posts

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#51

Post by bradleyjg »

wyldfire wrote: post #40
bradleyjg wrote: post #7

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…

> ... instead of going to Congress for a new law 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?

No. The ex post facto clause of the constitution only forbids certain types of retroactive criminal laws. See Calder v. Bull for the details.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#52

Post by blendo »

rtpg wrote: post #24
symlinkk wrote: post #16

> 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

I'm sure the FBI would like to minimize the "work asked of Apple". Ideally, they'd have a system to:

1) Identify target phone and obtain warrant to search.

2) Invoke AppleFBI-specific api to initiate OS image generation to the specified target phone. OS image would be automatically downloaded to target phone.

3) Once downloaded, OS image would present FBI-specific API to allow exfiltration of any desired data.

This might not violate the 4th Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ...") because they'll have a warrant, but IMHO it's a clear violation of the 5th ("... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...").

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#53

Post by allworknoplay »

noobermin wrote: post #9

I'll go ahead and say that it sounds extremely sincere and straight-forward, much unlike most official statements I've seen from the FBI. He does suggest that his view is right, but he does the right thing, as apple did, in supporting a public discourse about the so-called balance between privacy and safety. I know many people seem to gravitate to the extremes on every issue, but both Cook and Comey are right in sayi…

Security vs privacy is a false dichotomy here. Backdoors can help law enforcement achieve some goals but weaken overall security. The debate is security vs security, and framing it any other way reflects either willful deceit or ignorance.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#54

Post by ubernostrum »

rtpg wrote: post #41
symlinkk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, Tim Cook is lying (EDIT: perhaps not lying, but being creative with the meaning of "potential"). The software asked for by the FBI would only work on one phone because it would both have a check for the specific phone, and be signed by Apple (so can't be modified). The software would need to be modified and resigned by Apple to be used on another phone.

Really?

You really, honestly, truly and genuinely believe that if Apple just does this for them, just this one time, just for this one phone, then that's the end of it? That the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies would never, not once, not for the rest of the lifetime of the universe (and certainly not, say, about 24 hours later) come back and say "Well, we're glad you helped us with that case, now here's this list of other cases we'd like help with, and now you've proven that you can do this we're going to be bringing you a lot of these"?

That's what Tim Cook is worried about: it won't stop with this one phone unless it's stopped before that one phone gets unlocked and becomes the precedent that makes this just another routine thing. Every now-routine violation of privacy and security was originally marketed as "just this one case, this one's unique and special and sensitive and we absolutely have to get it done, just this one, trust us" and eventually morphed into "eh, it's Tuesday, time to ship off another truckload of requests to have this done to people".

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#55

Post by brians »

rtpg wrote: post #24
symlinkk wrote: post #16

> 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

Reasonable engineering practice requires that that software be tested before it is used. If it is handed over untested, and bricks the unique device, Tim Cook is going to get found in contempt. The order as written says to only make one specialized version, but also requires delivery of a working version---and that means a general purpose version that can be tested.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#56

Post by ikeboy »

05 wrote: post #47
ikeboy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-17/the-apple-fight... argues and I agree that the loss of freedom is precisely when you can't install your own software onto a phone in your possession.

The article author is incompetent, it's all about private keys, not 'source code'. Neither Android OEMs nor Apple allows the user to set their own root cert.

>Neither Android OEMs nor Apple allows the user to set their own root cert.

Where does the article imply it does? It states correctly that the FBI would have easily hacked it had it been an android.

edit: I'm assuming you're going from this line:

>Although user content is encrypted on Android devices, too, Android is open-source software. Theoretically, the government can produce its own version of the system that would make it possible to hack the encryption.

This is poorly worded, as is the line about how all encryption can be hacked, but he gets the point about how Android would have been vulnerable. I think some of that can be chalked down to writing for the public and not a technical audience.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#57

Post by exodust »

There's a certain hypocrisy I'm noticing in these forum discussions whereby many of you are distrusting the FBI, but apparently you're fine with Apple having the best chance of cracking your phone.

Everyone is going on about encryption, but notice it's not just encryption that protects us, but also vendor-controlled measures such as self-destruct.

I prefer a level playing field in these matters. I don't want the FBI to have a better chance at cracking my phone than anyone else, but I also don't want Apple to have the best chance either.

It's all or nothing. My vote is for strong encryption, but up until that point, everything else should be on the table for all parties such as crime investigators, not just exclusively controlled by tech giants.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#58

Post by zmmmmm »

> Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t.

Interesting admission that they don't really have "probable cause" here, rather they apparently want to go on a fishing expedition. I guess if the owner of the phone is already established as a terrorist then that is cause enough, but I still would have expected them to be arguing they have specific reason to believe the phone is necessary for their investigation.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#59

Post by komaromy »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #46
dclowd9901 wrote: post #11

You don't get it, Comey. The problem isn't that you want this information. Obviously you want this information as an investigator of a crime. The problem is, we can't fucking trust you or anyone enough to cross that bridge, because we know if it's there, you're just going to want more. You and every law enforcement agent in the United States has lost our trust. Call it overreach, or overzealous prosecution, high inca…

A few things. If you want to make your argument legit, refrain from calling the other person names. Second, besides drinking and making yourself essentially useless, what are you doing to improve this situation. One person may not be enough to make a difference but its better than zero. America is entirely being driven by fear and anger. The current presidential race is a perfect reflection of the hate, anger, and fe…

> the encryption here is obstructing justice

No, it isn't. The phone they're trying to break into was the shooter's work phone, provided by his employer. He physically destroyed his personal phone before the acts in question. The idea that he kept relevant information on his work phone, which he left intact, is absurd.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#60

Post by [deleted] »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #46
dclowd9901 wrote: post #11

You don't get it, Comey. The problem isn't that you want this information. Obviously you want this information as an investigator of a crime. The problem is, we can't fucking trust you or anyone enough to cross that bridge, because we know if it's there, you're just going to want more. You and every law enforcement agent in the United States has lost our trust. Call it overreach, or overzealous prosecution, high inca…

A few things. If you want to make your argument legit, refrain from calling the other person names. Second, besides drinking and making yourself essentially useless, what are you doing to improve this situation. One person may not be enough to make a difference but its better than zero. America is entirely being driven by fear and anger. The current presidential race is a perfect reflection of the hate, anger, and fe…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN