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

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#71

Post by AndrewKemendo »

bradleyjg wrote: post #18
mhays wrote: post #10

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?

Forcing him how? If he came back with nothing, that's his answer. The answer of the American people. Perhaps he should learn what no means.

Except the American People also gave him the job to following any and every possible lead.

There is a fundamental conflict with how law enforcement and intelligence does it's job and the way people communicate today. Period.

If people want more secure communications they are going to have to tell the FBI in no uncertain terms "we are ok with you dropping leads."

Apparently in this specific case that has happened as a mother of the slain said:

“This is what separates us from communism, isn’t it? The fact we have the right to privacy,” Adams said to the Post. “This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote.”

Now, is it up to this mother to make that case? Yea, if the director is to be listened to. After all that is who he invokes when appealing his reasoning. So based on this statement it seems like they should back off, say shit happens, lets mourn our dead and move on.

We need more of the victims to speak out and tell investigations their true thoughts.

[1]http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/victim-apple-fbi/

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#72

Post by BWStearns »

justin_vanw wrote: post #45
BWStearns wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reasonable according to whom? This is why we have Rule of Law . There is no "we follow the law when it seems reasonable". Whatever the law is, it should be followed, and it does not matter at all what anyone's personal opinion is regarding what the law should be. Perhaps it is more complex than this, for example in cases of civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is for cases of conscience when you cannot per…

I was suggesting following the rule of law. Congress passes laws when they get around to it. I'm not in any way advancing that we should ban encryption or support backdoors (effectively banning encryption). I will not however pretend that I have exhaustively considered all legislation that would allow the FBI to open this phone without setting dangerous precedents.

I can't think of any at the moment but I don't think anyone in a position to do anything with an answer is trying. The issue is too good a political bludgeon to bother even seeking some creative solution to the problem (again, not that I am 100% sure there even is a legislative solution that wouldn't be a vastly undesirable and possibly unconstitutional blow to encryption).

It is not a good starting presumption that no reasonable answer can be reached, especially when the topic under discussion isn't a core issue like "backdoor all encryption" but rather "is it possible to pass reasonable and generally acceptable legislation such that Apple can legally be compelled to aid this decryption effort without setting a terrible precedent?" There may be no solution to that problem, which is fine, but don't suggest that I was endorsing some vaguely Orwellian shit because I don't presume as a given that our opponents on the general issue of encryption have malicious aspirations of tyranny.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#74

Post by rtpg »

ubernostrum wrote: post #54
rtpg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Of course the FBI will ask again and again. And Apple could be compelled to comply each and every time.

The slippery slope argument being applied here is that FBI search warrants will now work on phones less than the iPhone 5S from now on (until Apple closes the iOS update backdoor I guess). This is far from "China will be able to mass-hack into iPhones from now on"-style comments I've seen from others.

The fact is that Apple left a backdoor in their phones and are now being told to exploit it. An argument against having the backdoor in the first place.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#75

Post by mindslight »

plorg wrote: post #36
rtpg wrote: post #24

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

Similarly, you could reasonably argue that if there is a master key in this situation, it is Apple's firmware signing key, which the company already possess and has been using as a consequence of its inadequately examined security model. 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 backdo…

There's nothing to argue. Apple's key is a designed-in backdoor, and this case is about whether they can be compelled to use it.

The right thing would have been for Apple to unlock the phone in question, and issue a security advisory for the longstanding but newly-relevant vulnerability. Then, if they want their devices to be secure against USG, actually fix their security model to remove their own privilege. Instead, they walked right into the FBI's trap on a completely unsympathetic case. They're setting us up for a horrible precedent simply to continue pretending they can provide a level of security that they didn't actually build.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#76

Post by BWStearns »

mtgx wrote: post #70
BWStearns wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that was his point. If he can't pass a law through the People's representatives, then he shouldn't be using mental gymnastics with one of US's oldest laws in existence to force a company to hack its own device... And no, "Congress gridlock" is not a good response to abusing existing laws.

It's not a good excuse to abuse existing law but it seems like a likely explanation.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#77

Post by FreedomToCreate »

komaromy wrote: post #59
FreedomToCreate wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a probability that it may not contain anything, but this fact doesn't disprove the notion that encryption can be used to obstruct justice in future cases.

(What the probability is though is hard for me to predict as I don't have enough information, but assuming he didn't have any slip ups on his work phone is a bad assumption. If there is a 1 percent chance that future attacks of similar scope could be prevented by knowledge gathered about this case, is it not our obligation to find out? Its a complex issue that the courts and media will play out over the next few months)

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#78

Post by dclowd9901 »

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…

Counterpoint: Just going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure James Comey isn't leafing through Hacker News reading our arguments. If he'd like to have a civil discussion, I'd be more than happy to bring the civility.

Second, our system is essentially set up to make me powerless. It's actually engineered that way. I do what I can to educate people around me, but when it comes to voting or having any control over who's in office or who officiates our most important government positions, the ball's not just not in our court, it's on another planet.

Technology, as you said, will continue to get much more advanced. I reckon at some point, literally every moment of our lives will be perfectly catalogued, from birth to death. This is why what Mr. Comey wants scares me so much, because you can practically hear him salivating in that letter.

We have guarantees built into our constitutional freedoms, and one of the most important guarantees is that the government can't compel us to do things. Sure, there are laws to maintain the peace and common order, but you don't have to house or attend to military in your home, you don't have to testify against yourself, you're not compelled by police to follow their wishes until you're under arrest (which they ostensibly can't do without probable cause), and you don't have to aide in an investigation if you're not involved. These are vital because the moment we're legally compelled to aide investigators, all bets are off. We are no longer able to even protect ourselves against undue search and seizure.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#79

Post by gregd »

zmmmmm wrote: post #58

> 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…

The owner of the phone is San Bernadino County, which gave the FBI permission to search the phone. Pretty sure probable cause is a moot point when the owner of the phone grants you permission to search it.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#80

Post by Russell91 »

exodust wrote: post #57

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…

The hypocrisy is only superficial. It seems at first thought that the government (being owned by the people) would be more trustworthy. But...

Based on incentives, the government is incentivized to put as many people in jail as possible. Apple is incentivized to make people's phone/laptop experience as good as possible.

Based on worst-case actions, Apple can use your data to 1) sell you more devices, 2) generally reduce your consumer purchasing power, or unlikely 3) sell/share your data and seriously compromise your privacy. The government, on the other hand, can throw you in jail, for life.

Based on history (Germany, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ...), governments have demonstrated real threats with user data in hand that corporations have never really come close to competing with.

Post reply on HN