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

81–90 of 142 posts

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#81

Post by BWStearns »

plorg wrote: post #30
BWStearns wrote: post #12

I wonder if they did or what would have happened if they had approached Apple in a non-compulsory manner regarding this. He is right on the fact that the specific task they're seeking Apple to perform is more or less obsolete and will be entirely so shortly so I'm inclined to believe that they're not really going through all this to abuse that specific tool (though the precedent would be worth the fight in order to a…

It seems that Apple got sick of servicing these requests, particularly as they started increasing in frequency. The NYTimes [0] reported earlier this week that Apple had been basically complying until last year, when they decided that they could no longer deal with the burden of evaluating the large amount of legal orders they were receiving and unlocking or retrieving data from phones. It seems unlikely, given their…

This request is materially different. The actions requested in the SB case and the NY case involve engineering around the way that older devices implement the newer iOS's security (they don't have the physical secure enclave so with engineering it's possible for Apple to get through a device). In previous instances Apple was either handing over copies of data or helping the FBI use a piece of software that could read unencrypted sections of the hard drive even if the phone was still locked.

I think Apple's got a strong position that this is a stretch of the AWA.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#82

Post by jkelsey »

It's a real media posturing war going on right now. I wish Apple would win the argument on merits of the argument alone, but it's obvious with this the FBI thinks it can rely on the terrorism argument alone.

Notice that Comey doesn't even bother to refute the technical and legal precedent arguments that Apple and other privacy advocates raise in the media.

Google or Facebook have to get involved and put something on their homepages; else, I think that the FBI wins this.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#83

Post by schismsubv »

rtpg wrote: post #74
ubernostrum wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Apple _will_ be compelled. You either don't understand the US legal doctrine of stare decisis or are being intentionally obtuse.

Furthermore, the US legal system encourages elaboration on stare decisis, applying prior case law to novel cases rather than hashing out new decisions. This means that creative applications of this ruling ("give me an uncontrolled backdoor") are simply a question of time once the landmark case is made.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#84

Post by autoreleasepool »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #64
allworknoplay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Encryption could also help obstruct justice and let criminals get away with things. Most people won't understand till it impacts them personally but imagine if you are robbed of all your money and the answer of who did it lies in a computer you are able to get your hand on. Wouldn't you love it if the police had a backdoor now. You are wrong in framing the debate as security vs security. Its like everything else when…

Can you cite a case where encryption has obstructed justice or prevented a crime from being solved?

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#85

Post by joshka »

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.

I'm against the FBI's actions here, but your argument against it doesn't make sense.

Did the shooter take the phone with him when meeting with accomplices? If so, perhaps there's GPS info on the phone.

What are the gaps in standard behavior (i.e. phone turned off...). Are these times where the FBI should dig deeper to discover the actions of the shooter?

The idea that bulk collection of metadata is objectionable is something we're seeing in civilized technical circles. Individual collection of the same is even worse.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#86

Post by FreedomToCreate »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #78
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…

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 w…

I agree with you. The motives of those with access to this information is questionable and being forced to do things impedes personal liberty, but the people who wrote the constitution could have never imagined this type of situation. It quite literally requires an in-depth discussion by the people and those we trust in power to develop a solution, but the idea that no backdoor will ever exists is not realistic.

Look at history. The encryption the Nazis had created helped them commit terrible acts of war and it was the backdoor the Allies discovered that helped bring justice to them.

I'm being devils advocate here because I don't people should view this as "us vs them". Comey may seem like he is salivating to you, but he does raise the notion that at the other end is a corporation, who also has an agenda.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#87

Post by FreedomToCreate »

autoreleasepool wrote: post #84
FreedomToCreate wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encryption could also help obstruct justice and let criminals get away with things. Most people won't understand till it impacts them personally but imagine if you are robbed of all your money and the answer of who did it lies in a computer you are able to get your hand on. Wouldn't you love it if the police had a backdoor now. You are wrong in framing the debate as security vs security. Its like everything else when…

Can you cite a case where encryption has obstructed justice or prevented a crime from being solved?

Yes, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/apple-google-when-...

Also I believe even without the citation that the notion that criminals can use encryption to protect themselves is pretty obvious.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#88

Post by ryanlol »

mirkules wrote: post #17
ryanlol wrote: post #2

>The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice. This is a big fat lie. The way US legal system works makes any case like this about setting a precedent, be it intentional or not. The fact that the FBI director goes and straight up lies about this just supports the theory that it may very well be intentional.

I don't believe this is tied to the San Bernardino case. The topic of weakening encryption has been brewing for the past 6-12 months, and the FBI is using the SB case as a convenient hammer to put a nail in the coffin of encryption. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/28/the-fbi... http://www.dailydot.com/politics/second-crypto-war-hearing-w... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-has-no-idea-how-to…

>I don't believe this is tied to the San Bernardino case. The topic of weakening encryption has been brewing for the past 6-12 months, and the FBI is using the SB case as a convenient hammer to put a nail in the coffin of encryption.

This is about much more than just weakening encryption. I think Congressman Lieu put it well

>This FBI court order, by compelling a private sector company to write new software, is essentially making that company an arm of law-enforcement. Private sector companies are not—and should not be—an arm of government or law enforcement.

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#89

Post by autoreleasepool »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #87
autoreleasepool wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite a case where encryption has obstructed justice or prevented a crime from being solved?

Yes, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/apple-google-when-... Also I believe even without the citation that the notion that criminals can use encryption to protect themselves is pretty obvious.

Even more obvious is the notion that innocent civilians use encryption to protect themselves from mass survelence and needless data collection.

Is the end goal no longer total information awareness? [0]

Side note: that was a rather scathing and slanted article you cited. It would have been nice to see the simple facts of the case presented in a neutral light.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness

Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter

#90

Post by zmmmmm »

gregd wrote: post #79
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.

Absolutely. I just think it significantly weakens their argument to admit they don't even know if they phone data will be useful. I would have thought when they are going to court to compel a company to do something they would be asserting something more than "who knows, it might be useful?" in support of their case.
Post reply on HN