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

Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#41

Post by MacsHeadroom »

froo wrote: post #38

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to help explain the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001." What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is tech…

WSJ is simply reporting what the FBI said in reference to Sandy Hook. The FBI is at fault here, not WSJ.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#42

Post by bobwaycott »

froo wrote: post #38

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to help explain the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001." What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is tech…

This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. This is arguably why the VA Tech shooting is not terrorism, but this one—and others, like the Planned Parenthood shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing—qualify as terrorism ... and then get repeatedly thrust into the national conversation with those labels so people don't think of them merely as crimes.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#43

Post by chadzawistowski »

Someone wrote: post #17
avn2109 wrote: post #8

Question for HN in general: Is it possible in principle (for Apple or someone else) to construct a smartphone that can accept software/firmware updates, but that Apple cannot push malware to at some later time? E.g. can we implement all security functionality in hardware/burn it into the silicon? Or accomplish the same ends by some other means? Intuition says "no," because "security functionality" is sort of nebulous…

"can we implement all security functionality in hardware/burn it into the silicon? Or accomplish the same ends by some other means?" Yes. The software could be burnt into PROM (which is unchangeable) or one could even create a custom ROM chip, and if necessary contain hardware or code that checksums the ROM. However, a company doing that must be willing to run the risk that there is a bug in that unchangeable softwar…

> That requires a 100% open phone (hard- and software)

I am eagerly awaiting the http://neo900.org/

Unfortunately the baseband modem is still unfree, but at least it's isolated over the USB bus, versus having direct memory access as many phones do. Unfortunately no phone has a free, legal modem.

Anyways, I'm more excited about the prospect of the phone itself being completely free. In their own words:

> Not a single line of closed code will have to run on the main CPU to be able to use the Neo900. Using free telephony stacks like FSO or one from QtMoko, FLOSS Linux drivers will be available for every single component. In order to get 3D acceleration working, which is not necessary to operate the device, closed drivers would be needed.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#44

Post by abecedarius »

nefitty wrote: post #28
abecedarius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you could set up to automatically sign anything signed by Apple, if that tradeoff suits you.

The security issue of Apple being vulnerable to being compelled to create signed backdoors would still remain, in that case.

Yes, for the people who chose to be, when they chose. This choice would be decoupled from the OS choice.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#45

Post by blisterpeanuts »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #31
wildmusings wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would it be okay for the FBI to have to bring the phone to Apple?

What if there were a limit of 3 unlocks a year? Like in NFL football, where the coach is only allowed to challenge 3 plays a game, even if each challenge is successful. (I know, still too slippery a slope) Or if each unlock cost the requester a $10 billion fee (donated to charity)? To make them think harder about when to use an unlock.

How about forcing the prosecutor and Director Comey and the judge to place the entire contents of their own phones on a public server? Every call, every email, every GPS coordinate. Let them feel our p.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#46

Post by jonesb6 »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #31
wildmusings wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would it be okay for the FBI to have to bring the phone to Apple?

What if there were a limit of 3 unlocks a year? Like in NFL football, where the coach is only allowed to challenge 3 plays a game, even if each challenge is successful. (I know, still too slippery a slope) Or if each unlock cost the requester a $10 billion fee (donated to charity)? To make them think harder about when to use an unlock.

Then there would be another terrorist attack and emergency legislation would be passed giving the coaches 6 challenges.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#47

Post by froo »

bobwaycott wrote: post #42
froo wrote: post #38

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to help explain the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001." What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is tech…

This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terro…

> We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions.

The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#48

Post by amatix »

microtonal wrote: post #27
wildmusings wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would it be okay for the FBI to have to bring the phone to Apple?

Don't you see the slippery slope here? Next, the German or French police will knock on Apple's door. When they get access, China, Russia, and others will line up next. Moreover, who says that the FBI or some other agency will stop after this iPhone, or the next 12 iPhones. Why not push to get their own signing key after they succeed in this case? They will try to get as far as possible. We live in 2016. many of our d…

worse. If this becomes "normal", then rather than the CTO or CSO or VP iOS Engineering having to unlock the code-signing keys to sign releases (presumably via N of M), it'll have to be automated so that "oh, the FBI needs another custom build for the 4th time this week, just do the build and click here to sign it". At that point the security of the master code-signing keys has evaporated to nothing and we're all sunk.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#49

Post by bobwaycott »

froo wrote: post #47
bobwaycott wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terro…

> We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.

It's been a few years, and my recollection is hazy. Sorry. Were these statements political statements of a sort that opposes the US government in a clearly defined way? Did they state some kind of ideological agreement and allegiance to ideas considered anti-US or anti-US-govt? It's late, and I guess I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I was making a pretty obvious and clear distinction on what kind of political statements I meant. I didn't say statements of any sort qualify the terrorism label.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#50

Post by forrestthewoods »

froo wrote: post #38

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to help explain the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001." What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is tech…

A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate.

Revenge murders or anger murders are not terrorists. They kill people and then kill themselves; directly or by police. Because they are dead they are no longer a threat. There is no parent organization to fear.

At least that's my definition. And what I think along the lines of what most people intuitively think.

Post reply on HN