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

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#51

Post by threatofrain »

timr wrote: post #34

...and it's an entirely reasonable position to say that they should get it, if they have a warrant. Especially if the case as cut-and-dried as the San Bernardino one. The public debate on this has reached truly sad, nigh-Trumpian levels of hysteria and uninformed commentary. There is no "back-door" here. Encryption is not being compromised. This has very little to do with encryption at all, really: if the criminals i…

I agree with you that people capitalize on events to fit into their political narratives, and I also agree that privacy is not an absolute value, and that tensions between values calls for tradeoffs to be made.

But I do believe that calling this a backdoor is proper framing. Apple provided a weak password knowing that convenience often beats security, but Apple also provided a mechanism by which one can have weak passwords and still have strong security via a max-attempt mechanism. It is a circumvention of security features, and "backdoors" are about security, not encryption (which is merely a subset of security).

I also think the legal fight is not circumscribed around narrow parameters with predictably narrow legal outcomes. The FBI cites a law from 1789 that says that the court may issue "...all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law". It does not sound easy to predict what case law shall determine to be "necessary or appropriate" 5-10 years from now.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#52

Post by spin »

nefitty wrote: post #26
wildmusings wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The main point here is that neither the government nor Apple could guarantee that this backdoor software would remain safe. If the FBI brought the phone to Apple to update the custom OS, the software would then exist, which is inherently a dangerous situation. Furthermore, suddenly a precedent is set wherein Apple is obliged to continue unlocking phones for the government with custom created software. I sincerely dou…

I'm under the impression that this "backdoor" is the fact that these phones can download updates to the OS. The phone checks that the update is signed by Apple. If Apple can be trusted to keep their code-signing keys secret, then surely they can be trusted to keep a special version of the OS secret.

I'm still opposed to this, though... The FBI wants to be able to dictate to a private company what features to build (because of the All Writs Act).

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#53

Post by froo »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #50
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.

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

Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people.

I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#54

Post by krrrh »

froo wrote: post #53
forrestthewoods wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people. I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to…

I think that having a political agenda, and stating that they were loyal to an organization (ISIS) that is calling for acts of violence in order to achieve political aims is what moved San Bernadino into the category of terrorism, and something that was missing from Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#55

Post by rurban »

On a side note: The FBI didn't/couldn't even properly investigate 9/11 so why do they still dare to use this wording? ("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 came out of PENTTBOM? One single court case against Moussaoui, who was not directly involved in 9/11 at all, but that's it. Hundreds of arrests which led to nothing but illegitime long-term hold ups under military law, but no due law.

If Apple can help them to extract data from those phones, fine. But Apple apparently built secure phones without bypass, so they are out of luck and it makes no sense to come up with fantasy warrants without any technical solution.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#57

Post by rtpg »

the8472 wrote: post #29
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…

That's not necessary. Simply tying the encryption to a strong password instead of a 4-digit PIN would have been sufficient to prevent a firmware update to a locked device from weakening security, at least in this particular case. Throw in a memory-hard key derivation function to make parallel brute-force more expensive.

But making updates require password input would close the backdoor entirely

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#58

Post by froo »

bobwaycott wrote: post #49
froo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sta…

Well I have to admit, my understanding of what constitutes terrorism was not solid, so I googled it. It seems the statements don't necessarily need to be political in nature.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism[1] as:

> "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

> - Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

> - Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

> - Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The first point, I imagine mass shootings qualify as acts dangerous to human life that violate law.

For the second point, I would argue that sending a manifesto[2] to media with nuggets like what follows are designed to intimidate/coerce a civilian population

"Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless people — my Brothers, Sisters, and Chil- dren —that you fuck. Like Moses, I spread the sea and lead my people —the Weak, the Defenseless, and the Innocent Children of all ages that you fucked and will always try to fuck —to eternal freedom. Thanks to you Sinners, you Spillers of Blood, I set the example of the century for my Children to follow."

Lastly, the attack occurred on US soil.

1 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism... 2 - https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifest...

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#59

Post by toyg »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #41
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.

He-said/she-said is poor reporting.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#60

Post by chopin »

froo wrote: post #53
forrestthewoods wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people. I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to…

>Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.[1]

Depending on the circumstances the scenario you describe can be terror. IMHO swatting on shaky grounds would qualify.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)

Post reply on HN