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

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#81

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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.

"Terrorism" is a topic where we have to come to grips with definitions early on, or the analysis goes seriously astray.

To me, terrorism is the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in a media effort to change political opinion.

I've had this definition for several years, and I have never reached some of the crazy conclusions other commentators reach about the topic "George Washington was a terrorist!" "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and so on.

Definitions matter.

Note: This is not related to the merits of the FBI's case. My point is simply that we can all use the word "terrorism" and all actually be talking about different things.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#82

Post by joekrill »

> the encryption of personal devices has become a serious problem for criminal investigators in a variety of cases and setting

And so has the second amendment -- but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Yes, their job is hard. That's the nature of the job. Just because something makes a job more difficult doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I don't get why they insist on making this argument.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#83

Post by DanBC »

rayiner wrote: post #80
froo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've seen violent Christian fundamentalists recently with the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings. While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses). I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.

The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooters didn't pledge support to a worldwide movement of Christians trying to overthrow the western world order.

The one still alive describes himself as a "warrior for the babies". He also

> Mr. Dear described as 'heroes' members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings."

He said the attacks were politically motivated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#84

Post by joezydeco »

rayiner wrote: post #80
froo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've seen violent Christian fundamentalists recently with the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings. While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses). I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.

The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooters didn't pledge support to a worldwide movement of Christians trying to overthrow the western world order.

But it's terrorism nonetheless. The anti-abortion movement in America is just as organized and well-funded as the group behind the San Bernadino shootings, if not better organized and funded. They also have the protection of 1st Amendment liberties here.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#85

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #80
froo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've seen violent Christian fundamentalists recently with the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings. While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses). I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.

The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooters didn't pledge support to a worldwide movement of Christians trying to overthrow the western world order.

What exactly is this nebulous western world order? These guys we're supposed to be wetting our pants out of fear of can't even agree themselves beyond some blathering about Israel.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#86

Post by ropiku »

draugadrotten wrote: post #73
kabdib wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It's a crystal clear agenda. The FBI has called for an end to effective crypto in the hands of US citizens.

> The FBI has called for an end to effective crypto in the hands of US citizens. This is where it will end, and perhaps rightly so. There is no physical space in the US where US citizens can hide from the FBI and other authorities. Why should there be a virtual space where US citizens can hide. US citizens are not free to hide from the authorities and the law.

But it wouldn't be just the US. It would be any other country, and not just the country's citizens.

"Why should there be a virtual space where people can hide from US/China/Russia/Saudi Arabia/etc."

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#87

Post by vog »

RaleyField wrote: post #36
vog wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be a good step forward, but maybe not enough. For example, they could be forced to first publish an update to all devices (through the third parties) which disables the third-party-checks. Then, they could be forced to put the backdoor on individual devices.

> For example, they could be forced to first publish an update to all devices (through the third parties) which disables the third-party-checks. And the device wouldn't accept it. If I subscribed to an organisation over which USG has no sway, say Computer Chaos Club from Germany, then my update wouldn't be accepted unless additional signatures were provided from them. Unless USG forced Apple to abandon such scheme fo…

So you expect other communities to review all code changes? No way. This would be a huge time sink, and so far has never worked in the past.

This only works for very narrow-scoped projects, where the reviewers are also part of the project. Thinking or OpenBSD, Qt or other projects where peer-review is part of their internal structure.

So if other communities were to sign the releases, this would have to be automatic or semi-automatic. It would not be a review, but it would be still helpful, since those external observers then can see all releases in hindsight. So maybe years later some people are finding stuff and can trace it back to the point in time and the exact update by which it was introduced.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#88

Post by sieveoferos »

joekrill wrote: post #82

> the encryption of personal devices has become a serious problem for criminal investigators in a variety of cases and setting And so has the second amendment -- but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Yes, their job is hard. That's the nature of the job. Just because something makes a job more difficult doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I don't get why they insist on making this argument.

I agree with the general sentiment of "don't get rid of things only because they make certain jobs more difficult" - but I don't think the FBI is arguing for getting rid of encryption. I think they want to be able to break security surrounding encryption sometimes and under certain circumstances.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#89

Post by blisterpeanuts »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #45
Tempest1981 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

pain.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#90

Post by tobylane »

sieveoferos wrote: post #88
joekrill wrote: post #82

> the encryption of personal devices has become a serious problem for criminal investigators in a variety of cases and setting And so has the second amendment -- but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Yes, their job is hard. That's the nature of the job. Just because something makes a job more difficult doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I don't get why they insist on making this argument.

I agree with the general sentiment of "don't get rid of things only because they make certain jobs more difficult" - but I don't think the FBI is arguing for getting rid of encryption. I think they want to be able to break security surrounding encryption sometimes and under certain circumstances.

They amount to the same thing, depending on how its done and who gets it. If any law enforcement who tries hard (FBI, MI5, China) to fight what they want to fight gets hold of Apple's tool then that encryption is not so much outlawed as pointless to use.

It's because of the feverant fight on something (communism, black civil rights protesters, anti capitalists, future civil rights upholders) leads to questionable use of any tool that we can't give them too many tools. In the UK the mayor of London bought 3 water cannon trucks but has been forbidden to use them - where will they be in ten years time?

Post reply on HN