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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#91

Post by plorg »

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…

People keep suggesting that on the slippery slope of Apple complying with cases of limited scope the next logical step is compelling the production of a signing key.

This is the very essence of why a slippery slope is often a logical fallacy, because one does not necessarily follow from the other, and no supporting evidence is given that it would.

There are plenty of things that would keep this step from occurring, primary among them that there would be no legal justification - in the context of the All Writs Act, there would already be a solution available to law enforcement that was less burdensome to Apple than providing the keys to the kingdom.

I, too, think it is laudable that Apple would fight for privacy, but I also think that a lot of the argumentation around this case is soft and ideological.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#92

Post by rosser »

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.

That's absolutely irrelevant. Terrorism is politically motivated violence, full stop. You don't have to be a card-carrying member in a "designated terrorist organization" to be a terrorist, and to suggest that you do is myopic and naïve.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#93

Post by bobwaycott »

froo wrote: post #58
bobwaycott wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coer…

Hey, I think there's a chance I misunderstood your original comment to which I replied and started what, to me, has turned into a tangentially related discussion. I wasn't actually trying to provide a legally sound and properly defensible definition of what constitutes calling the San Bernardino event a terrorist attack versus other mass shootings. I was merely offering that it is the narrative chosen for discussing the event, as well as advancing a political agenda, regardless of whether its defining merits actually differentiate it enough from other mass shootings to cross the line into terrorism territory—which I think long ago crossed into the nebulous and ill-defined. Personally, I reject this narrative, and see this event as either YAMS[1], or all mass shootings as YATA[2].

That said, I think there's allegedly more to why the Va Tech shooter wasn't called a terrorist in the national narrative and reporting on the event. That excerpt of his statement sounds like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Of course, I think the same of any type of statements that champion murderous religiously motivated intent. I don't read that and get the sense of any desire to effect political change, influence policy, intimidate, etc. There is a certain practical and theoretical argument that can be made arguing all public actions taken by human agents are inherently political. But some actions are more political than others. I don't think that shooter's statements really had the effect of intimidating or coercing the public. I don't think they even registered in the public consciousness.

Anyway, my original point was that this San Bernardino shooting has been thrust into the national consciousness as part of the terrorism narrative because it's a politically convenient message, and because, as you wondered, the ethnic and religious identity of the perpetrators fits that narrative so perfectly. I mean, it was instantaneous. Had the shooters been radical, white Christians, I don't think that would have happened. There would have been news reporting that asked the question, "Is this a terrorist attack?", and then give a no. Holding the Judeo-Christian god as one's source of obligation doesn't yet fit that category.

[1]: yet another mass shooting

[2]: yet another terrorist attack

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#94

Post by kabdib »

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.

> perhaps rightly so

I see no 'rightly' in this, at all. The end-game is an abject panopticon that makes the Stasi look like amateurs.

(Regardless of what Google, etc. may collect, corporations do not have guns or the ability to put you in jail. Not yet, anyway).

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#95

Post by malandrew »

This may be a totally absurd question, but is there a way to comply such that the government explicitly acknowledges that a case cannot be used as precedence?

i.e. comply with the order, but this case legally can't be referred to ever again as justification of precedence in any other case.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#96

Post by RaleyField »

vog wrote: post #87
RaleyField wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> So you expect other communities to review all code changes?

No. Third parties would be just a barrier against odd updates that don't hit everyone. If update starts hitting everybody then it's probably harmless because everyone is getting it, if it appears just at 10 clients then it's probably a backdoor.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#97

Post by thisisdave »

darawk wrote: post #9
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…

It should be completely possible for them to not accept any software updates unless the phone is unlocked. They may not wish to do this for various reasons, but it is definitely technically possible.

Or to wipe the phone if it's updated without being unlocked.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#98

Post by rebootthesystem »

Sephr wrote: post #71
rebootthesystem wrote: post #24

I had a really bad experience with an iPhone update and a password storage app. I had been running my iPhone on iOS 8.x. No need to update to 9.x. The day finally came when I was forced to allow the update. Now, without my knowledge the update also enabled automatic updates of apps. All apps were thus updated to their latest versions without my explicit consent. I chose the app I am using to keep hundreds of account…

Instead of relying on proprietary software that is out of your control for storing your passwords (and getting burned like you have described), why not use something open source like KeePass? I don't have an iPhone, but on Android there is KeePass2Android, which is open source and (if you choose to use it as such) offline-only.

That's the migration plan when I get the time to move the data over.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#99

Post by croon »

toyg wrote: post #59
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"He-said/she-said" is referring to reporting rumours. This is reporting of a public statement of a government agency.

Re: Justice Department Wants Data from About 12 Other iPhones

#100

Post by toyg »

croon wrote: post #99
toyg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He-said/she-said is poor reporting.

"He-said/she-said" is referring to reporting rumours. This is reporting of a public statement of a government agency.

It's also about reporting statements verbatim without trying to discern what the truth is. Writing down a public statement is basically just relaying a message; at that point you are writing a press release for them, not doing journalism. And then you wonder why they replace you with a Reuters feed...
Post reply on HN