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

Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 314 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#31

Post by FungalRaincloud »

joering2 wrote: post #24
sago wrote: post #16

> “What we discover is that investigation into one crime often leads into criminal activity in another, sometimes much more serious than what we were originally looking at,” They want access so they can go fishing too? They're really not doing a good job of sticking to the 'necessary and proportionate' line.

Incredible stretch huh? I bet any living noun knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who is a paid assassin. So heck yes we definitely should search noun's phone.

they came first for the nouns, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a noun; And then they came for the personal pronouns, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a personal pronoun; And then they came for the gerunds, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gerund; And then . . . they came for me . . .

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#32

Post by jhardcastle »

cft wrote: post #19

Note how Android unlocking demands never came up in this discussion. That's because the phones are vulnerable. I am a Nexus user.

I'm under the impression that Android devices have had optional full disk encryption[0] for a long time, and that encryption isn't dependent upon cloud synchronization.

[0] https://source.android.com/security/encryption/

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#33

Post by vskarine »

NeutronBoy wrote: post #26
cft wrote: post #19

Note how Android unlocking demands never came up in this discussion. That's because the phones are vulnerable. I am a Nexus user.

Do you have any references for further reading on the Android side of things?

http://recode.net/2016/02/21/what-if-san-bernardino-suspect-...

"In a sweeping November report on encryption, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance wrote that Google can “reset the passcodes” on some Android phones without full encryption, when served with a search warrant. “This process can be done by Google remotely and allows forensic examiners to view the contents of a device,” according to the report."

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#35

Post by rogerhoward »

Shivetya wrote: post #13

Well the spin game is guaranteed to ramp up. Sycophants are already laying the ground that Apple and Cook would have to accept some of the blame in any upcoming terrorist attacks. I am amazed they haven't tried the kiddie porn route yet. Still another issue is, if they were compelled to create it they could be compelled to surrender it too. With that its a matter of weeks or months before it gets leaked to a criminal…

I've already seen the child porn angle playing out in posts on Facebook. This just a little while ago:

"Every child porn videographer in America is trading in his camera for an iPhone"

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#36

Post by 05 »

cft wrote: post #19

Note how Android unlocking demands never came up in this discussion. That's because the phones are vulnerable. I am a Nexus user.

At least it's easy to set separate boot and unlock passwords on Android. I'm not sure how likely it is for the police to keep the phone turned on, but to remove the SIM on most of them you'd have to remove the battery, which kills all chances of decryption. Even when kept on, dumping PoP DDR isn't a walk in the park..

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#37

Post by EGreg »

ikeboy wrote: post #12
r00fus wrote: post #3

Clearly this is an agenda. I still don't understand why Apple needs to save the FBI from it's own incompetence in asking the government office that managed the iPhone to reset the password. It seems to me that unless tech companies come together to defend Apple, we may see (unregulated and unaccountable) government become very very part of all facets of computing.

I can't think of any way in which the FBI's incompetence would have legal implications for Apple's obligations. How would that work? If they're able to help, and can be compelled legally, why would the FBI having previously had the ability to get the data but losing it to a mistake change their obligation?

One can ask the other way. If they weren't obligated to help before, when the FBI had access, why would they be obligated now?

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#38

Post by NeutronBoy »

vskarine wrote: post #33
NeutronBoy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any references for further reading on the Android side of things?

http://recode.net/2016/02/21/what-if-san-bernardino-suspect-... "In a sweeping November report on encryption, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance wrote that Google can “reset the passcodes” on some Android phones without full encryption, when served with a search warrant. “This process can be done by Google remotely and allows forensic examiners to view the contents of a device,” according to the report."

Selective quoting FTW! It devolves into a he-said/she-said conversation.

> "Google has no ability to facilitate unlocking any device that has been protected with a PIN, Password, or fingerprint," [Android’s security chief, Adrian Ludwig] wrote. "This is the case whether or not the device is encrypted, and for all versions of Android."

Also note it talks about being able to unlock phones without full encryption. Which yes, understandable. But I'm interested in specifics at the level that we've been talking about with iPhones - eg, on phones with appropriate TPMs (like the new Nexus devices), is it possible to bypass?

EDIT: Reading the source post [1] more, it notes that

- Google has no ability to facilitate unlocking any device that has been protected with a PIN, Password, or fingerprint. This is the case whether or not the device is encrypted, and for all versions of Android.

- Google also does not have any mechanism to facilitate access to devices that have been encrypted (whether encrypted by the user, as has been available since Android 3.0 for all Android devices, or encrypted by default, as has been available since Android 5.0 on select devices).

- There are some devices that have been configured to use a "pattern" to unlock. Until Android L, "pattern" unlock did provide a recovery option with the Google account. This recovery feature was discontinued with Android L.

- The lost pattern recovery feature never applied to PIN or Password so if you are on an earlier model device and don't want to use the pattern recovery feature, you can switch to a PIN or Password and it will be disabled.

[1] https://plus.google.com/+AdrianLudwig/posts/JFPXLnV3M2f

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#39

Post by ikeboy »

EGreg wrote: post #37
ikeboy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of any way in which the FBI's incompetence would have legal implications for Apple's obligations. How would that work? If they're able to help, and can be compelled legally, why would the FBI having previously had the ability to get the data but losing it to a mistake change their obligation?

One can ask the other way. If they weren't obligated to help before, when the FBI had access, why would they be obligated now?

Because before the FBI didn't need their assistance, and now they do.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#40

Post by pcwalton »

> The judge has indicated skepticism over the government’s demands. Initially, Apple agreed to a formal order to help the Justice Department gain access to Mr. Feng’s phone, but Judge Orenstein balked, questioning whether the All Writs Act could be used that way. He invited Apple’s lawyers to raise objections.

This is curious, because I was under the impression (due to the lawyers on HN) that this is basically an open and shut case in the eyes of the law: the government has the ability to compel Apple to act. Why would the judge think differently?

(I'm genuinely curious as to the legal aspects of this and not taking a side either way.)

Post reply on HN