261–270 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A US court can order Apple to do what it likes inside US jurisdiction, including things that would normally be illegal in the US.
Citation? It seems pretty unbelievable that a US court can order someone to do something that violates US law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Superman vs. Batman, they are making a new movie about that. Superman caused a lot of damage in The Man of Steel movie and many people died as a result of his fight with Zod that ended up with him breaking Zod's neck and killing him. The movie could have gone a different way if he asked his Father's hologram about Zod, and any weaknesses he might have during the 24 hours he had to think over. Then use the craft he ca…
Given the powers these two characters have, Superman would kill Batman while watching a movie with Lois Lein and eating pop-corn - without Lois realising he was gone for a split of a second. ps. Not big on DC/Marvel comics/movies, they're all the same to me but keep some f*cking consistency plz.
That's why DC invented Kryptonite, so Superman would have a weakness. And Batman is familiar with Kryptonite, and possesses some to use in a fight against Superman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows desktop full-disk encryption means Bitlocker, which is basically breakable by anyone who can google stuff and buy the right firewire cable: https://github.com/carmaa/inception Note that this is the open source, made by one guy in his spare time version, so it has some caveats. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the three-letter agencies have their own, more capable version.
That is an disingenuous representation of how the attacks works. That attacks OPSEC, not the Bitlocker itself. Any full-disk encryption is "vulnerable", to this kind of attack. The page even explains this: https://github.com/carmaa/inception#awesome-but-why https://github.com/carmaa/inception#unlock
But with Bitlocker, it only requires a password at Windows login, and by then all the Firewire etc. drivers are up and running. So you have no protection for computers that are stolen/seized by law enforcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without compromising the general security of the device? No. And that's both impossible and a massive compromise. This case helps us tackle that first question. Here the murderer's personal phone and computer hard drives were destroyed — rendering them "above/beyond the law". Just because some data…
Why not? Police can search your house or seize your mail with a court order. Why can't they search your phone or computer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Superman vs. Batman, they are making a new movie about that. Superman caused a lot of damage in The Man of Steel movie and many people died as a result of his fight with Zod that ended up with him breaking Zod's neck and killing him. The movie could have gone a different way if he asked his Father's hologram about Zod, and any weaknesses he might have during the 24 hours he had to think over. Then use the craft he ca…
Given the powers these two characters have, Superman would kill Batman while watching a movie with Lois Lein and eating pop-corn - without Lois realising he was gone for a split of a second. ps. Not big on DC/Marvel comics/movies, they're all the same to me but keep some f*cking consistency plz.
> consistency
That ship sailed long ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These kind of master keys already exists so it is not something hypothetical. I am talking about the private keys of trusted root certification authorities. If it would be as easy to get them as you say nobody would probably use TLS since it would be useless.
Well, TLS with "trusted" CAs is useless, for extreme threat models.
"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case" --Bill Gates Have something to say, Bill?
They are asking for 10 particular cases, each of which requires a warrant. The point stands that this is not an incident of mass or unwarranted surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple isn't an arm of military intelligence. They shouldn't be compelled to act as one, particularly when the task would take a month, yes. It's not just about time. Part of Apple's product is security. The DOJ is asking them to weaken their product. This could cost Apple their business in the long run as foreign companies enter the fray and offer a secure product that Apple is no longer allowed to produce. Keep in m…
We live a western society, not China. If more than 50% of the population wants the phone to be cracked it should be done. That's what we all agreed on living in a democracy. Law is formed by the wishes of majority. I'm not a lawyer. Is the FBI asking something from Apple which is not legal? Than go to court.
Exactly. So why are we asking Apple to do something which Obama rebuked China for doing last year? [1]
> If more than 50% of the population wants the phone to be cracked it should be done
This isn't up to the public, it's up to the courts, who've been asked by the DOJ to consider the issue.
The public only comes into play around election time when there's a chance to vote in a new President. And, it's likely this decision will be made before Obama leaves office.
> Law is formed by the wishes of majority
No.. Law is created by elected officials who are tasked with studying the law more closely than the general public
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china-idUSKBN0LY...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without compromising the general security of the device? No. And that's both impossible and a massive compromise. This case helps us tackle that first question. Here the murderer's personal phone and computer hard drives were destroyed — rendering them "above/beyond the law". Just because some data…
Why not? Police can search your house or seize your mail with a court order. Why can't they search your phone or computer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if the slow authentication is inherent from running the algorithm on the chip, rather than a having been slowed down artificially There is no known cryptographic algorithm that provides inherently increasing times. The slowdown is entirely artificial, and it is believed that an update could remove it.
I was under the impression that the algorithm (running on the secure enclave?) takes at least 200ms. Yes, obviously longer times are artificial, but my question is whether the 200ms baseline is artificial or not. Of course this doesn't really matter at all if modified software could just read the key from the chip. That is the most interesting question. So, can it? Or can the software only provide data to the chip, t…
Unfortunately, I don't believe the answers to your other questions are known to anybody other than Apple right now.