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

FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 417 posts

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#91

Post by mattlutze »

01100011 wrote: post #63

We (HN commenters) all know that the demonization of encryption is bullshit. What we need to do is to figure out how to communicate that effectively to the public.

In part, we need a better lobby, or more lobbyists, who can break down what the real issues are and effectively explain those to Congress and the government.

Though, this reeks of the Executive branch making a scapegoat out of tech to distract from the gun industry, just like getting Walmart to pull game adverts and talking about "red flag" laws.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#92

Post by tempguy9999 »

NohatCoder wrote: post #86
tempguy9999 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because saying "he's dead so this is the end of the matter" is unwise and it's worrying you're even asking this. . Were other people involved? . or other organisations such as extremists organisations? . Did he have people egging him on (even if totally uninvolved otherwise), or was he a complete loner? . Is there a hidden motive here that's not obvious? . Further evidence of stable and rational thinking, or mentally…

Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced.

> and mostly it is redundant with other sources

The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily).

So I can't accept what you say (yet).

> If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations

These being? You can move about freely in the states, and he was a domestic terrorist.

> unless he really knew how to hide his tracks

Agreed, but it seems most domestic terrorists are bad planners or stupid AFAICS. People like Ted Kaczynski seem to be the exception, most are idiots who will boast online or ask "how can i maek teh THTP" from google.

I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#94

Post by kelnos »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #92
NohatCoder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept wh…

> I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me.

I draw the line on the side of privacy. I'm absolutely fine with potential unresolved loose ends in a criminal investigation if it means we actually get to practice real security and gain all the privacy that entails.

Regardless of that, I'm not convinced that the actionable information they could obtain is unique to the phone; there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering. It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#95

Post by tempguy9999 »

kelnos wrote: post #94
tempguy9999 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept wh…

> I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me. I draw the line on the side of privacy. I'm absolutely fine with potential unresolved loose ends in a criminal investigation if it means we actually get to practice real security and gain all the privacy that en…

> I draw the line on the side of privacy.

It's easy to be abstract - what if it had been your family & family? Or do strangers not count?

> there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering

which you've not given, twice.

> It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors.

It's difficult and I see what you're saying even if I don't yet agree.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#96

Post by yyyk »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #64
ben_w wrote: post #52

Is the American government position “Guns don’t kill people, encryption kills people”, or am I just combining the personal opinions of a bunch of unrelated people who work for the government?

This was exactly my thought when I read this article. But the scariest thing is that, what US Govt decides have huge implications for the whole world! Having a backdoor in software NOT only enables US government and other cyber criminals to have access. It also enables other governments like Russian, Chinese, Israilean, North Korean governments too! Keep that in mind too.

Chinese and Russian governments already got access to every local device, even from Apple itself, with no protest from anyone. Israel can apparently hack into the devices without a backdoor (according to Cellebrite), and isn't a justified part of your list - it's a democracy not a dictatorship. NK doesn't allow any devices, not that it bothers with any excuses.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#97

Post by tastetherainbow »

jarfil wrote: post #80
DiabloD3 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really does seem to be that is the position. There are a lot of backwards nutjobs in the government right now, blaming other backwards nutjobs, while the rest of us sane people are trying to duct tape society together. Guns don't kill people, encryption doesn't kill people, backwards nutjobs kill people. Politics in America, currently, can entirely be summed up as the Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme.

More like guns either kill people or look pretty on a wall; encryption not only can't kill people, it also prevents people from stealing. Even a nutjob armed with the latest encryption, still needs a gun to kill people.

>...encryption not only can't kill people, it also prevents people from stealing

To be fair, it can also prevent people from being killed in extremely oppressive regimes, just by association with 'x' out-topic (e.g.: the gay community).

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#98

Post by iamnotacrook »

studentrob wrote: post #78

Law enforcement needs to go back to old-school detective techniques if they really need that phone data. Encryption is code, code is speech. Encryption keeps banks safe from criminals. Are we going to go through this for every administration now? Even if you do not have a problem with giving government keys to, say, the iPhone, then you have to deal with every piece of software someone writes to enable encryption. Yo…

"Are we going to go through this for every administration now?"

No. Nobody cares about this or that shooter (there'll be another one next week) but the next time there's a 9/11 you can be sure encryption will feature in the news and in a subsequent law.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#99

Post by iamnotacrook »

SimeVidas wrote: post #20

Why is it important that the FBI can access that person’s phone?

They can't admit "crazy person with a gun" because they suggests that maybe fewer people should carry guns; better to find a narrative that lets then describe each one as desired: white person "angry, money problems" so change nothing; brown person "radicalised alien" , deport and toughen immigration".

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#100

Post by dogma1138 »

nradov wrote: post #65
mikeash wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s an iPhone, the data is encrypted with a key derived from the PIN and a random key that is baked into the phone’s CPU. The CPU has instructions for encrypting and decrypting with this secret key but no instruction for reading the key directly. Short of decapping the chip and going in with an electron microscope to figure out what this key is, your only option is to brute force on the phone’s own CPU. But that…

So why don't they decap the chip and go in with an electron microscope? Has that type of exploit ever been successfully used against modern devices, or is it only a theoretical vulnerability?

Because it’s highly unlikely to work in the first place, not to mention likely cost as much as their annual operating budget.
Post reply on HN