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

141–150 of 417 posts

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

#141

Post by tempguy9999 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #125
tempguy9999 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not the OP but its hard to be particular about alternative means of gathering evidence that is itself hypothetical. For example if you wanted to know who the person associated with he almost certainly communicated with people in a way that could be obtained by serving a warrant to his ISP. If you want to know what influenced him looking at his web traffic would be advantageous. Instead of working backwards from h…

> What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device.

None.

Now ask: what evidence do we have that compelling evidence DOES NOT exist on this particular device.

None again! We can conclude nothing either way.

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

#142

Post by naasking »

kennywinker wrote: post #53
mikejb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably to understand motive, and check for potential involvement of others. And whilst they have a metric shit-ton of spying capabilities on US civilians, those are not really intended to avoid crime. (Maybe the shift of perception of what is terrorism might change that, though)

He posted a manifesto online. Think his motive was pretty clearly outlined in it.

> He posted a manifesto online

A manifesto isn't necessarily honest. It describes how shooters want the world to view their actions, not necessarily the actual motives behind their actions.

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

#143

Post by chii »

bubble_talk wrote: post #129
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.

"Only thuggish regimes and failed dictatorships demand for things like removal of encryption."

As John Oliver have said in his interview with Snowden - people care about their dick pics being seen by the Govt. Push that angle

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

#144

Post by snazz »

auslander wrote: post #93

I'm curious about Macs. If I have Firmware Password and FileVault enabled, is it same FBI-proof as iPhone? Does T1 and T2 chips or absent Tx chip (older Macs) make difference? Is storing FileVault unlock key in iCloud makes difference?

I’m not sure how FileVault is implemented, but so long as your key is derived solely from your passphrase and not stored outside your brain (iCloud can be subpoenaed) the strength of your encryption should be proportional to the strength of your passphrase. Computers have less of a reason to use the baked-in CPU or security chip data in deriving the encryption key because longer passwords are more feasible on a laptop than a phone, so brute force attacks are already not likely to succeed.

The only difference I can think of is the ease of an offline brute force attack due to the fact that you can remove a hard drive somewhat easily and then image it and use an entire datacenter’s power at attacking the passphrase. But a strong passphrase (note, not a password) stored only in your head should be quite secure.

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

#145

Post by mattrp »

neilv wrote: post #136
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?

Relating the two is provocative. And it just caused me to wonder whether part of difficulty of advocating for privacy might now be that privacy rights advocacy will get blurred with gun rights advocacy, in the minds of people already people fatigued by, and skeptical of, the latter.

How’s this for provocative: if you don’t have a right to a 2nd Amendment, what right do you have to encrypt? After all, encryption has long been classified as munitions by the US government.

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

#146

Post by tomatotomato37 »

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.

Encryption used to be (still is?) classified as a munition, so maybe you could spin some 2nd amendment argument off of that.

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

#147

Post by michaelmrose »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #141
michaelmrose wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the OP but its hard to be particular about alternative means of gathering evidence that is itself hypothetical. For example if you wanted to know who the person associated with he almost certainly communicated with people in a way that could be obtained by serving a warrant to his ISP. If you want to know what influenced him looking at his web traffic would be advantageous. Instead of working backwards from h…

> What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device. None. Now ask: what evidence do we have that compelling evidence DOES NOT exist on this particular device. None again! We can conclude nothing either way.

Don't you think they need to make a compelling argument that actual evidence exists and is being denied to them before we all install backdoors?

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

#148

Post by jmull »

mattrp wrote: post #145
neilv wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relating the two is provocative. And it just caused me to wonder whether part of difficulty of advocating for privacy might now be that privacy rights advocacy will get blurred with gun rights advocacy, in the minds of people already people fatigued by, and skeptical of, the latter.

How’s this for provocative: if you don’t have a right to a 2nd Amendment, what right do you have to encrypt? After all, encryption has long been classified as munitions by the US government.

Encryption is no longer generally classified as munitions in the US.

Here's a link to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

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

#150

Post by TheLastPass »

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?

Actually the general consensus in the US government would be that everything kills people and must be regulated by people who don't understand it and who have conflicts of interest. That way people will stop dying.
Post reply on HN