FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

racnid wrote: post #159

sokoloff wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would characterize the home invaders as the "perpetrators" in that particular story and exclude them from the injury count, consistent with the language of that definition. From the article: Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrators, are shot in…

Ugh, everyone loves to dredge up gun violence archive and use it as an authorative source and it's trash. They deliberately inflate the numbers of "mass shootings" by changing the definition from the FBI definition (itself occasionally modified for political reasons). The net result is that every half assed gangland drive-by with a handgun gets lumped in and people don't understand that. Outside of Chiraq and a coupl…

"Outside of Chiraq and a couple of other places gun violence doesn't exist in any meaningful capacity. You're literally safer anywhere in America outside of those places than Western Europe."

This is definitely not true. Guns are commonly used in domestic violence situations, or just random household accidents, in a way that poses more danger to Americans everywhere than that experienced by the vast majority of western Europeans (except maybe for those few in the equivalents of their "Chiraqs").

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

#172

Post by oneplane » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

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?

T1 no, T2 yes. Because T2+NAND as a combined setup does the same as the SE in iOS devices. Heck, it basically runs iOS.

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

#173

Post by squarefoot » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

FTA: "The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence,".

By the same reasoning, had the shooter ran away because he drove a car faster than police ones, we should ban all sports cars then?

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

#174

Post by oneplane » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

Here we go again.

This will not work for many reasons, most importantly:

- Key escrow or government-enabled crypto doesn't work

- Creating classes of encryption doesn't work (Excluding a group and not allowing them to use the same crypto as another group)

- If someone is going to do something unlawful, they will use something else that isn't accessible by the government; take away phone encryption and they will simply use something else

Unless those points are solved, the whole 'should we allow it' discussion is pointless anyway.

Tacking on to that: most of that stuff doesn't work because you can't really physically enforce it; it's an intellectual barrier which due to the way we can simply talk to each other as humans is super easy to circumvent. This was tried with export controls, but that didn't actually work for the information itself; only for commercial products.

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

#175

Post by kube-system » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

exo762 wrote: post #131

Why is this even an FBI case? What exactly makes this an FBI case? Why we want this to be an FBI case? I don't know much about American law. I was under impression that things are reserved to states unless important reason for them to be handled on federal level.

Terrorism is in the FBI’s jurisdiction to investigate, so it makes sense they would be involved to determine whether or not terrorism was involved.

It also appears some federal legislation has been passed that directs the FBI to provide assistance to state authorities in this cases:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-eng...

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

#176

Post by s17n » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #164

pdkl95 wrote: post #49

> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…

> it is, however, harder to automate If Apple does not give you the tools to decrypt messages on their phones, doesn't that make it "impossible" to automate, where automate is defined as any version of "decrypting the data on the phone"?

I believe the point that OP is making is that the encrypted data on our phones is data historically would never have been available to law enforcement, as it simply wouldn't have existed. Then as now law enforcement can investigate but the investigative process is impossible to automate. On the other hand giving the government access to all the data that we now store about ourselves would enable automated forms of law enforcement that, in the past, were just not possible (this is what we're seeing in China).

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

#177

Post by bredren » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #123

bredren wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t just detective work, it is personnel with the skills to identify and pursue likely evidence. Digital forensics is way outside typical leo training and believe it or not you can make a lot more money in the private sector with IT training. Local, state and federal case loads get backlogged behind, leaving the highest priority cases to get staffed.

What stops LEO from contracting with a digital forensic company or consultancy?

They do this at the federal level a lot and there is a lot of money in it.

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

#178

Post by mentos » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #113

They also can’t access his brain. Neither of these situations are ones I feel compelled to fix.

I think this is a great analogy and easy for the layman to understand.

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

#179

Post by s17n » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

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.

The way that law enforcement frames the issue: "Encryption makes it harder to prevent crime by denying us access to data"

The correct framing: "Encryption maintains the status quo by denying law enforcement access to data that previously was not stored"

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

#180

Post by madhadron » Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #166

EForEndeavour wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume a ban would take effect "suddenly"? As you rightly point out, it would make no sense to apply a gun ban instantly, tricking millions of Americans into technically becoming felons.

I think the point is that millions of Americans feel so strongly about gun ownership that they would rather be felons (and 'molon labe' their guns) than give them up.

Am I the only one who finds the use of "molon labe" farcical? I mean, the Persians did come and take them and killed the entire Spartan force in the process.