Live data from Hacker News

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

thehill.com

221–230 of 417 posts

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

#221
> FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

Lawmakers tell FBI it's too late the dead don't come back to life, and ask what the fuck were they all doing before the massacre given all the warning signs (regarding both the shooter and the readily availability of firearms for purchase)...

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

#222
>In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm

Nothing than

1) a total banning of sales,

2) a law that requires existing owners to return them for destruction,

3) 5 years jail minimum time for anybody even seen with one (and 20 years if they were involved in any criminal act while carrying it, regardless of the act),

4) and a mass confiscation campaign can't fix...

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

#223
Is the argument that, without access to his phone, they can’t stop this guy from killing more people?

Is it that they need the phone to tell them that white supremacy and assault rifles are things that exist in the US?

Do they need the phone data for a conviction?

I don’t understand what they expect to do with whatever they find that they can’t get from other sources.

They can get location history and a pretty good idea what and who he communicated with from ISP and cell logs, etc.

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

#224
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…

America has vast and currently unimpeachable rights to weaponry. There is a huge swath of policy space between that and banning gun ownership. We can reduce gun ownership, trafficking and weapon deadliness a thousand different ways while not adversely impacting legitimate usage. Universal background checks, limiting purchase frequency, banning 100-round barrels, increasing liability for dealers.

The trouble with those policies (aside from 100-round barrels... I have no idea what that means, and I don’t think you do either) is that they’re often-mentioned, but people forget to ask the question, “Have these policies actually improved anything where they’ve been implemented?” Many of the recently-publicized shootings in the US have occurred in California, which has some of the most strict firearms laws in the nation.

> We can reduce gun ownership Do we actually want that, though? There are murmurs of defensive firearms use instances in the millions annually, whilst there are around 7k non-suicide-related deaths by firearm annually (1) (significantly less if you remove big anti-gun cities from the picture).

Compare firearms deaths with other causes:

* 70,000+ die from a drug overdose (2) * 49,000 people die per year from the flu (3) * 37,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (4) * 250,000+ people die each year from preventable medical errors. (5) * 610,000 people die per year from heart disease (6)

There are a lot of things that might sound reasonable on the surface that the media likes to tout in the firearms debate, but many of them don’t hold muster. Why guns are the hot-button issue and heart disease isn’t plastered over the media 24/7? I think somebody has an agenda.

[1] 30k deaths per https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf, minus 23k suicides per https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2015_ed_web_... [2] https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm [4] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... [5] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/02/22/med... [6] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

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

#225
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has vast and currently unimpeachable rights to weaponry. There is a huge swath of policy space between that and banning gun ownership. We can reduce gun ownership, trafficking and weapon deadliness a thousand different ways while not adversely impacting legitimate usage. Universal background checks, limiting purchase frequency, banning 100-round barrels, increasing liability for dealers.

100 round barrels?

Yes, 20 round barrels can just kill like 5-6 people, 10-12 if you're lucky and it's a dense crowd, so they're ok /s

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

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to keep in mind is that really only two things Apple can do. The first is to release a modified and signed version of iOS to LE agencies that has any timeouts removed to allow them to try to bruteforce the passcode locks. If a user uses a significantly long password instead of a passcode, this becomes way less effective. The second thing is to log iMessage data on the server-side (since it has to be decrypt…

>The second thing is to log iMessage data on the server-side (since it has to be decrypted at some point). iMessage is end-to-end encrypted, so that's also not an option. Apple would have to inject a key they controlled into a user's list of device keys. (Which they can do, and the UI doesn't notify users if it were to happen.)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess iCloud backups could then be a viable option then?

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or rather: killed a small percentage of Spartans (the "300" + some allies), hardly "the entire Spartan force", while having huge losses themselves, and giving time to the rest of the Greeks to prepare and ultimately kick them off.

So there's that...

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

#228
post #216

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.

"Authorities want every house in America to be remodeled to include a second front door with a special government lock. They promise to only give police departments, contractors, and/or federal employees access to the single master key that can be instantly and easily copied and shared over the internet and opens every single house and business in America. Even if we trusted the government with this power, how could…

I think most Americans know that the government can quite easily enter anyone’s home if they want to.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It makes more sense in context, take Patrick Henry's words in 1775 to understand what liberty and the preservation of constitutional rights means to Americans. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" or Thomas Jefferson in 1787: "We have had 13. states…

That was at a time when wars were fought with such arms, and the police had the same. Heck, that was true for 100+ years afterwards still.

Now the police even has tanks and army level guns, and the army of course has 1000x the resources, airplanes, drones, etc.

And of course, at the time the states were indeed independent and fighting fiercely for that. Now (and ever after the Civil War) it's all a charade, from what I understand, and it's all as the Federal government says, not really a union of independent states (as independent countries), but a state divided in N prefectures that just happen to be called states...

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

#230
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had an assault weapons ban before, related shootings declined, and millions of people did not become criminals overnight.

Which ban are you referring to? I've yet to see any evidence that any such ban has reduced violent crime in any way.

It doesn't have to decrease "violent crime", it's enough that it reduces violent murders (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc).
Post reply on HN