Live data from Hacker News

Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

forbes.com

71–80 of 243 posts

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#71

If you own the phone, the messages are decrypted. This seems to be more about the phone access than anything to do with Signal, right?

This should bring into question even more Signal's implementation of using real phone numbers for accounts. It is NOT privacy focused. Even if this 'hackability' is an issue only with the security of the phone/hardware - able to be hacked and thus reach the decrypted signal messages - That also means, that person's Signal contacts also have their real identities exposed. (Where they wouldn't be if the account names/i…

[deleted]

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#72

Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.

In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…

[deleted]

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#73
post #46

Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.

Yeah exactly, we can't read cypher text and so aren't included in the end to end encryption contract of signal. Frankly this is nothing to do with signal and everything to do with phone security.

Does Signal still require you to register and verify using a real cell phone number?

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#74

Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.

In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…

I've upvoted you but wanted to nitpick (sorry) - innocent unless proven guilty doesn't have the temporal connotations that 'until' has.

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, others have pointed out that these are 3rd party software companies providing the tools. I'd like to talk about your other point though: > I’ve never met a skilled developer willing to work for what the government pays So there are a lot of very skilled developers working for the government right now. I'd agree you probably haven't met them. I've found that people who work for the government, especially on…

You forgot a huge dimension of those jobs: As you get older, you are more valuable. No "silicon valley" syndrome about age: you'd never have to dye your hair, wear a hoodie to fit in, nobody will blink if you have to take a day off to take care of the kids. You can be a real adult - nobody comes into those programs and expects a ball pit or a foosball table, and nobody seriously thinks someone right out of college bu…

As someone who has spent many years working in defense / government contracting, I think you're touching on a really big reason a lot of people work in this world.

Many years ago, when my career first started, I was an idealist who thought the way I could give back (as someone who couldn't get into the military for physical reasons) was to work in the defense sector. I also tried very hard to get interviewed by an SV company, but I didn't qualify for an interview due to going to the wrong college and getting the wrong degree.

And I have worked on some seriously badass programs and with some really cool systems and people. In my older age, it's funny because I've come full circle. I'm actually using my experience, and the new all-remote world, to interview with some tech companies. I'm also starting to sour a lot on working with the government and military because my idea of "giving back" has become much more cynical. EDIT- I meant to say here that I've become much more cynical, and working with the government no longer feels like "giving back." Nowadays I give back by working on social issues.

BTW, I'm also upvoting / interacting with your comment because (a) I think you're getting downvoted by people who disagree with you, rather than by people who think you've broken some rule, and (b) I think your perspective represents a pretty common way of looking at SV from the outside world.

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot a huge dimension of those jobs: As you get older, you are more valuable. No "silicon valley" syndrome about age: you'd never have to dye your hair, wear a hoodie to fit in, nobody will blink if you have to take a day off to take care of the kids. You can be a real adult - nobody comes into those programs and expects a ball pit or a foosball table, and nobody seriously thinks someone right out of college bu…

I know you're bring downvoted into oblivion for reverse ageism, but my experience mirrors your statements. I think the aggrieved HN masses just don't have similar, or much experience.

+1. Also upvoting the original comment because no one seems to be disagreeing with it with any words.

Solving really hard problems is valuable. Little gets easier, but you can get better at it.

You have me wondering .. Does expertise from experience (whether compressed into a few years or a lot) qualify as reverse ageism? Is anyone being excluded or denigrated?

It seems plausible (but not exclusively) that the more time and effort you apply to something, the better you will probably get at it. Time alone isn’t a measure of experience and expertise but it doesn’t hurt.

It’s just describing what the experience of someone who has been at something for a while.. might end up like.

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#77
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…

> Monitoring shouldn't be the default but only happen when there is a warranted reason to monitor, preferable with a literal warrant. In many cases, well-done E2EE like Signal stops dragnets and targeted efforts. Even with a literal warrant.

I'm not sure I buy this, but it depends how we define targeted attacks. If we include getting access to the device, which I think is reasonable, it obviously doesn't stop targeted efforts. Not to say it doesn't make it more difficult. Remotely, are we only talking Signal or the system as a whole? AFAIK nothing is unhackable, only difficult to hack. But as long as we're playing the cat and mouse game I'm happy. Improving defensive technologies shouldn't ever be stopped or hindered. I'm not sure why this isn't seen as a national security issue but that's a bigger discussion.

But my main point is that most people are afraid of large organizations of terrorists or bad actors will be able to discuss things without the ability for the FBI to surveil them. Well you can't have "large" and "vet everyone to an extremely high degree." Sure, this will make it more difficult to stop small groups, but those have been notoriously difficult to find and stop in the first place.

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#78

Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.

In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…

> Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitoring shouldn't be the default but only happen when there is a warranted reason to monitor, preferable with a literal warrant.

Its more than warrants, though. The evidence of the last few decades is that warrants aren't enough to block dragnets. Warrants can (and are) avoided through parallel construction. Unscrupulous agents will go off on "LoveInt" missions if it suits their ethics.

Universal encryption uses economic force to make dragnet surveillance infeasible where ethical force has failed.

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#79
post #43
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe your assumption that something dubious is going on can be eliminated by Occam's razor? Because: any business that gains in popularity will automatically also see higher press coverage.

Just like women in tech — or any male dominated industries — have proportionately more unfortunate encounters with men because each woman has more men around her to begin with?

Isn't it the case not just in tech, but literally in any field that is male-dominated? I strongly doubt that the problem you describe is any less prevalent in finance or academia, for example. Not a comprehensive list, of course, those were just two off the top of my head.

Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…

I've upvoted you but wanted to nitpick (sorry) - innocent unless proven guilty doesn't have the temporal connotations that 'until' has.

If we're going to nitpick I think HN is the place that this is acceptable, especially when done in a good manner. I do think you make a good point since "until" implies that anyone is guilty given enough time. I'll try to adopt this change into my vernacular. I updated my comment in an effort to acknowledge and support this idea.
Post reply on HN