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

FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 565 posts

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#111

Post by crazygringo »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #40
boston_clone wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of your comments here, posted just one minute apart yet with completely different content, reek of LLM output.

Posting sibling comments is unusual.

Funny, you're definitely right -- I've done it probably just 2 or 3 times over a decade, when I felt like I had two meaningful but completely unrelated things to say. And it always felt super weird, almost as if I was being dishonest or something. Could never quite put my finger on why. Or maybe I was worried it would look like I was trying to hog the conversation?

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#112

Post by intrasight »

afavour wrote: post #44
bawolff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line in the sand to draw

That is genuinely the current state of law, yes. There's no real logic at work, just attempts at clawing back control whenever a new gray area appears.

It is very logical, as revealing a password is considered testimonial and is protected by the fifth amendment.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#113

Post by macintux »

pc86 wrote: post #101
nutjob2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we've learned anything from this administration it is that the government can ignore the law longer than you can stay alive. Arming yourself against lawless government in every legal way is advisable.

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying what does that have to do with a valid search warrant being executed?

There's a fair bit of dispute about whether this is valid. The active criminalization of journalism is worrisome.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#114

Post by zuminator »

pc86 wrote: post #23
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Serious question: What are the "valid concerns" about people securing their computing devices against third parties?

In this case I think "valid concerns about locked down computing" is referring to the owner's use of the phone being restricted, so that they can't download applications they want to use, they don't have unrestricted access to the filesystem, they are forced to pay an Apple commission to engage in certain forms aloft commerce, etc. These may be acceptable tradeoffs but they're valid concerns nonetheless.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#115

Post by twelvedogs »

cr125rider wrote: post #106
skeptic_ai wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed. What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files. If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good. I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous”…

Fourth and Fifth amendments disagree

I don't think we're doing amendments any more

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#116

Post by JasonADrury »

pc86 wrote: post #51
JasonADrury wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should simply try to read the warrant in question.

Perhaps you should? From pages 20 and 22: > 52. These warrants would also permit law enforcement to obtain from Natanson the display of physical biometric characteristics (e.g., fingerprint, thumbprint, or facial characteristics) in order to unlock devices subject to search and seizure pursuant to the above referenced warrants > 60. Accordingly, if law enforcement personnel encounter a device that is subject to searc…

>From pages 20 and 22:

From pages 20 and 22 of ... not the warrant:

It'd certainly be a good first step to figure out how to identify whether or not the PDF you're linking to is in fact a warrant at all before trying to educate others on them.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#117

Post by dyauspitr »

macintux wrote: post #7

> Natanson said she does not use biometrics for her devices, but after investigators told her to try, “when she applied her index finger to the fingerprint reader, the laptop unlocked.” Curious.

She has to have set it up before. There is no way to divine a fingerprint any other way. I guess the only other way would be a faulty fingerprint sensor but that should default to a non-entry.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#118

Post by extraaccounts »

rob wrote: post #13
hnrayst wrote: post #6

[flagged]

`hnrayst` seems to be another AI (?) bot account created in 2022 with only two comments, both being in this very thread we're in today: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=hnrayst Something weird is going on at Hacker News recently. I've been noticing these more and more.

[dead]

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#119

Post by kyrra »

cr125rider wrote: post #106
skeptic_ai wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed. What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files. If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good. I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous”…

Fourth and Fifth amendments disagree

People are jailed for contempt of court for failing to provide passwords.

https://reason.com/2017/05/31/florida-man-jailed-180-days-fo...

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#120

Post by bitexploder »

skeptic_ai wrote: post #100
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed. What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files. If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good. I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous”…

You do not. We have this thing in our constitution called the 5th amendment. You cannot be forced to divulge the contents of your mind, including your pin or passwords. Case law supports this. For US citizens at least. Hopefully the constitution is still worth something.
Post reply on HN