FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:47 PM UTC

hypfer wrote: post #39

pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This (I think) refers not to the people securing their devices against third parties but the vendors "securing" the devices against loss of profits. Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner. ___ _Ideally_ you wouldn't need to…

> Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner.

Both goals actually are possible to implement at the same time: Secure/Verified Boot together with actually audited, preferably open-source, as-small-as-possible code in the boot and crypto chain, for the user, the ability to unlock the bootloader in the EFI firmware and for those concerned about supply chain integrity, a debug port muxed directly (!) to the TPM so it can be queried for its set of whitelisted public keys.

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

#152

Post by anonymous908213 » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:47 PM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #92

anonymous908213 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 12 of the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy [...] which has later been affirmed to include digital privacy. > I don’t think any government endorses that position. Many governments are in flagrant violation of even their own privacy laws, but that does not make those laws any less real. The UN's notion of human rights were an "ax…

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy “Arbitrary” meaning you better have good reasons! Which implies there are or can be good reasons for which your privacy can be violated. You’re misreading that to mean your privacy is absolute by UN law.

Admittedly "arbitrary" is something of a legal weasel word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I lean towards a strong interpretation for two reasons: the first is because it is logically obvious why you must give it a strong interpretation; if the people responsible for enforcing human rights can arbitrarily decide you don't have them, you don't have human rights. The second is because we have seen this play out in the real world and it is abundantly clear that the damage to society is greater than any potential benefits. The US in particular has made an adventure out of arbitrarily suspending human rights, giving us wonderful treats like Guantanamo Bay and the black sites across the Middle East. I don't know what part of that experiment looked remotely convincing to you, but to me they only reinforced how clearly necessary inviolable human rights are for the greater good of society.

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

#153

Post by jonpalmisc » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

throwmeaway820 wrote: post #12

It seems unfortunate that enhanced protection against physically attached devices requires enabling a mode that is much broader, and sounds like it has a noticeable impact on device functionality. I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means…

There is a setting as of iOS 26 under "Privacy & Security > Wired Accessories" in which you can make data connections always prompt for access. Not that there haven't been bypasses for this before, but perhaps still of interest to you.

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

#154

Post by pkteison » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

throwmeaway820 wrote: post #12

It seems unfortunate that enhanced protection against physically attached devices requires enabling a mode that is much broader, and sounds like it has a noticeable impact on device functionality. I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means…

It isn’t. Settings > Privacy & Security > Wired Accessories

Set to ask for new accessories or always ask.

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

#155

Post by NitpickLawyer » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #127

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”…

Absolutely every aspect of it? What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fractio…

Truecrypt had that a decade+ ago.

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

#156

Post by compiler-guy » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

izzydata wrote: post #145

stouset wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely every aspect of it? What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fractio…

It doesn't seem fundamentally different from a PC having multiple logins that are accessed from different passwords. Hasn't this been a solved problem for decades?

Multi-user has been solved for decades.

Multi-user that plausibly looks like single-user to three letter agencies?

Not even close.

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

#157

Post by bitexploder » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

stackghost wrote: post #137

bitexploder wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're forgetting about the Constitution-Free Zone within 100 miles of all points of entry including international airports that covers essentially all of the 48.

I am not. You can still assert your rights at border points. It is very inconvenient. I have done it. If you are returning from international travel there is little they can do. If you are trying to leave the country they can make that difficult to impossible. Otherwise your rights still apply.

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

#158

Post by ddtaylor » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

chuckadams wrote: post #87

mrexcess wrote: post #46

I trust 404 media more than most sources, but I can’t help but reflexively read every story prominently showcasing the FBI’s supposed surveillance gaps as attempted watering hole attacks. The NSA almost certainly has hardware backdoors in Apple silicon, as disclosed a couple of years ago by the excellent researchers at Kaspersky. That being the case, Lockdown Mode is not even in play.

The NSA is not going to tip its hand about any backdoors it had built into the hardware for something as small as this.

It depends on if parallel reconstruction can be used to provide deniability.

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

#159

Post by paulryanrogers » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

izzydata wrote: post #145

stouset wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely every aspect of it? What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fractio…

It doesn't seem fundamentally different from a PC having multiple logins that are accessed from different passwords. Hasn't this been a solved problem for decades?

Apple's hardware business model incentivizes only supporting one user per device.

Android has supported multiple users per device for years now.

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

#160

Post by hypfer » Wed, Feb 04, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #135

rob wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another bot I pointed out yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Soerensen Their comment got flagged, but looks like they made a new one today and is still active. That account ('Soerensen') was created in 2024 and dormant until it made a bunch of detailed comments in the past 24-48 hrs. Some of them are multiple paragraph comments posted within 1 minute of each other. One thing I've noticed is th…

I wonder if it's actual users with dormant accounts who just setup their Moltbot?

Some, maybe, but that's just another nice layer of plausible deniability.

The truth is that the internet is both(what's the word for 'both' when you have three(four?) things?) dead, an active cyber- and information- warzone and a dark forest.

I suppose it was fun while it lasted. At least we still have mostly real people in our local offline communities.