121–130 of 350 posts
I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has staked their reputation on the line and said "send us an NSL if you like, we have nothing we can give you". And the cryptographic principles, if executed properly, are sound. Maybe they're lying. Maybe Snowden 2.0 will come out next year and tell us the truth and instantly destroy their credibility. That's a gamble I wouldn't take with my company, but it's plausible. See I figure, if you're a threat to Nati…
Yeah, that's how I see it. Since Apple's software isn't open source, it's possible they're lying. However, if they are, at some point the government is going to try to present evidence they gleaned through this lie, and that fact will leak out. I think it would be an enormous risk for Apple to blatantly lie about something they put in black and white on their website. So I tend to think they're telling the truth. May…
No, they are not. That is the whole point of parallel construction.
I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably harder and takes longer than searching through a confiscated phone from a suspect.
Bingo! You can, as far as I know, confiscate and search a suspect just based on probable cause, whereas you'd need to have at least a subpoena if not a warrant to get wiretap authorization or phone records.
[0] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
If you support this sort of system, you are saying that individuals should be able to place themselves above democracy. Like it or not, we have a legal system that entitles the government to execute lawfully obtained warrants. Tech companies seeking to make this harder are acting against democracy. It's time for Silicon Valley to decide what side it's on: Democracy, or the alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bingo! You can, as far as I know, confiscate and search a suspect just based on probable cause, whereas you'd need to have at least a subpoena if not a warrant to get wiretap authorization or phone records.
A recent Supreme Court ruling[0] makes it unlawful for authorities to search confiscated cell phones without a warrant. They could, theoretically, confiscate your phone based on probable cause, but searching it would be a different matter. [0] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them.
"You should better educate yourself, the article is about seizure with a warrant, with which Apple and Google will no longer be able to help them." To add to the other great comments: I understand that it is via warrant. In fact, the article states that Apple said, "It's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants [...]". My concern is perhaps more nuanced. Put aside the warrant issue for a mome…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has staked their reputation on the line and said "send us an NSL if you like, we have nothing we can give you". And the cryptographic principles, if executed properly, are sound. Maybe they're lying. Maybe Snowden 2.0 will come out next year and tell us the truth and instantly destroy their credibility. That's a gamble I wouldn't take with my company, but it's plausible. See I figure, if you're a threat to Nati…
Yeah, that's how I see it. Since Apple's software isn't open source, it's possible they're lying. However, if they are, at some point the government is going to try to present evidence they gleaned through this lie, and that fact will leak out. I think it would be an enormous risk for Apple to blatantly lie about something they put in black and white on their website. So I tend to think they're telling the truth. May…
I hypothesize that this is a coordinated yet simple ruse to rebuild trust in these brands post-Snowden [1][2]. There was similar press coverage regarding the DEA and iCloud encryption that was misreported in a similar way [3]. The Intercept (where Glenn Greenwald is now reporting from) has a story on what data Apple can still easily give away if you do believe they can't decrypt individual machines [4]. But maybe you…
Apple has staked their reputation on the line and said "send us an NSL if you like, we have nothing we can give you". And the cryptographic principles, if executed properly, are sound. Maybe they're lying. Maybe Snowden 2.0 will come out next year and tell us the truth and instantly destroy their credibility. That's a gamble I wouldn't take with my company, but it's plausible. See I figure, if you're a threat to Nati…
You should also look through the other linked articles. Some of them include features built into iOS devices that already circumvent encryption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have always been tools and procedures for destroying documents to prevent unwanted access. What's very very bad about this, in addition to the direct effects on people's privacy, is that it creates a class system of people who are allowed access to strong encryption while the cattle being farmed on this plantation are not.
What's very very bad about this, in addition to the direct effects on people's privacy, is that it creates a class system of people who are allowed access to strong encryption while the cattle being farmed on this plantation are not. What do you mean?