101–110 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> was not “scalable.” This is the same James Comey that said they just were just asking Apple for access to just that one phone.
Just think of how many lives were saved by the data they got off that phone. Oh wait...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> was not “scalable.” This is the same James Comey that said they just were just asking Apple for access to just that one phone.
Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of we could count on congress to provide adequate oversight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> was not “scalable.” This is the same James Comey that said they just were just asking Apple for access to just that one phone.
“The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land,” Comey continued. “I hope…
> and without it taking a decade to guess correctly.
even make sense when there isn't a force in the universe that can guess that password in 10 millennia.
If they demand that restrictions like gated attempts and automatic wipes be removed, they're just pushing the industry to move to restrictions that can't be removed.
Hell, if I was feeling really cheeky and worked for Apple, I would give the FBI their backdoor which allowed them access, but they have to provide the phone a proof of work worth at least $10 trillion.
No this probably couldn't be made secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
The government owned the iPhone in question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
The government owned the iPhone in question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of we could count on congress to provide adequate oversight.
That won't happen unless American voters want it. They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it.
To me this raises a question about selling security vulnerabilities to state actors in general (in the context of the Facebook vulnerability thread where the standard discussion about value is being hashed out). Specifically, I live in the UK and one of the complaints law enforcement has is that US companies can (and do) totally ignore valid court orders because they don't apply in the US (reddit being an arbitrary c…
> Specifically, I live in the UK and one of the complaints law enforcement has is that US companies can (and do) totally ignore valid court orders because they don't apply in the US (reddit being an arbitrary concrete example). A US company (or individual) should absolutely ignore court orders from a non-US court; such courts have no jurisdiction. A "valid" court order necessarily must come from a court with jurisdic…
That aside, it is not really too much to ask that a company that does business in England abide by English law.
One thing Ron Paul did in Congress years ago, after one of those stupid “let’s spend taxpayer money on a bunch of medals” proposals or something, was to rephrase that expense: he challenged Congress to simply donate a percentage of their own salaries to make it happen. After all, if it was so wonderful (echoing all the things other Congress members had stood up and said about the idea before then), and so worthwhile, surely they would personally not mind chipping in something, right? Predictably, a very small number of congresspeople were suddenly willing to go quite that far.
Same article on the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af23e3ea-07f1-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd... James Comey, director of the FBI, said on Thursday that the cost was “worth it”, but added that an accommodation needed to be made with Apple and other technology companies in the future, as paying outside technologists to find ways to access highly-encrypted messages on phones used by terrorist suspects was not “scalable.”
Making it not scalable is the point. It places a monetary restriction so that they have to pick and choose what devices they think are worth hacking and which ones are not. This is the balance between citizen's rights and government power. Otherwise we just collect everyone's data on everything all the time and have access to everything.
Your argument would work for an individual, and to a lesser extent a corporation (where money spent comes out of profit and would be balanced against benefit), but the government plays with your money - not their own.
If they want to get into a hundred phones, they'll just ask congress for an appropriation for $100m. And since the government is one of its own largest lobbyists, it'll happen.