Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, many .gov organizations are rolling out iPhones by the thousand because of the strong security controls available on the platform.
Cite your source(s), please.
Blackberry's collapsing business model.
Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
131–140 of 364 posts
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
They "just" need to break the users password. If it's a weak one, which is likely for most users, a simple dictionary attack would work.
The users password goes through a password based key derivation function, that function spits out an key that is use for the AES crypto used for the file system. Now, the PBKDF requires a secret that is only stored within the iPhone itself (within the CPU even, where it can't be read out directly). So if we instead grab a copy of the data, all we get is an AES encrypted file system. We have 2 choices. 1. We can attac…
I guess that's my question...is there really no way to get the secret off of the hardware so that the function can be reproduced "offline".
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
The court order refers to the need to load the custom OS image via DFU (device firmware upgrade) mode. I am not an iPhone user but I'm assuming that is exactly what the name implies. (some pre-boot recovery environment)
It's been a few years since I looked at DFU, but my impression was that installing a new OS via DFU would have the side-effect of erasing the device.
In my jailbreak days, the DFU update did indeed wipe the device. I don't know how it works.
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? > If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organiz…
I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search. No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods. Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law. Is there some other issue…
> I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here.
You can feel free to disengage from this conversation if you find it troubling. If you are incredulous that someone might be concerned with the privacy of these people (and their friends and family) in the particular way I am, then I'm not sure what I can do to make you believe.
I am a person. These are my true thoughts. I actually and honestly believe them.
> Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search.
As I said earlier to you in another branch of this discussion, I am not disagreeing that the police CAN get this warrant. They appear to HAVE gotten this warrant, so I guess that's a historical fact. I'm trying to have a discussion about what we think is just and fair and right, as well as trying to find out if there is any evidence of a conspiracy. I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were "yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy". This is why I asked the question, "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?"
> No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods.
I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so. If the answer is "yes, they ought to", then we might have a different discussion than if the answer is "no, they should not". I have met people who would answer "yes" and I have met people who would answer "no". Neither answer will cause me to accuse the commenter of commenting in bad faith.
> Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law.
I'm not talking about what is and is not a high priority for the justice system. I'm trying to engage in a dialogue about what we think the requirements for a warrant SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE and whether or not there is any evidence that the phone will provide information that will help solve or prevent crimes.
> Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up?
I'm sorry if this conversation is upsetting or troubling to you.
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#135Can't they use the dead guys finger print?
Also, Touch ID measures the blood flow and so doesn't work with disembodied fingers: http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/16/why-a-disembodied-finger-...
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#136The 5th amendment protects evidence inside the brain of the accused. As devices becomes more and more an extension of the brain, the more I think we'll need to adjust the rule of the 5th amendment to cover things outside of the brain.
Think about what we want as a society though. If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you. The reason the 5th protects you from compelled self-incrimination is to prevent unjust interrogation and investigation techniques from the cops[0], not to make the overall likelihood of conviction lower, although it incidentally has this effect. From a policy standpoint the ideal world would be one where all criminals are…
Email is communication between two people, and is a complete different matter to if a person wrote in their iOS Notes "Feb 17, I've been fantasising eating BWStearns dog. He looks yum. Should I or should I not?".
And if you dog really got murdered, that note will implicate whoever wrote it, even if they didn't do it! Thinking about performing a criminal act is not a crime. Conspiring to do it is.
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#137> Apple ... will probably have little time to debug or test it overall, meaning that this feature it is being ordered to build will almost certainly put more users at risk. Eh? They are not being asked to install it to the public at large, just one phone. Of all reasons to object, this reason makes little sense.
That's true. In fact, if it's possible for Apple to accomplish what DOJ is demanding of it, the best outcome would be for DOJ to succeed, and do so publicly: * There is an authentic need to get at the data on that phone * There's no likelihood at all that other users will be impacted by the backdoor * We'll all be on the same page about how secure these phones are versus the USG. It's possible that they can prevail a…
Apple will not do that. It's a slippery slope argument - yes, these shooters were very bad, but if Apple sets a precedent of breaking the backdoor for this crime, why can't other courts implore them to use the same technological means for lesser crimes?
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#138The 5th amendment protects evidence inside the brain of the accused. As devices becomes more and more an extension of the brain, the more I think we'll need to adjust the rule of the 5th amendment to cover things outside of the brain.
Wouldn't that also apply to, say, a small paper notebook that the accused carries with him/her? Surely there's been plenty of people who used such paper notebooks as an "extension of the brain"...
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#139Ok someone murders a bunch of defenseless people... Why is Apple dragging their feet? This is tasteless. I'm NOT for backdoors, but this is ridiculous.
Re: Apple ordered to bypass auto-erase on San Bernadino shooter's iPhone
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is an authentic need to get at the data on that phone What is the authentic need? The shooters are dead. Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?
If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? To be clear, I don't think the order to Apple is necessaril…
...pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents.
It sounds like common sense, I guess, but has that ever worked, actually?
Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway.