Live data from Hacker News

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

404media.co

161–170 of 565 posts

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

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the Cryptomator app for this, it works as advertised. I keep ~60 GiB of personal files in there that would be an easy button to steal my identity and savings. I'm just hoping it doesn't include an NSA back door.

you can check the github https://github.com/cryptomator/ios

Even if I had the skills to confirm the code is secure, how could I know that this is the code running on my phone, without also having the skills to build and deploy it from source?

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

#162

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…

> despite an insignificant fraction of customers using such a feature?

Isn't that the exact same argument against Lockdown mode? The point isn't that the number of users is small it's that it can significantly help that small set of users, something that Apple clearly does care about.

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> forced her finger on Touch ID per the warrant She was not forced, and the warrant does not state that she could be forced. The warrant, almost certainly deliberately, uses far milder language.

You’re saying she complied willingly?

Sounds like it, yeah.

Touch ID allows only limited attempts, so odds are the FBI wouldn't just try to wrestle her to attempt different fingers on the spot even if they were allowed to do so.

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

#164

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.

That's in the fantasy world of constitution maximalists. In real world it doesn't work like that and you might still lose money/time/your sanity fighting a system who cares less and less about your rights

Do you think this is for fighting parking tickets? It is for journalists to not reveal their sources, whom might be at risk of severe consequences including death.

That's a whole lot more to loose than your money and time.

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

#165

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”…

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.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/man-who-refused-...

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

#166

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”…

How does "go to prison for not showing" work when a lot of constitutions have a clause for a suspect not needing to participate in their own conviction / right to remain silent? A detective can have a warrant to search someone's home or car, but that doesn't mean the owner needs to give them the key as far as I know.

It does mean that. You can't be forced to divulge information in your head, as that would be testimonial. But if there are papers, records, or other evidentiary materials that are e.g. locked in a safe you can be compelled to open it with a warrant, and refusal would be contempt.

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

#168
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”…

> 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.

Besides the technical challenges, I think there's a pretty killer human challenge: it's going to be really hard for the user to create an alternate account that looks real to someone who's paying attention. Sure, you can probably fool some bored agent in customs line who knows nothing about you, but not a trained investigator who's focused on you and knows a lot about you.

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

#169
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”…

Completely separate decision with a higher legal bar for doing that.

It's one thing to allow police to search a phone. Another to compel someone to unlock the device.

We live in a world of grays and nuance and an "all or nothing" outlook on security discourages people from taking meaningful steps to protect themselves.

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

#170

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…

Android phones are multi-user, so if they can do it then Apple should be able to.
Post reply on HN