Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI • Hacker News Board

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#171

Post by tdaltonc » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #46

studentrob wrote: post #12

The FBI's refusal to detail the flaw will just add to the pile of miscommunications between technologists and the government. That hurts the government's ability to advance their own technological capabilities and understanding. Every day, they're getting better at shooting themselves in the foot and widening that communication gap. I see nobody out there capable of bridging it. Not Tim Cook, not the EFF, not Obama,…

It seems to me that Tim Cook and the FBI understand each other very well. They just don't care about the same things. Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden clearly understands the issues. I saw an interview where he stated that the FBI was correct to want access (it makes their job easier) and that we shouldn't give it to them (he understands that a backdoor will be used in ways other than intended). The point b…

But I think we could craft a talking point version of this argument that unsubtle busy people could understand.

"The FBI is trying to compromise your data security, for the sake of their job security."

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#172

Post by wrsh07 » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

cptvideo2 wrote: post #156

DickingAround wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an excellent analogy.

> The FBI just revealed ... It would be a better analogy if they had actually revealed anything, instead of just saying that they had. This was more like telling us which door had a car behind it and trusting us to believe them.

It's true, I wish they had shown us a zero-knowledge proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof) that they had cracked it.

At least then we would know that this isn't just to escape an unfavorable court ruling.

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#173

Post by TelAviv » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

At least you're not blaming us here in Israel!

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#174

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

the_ancient wrote: post #168

zeveb wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The oath of the FBI is not to make their own jobs easier. It is to maintain public security. Actually, this is their oath: I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…

If the Constitution is silent, that means it is prohibited. The constitution is first and foremost a document outlining what the federal government is allowed to do. If it is not listed in the Constitution, then by design the government does not have the authority. I think this has been lost, in part by the inclusion of the bill of rights, which where never intended to be an all inclusive lists of a persons rights.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's some pretty broad power that is enumerated right there.

to ... provide for the ... general Welfare

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#175

Post by baddox » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

zodPod wrote: post #165

adekok wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The probabilities change, even when a door you didn't pick [and doesn't hold the prize] is opened. That's the common misunderstanding of the problem. Most people think that the probabilities go fro 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 to 1/2, 1/2, after choosing a door and having Monty Hall open one of the others. The probabilities don't change. The probabilities are 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 at the start. After you choose a door, they're still 1/3,…

This is a great clarification of how this problem works. I STILL can't grasp why you'd switch. Since you have no idea which door it is, couldn't the 2/3 probability be applied to either his door or your door? For all you know, the one that he removed was just one random one of the goat doors. Your chance of picking the car was 1/3 before, if you could have the car already, why would it be better to switch now that he…

> For all you know, the one that he removed was just one random one of the goat doors.

The key observation is that the problem states that Monty Hall opens an empty door. It's not clear whether Monty knows which doors are empty, but it doesn't actually matter, since the problem states that he will always open an empty door.

As others have said, your choice as a contestant is whether to take one door (the one you initially pointed at), or to take the other two doors (at least one of which is obviously empty). Stated that way, it's pretty obvious that taking 2 doors is better than taking 1 door.

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#176

Post by wkandek » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #104

llamataboot wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pedantic in my opinion. The main point of the article was that the FBI found a vulnerability. So before it was likely an unknown vulnerability, now it is known by law enforcement. The whole point of the article was that responsible organizations disclose vulnerabilities so that companies can make their software/hardware more secure. In this case the FBI is sitting on it, so they can continue to use it. Last w…

According to the article, the vulnerability was already known by a third party, and all the FBI did was ask/pay that third party to use it on this phone. I don't see how that act alters the security of iPhones. I agree that the FBI should inform Apple of the vulnerability they used. I just don't think that failing to do so makes iPhones less secure. Failing to do so leaves them as they are, and informing Apple would…

I do not believe the FBI can legally report the vulnerability. They did not find it, they do not "own" it. They have used a service to get to the phone's data. Even if they reverse engineered the exploit used, it would be a breach of contract to disclose the vulnerability.

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#177

Post by pklausler » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

zodPod wrote: post #165

adekok wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The probabilities change, even when a door you didn't pick [and doesn't hold the prize] is opened. That's the common misunderstanding of the problem. Most people think that the probabilities go fro 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 to 1/2, 1/2, after choosing a door and having Monty Hall open one of the others. The probabilities don't change. The probabilities are 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 at the start. After you choose a door, they're still 1/3,…

This is a great clarification of how this problem works. I STILL can't grasp why you'd switch. Since you have no idea which door it is, couldn't the 2/3 probability be applied to either his door or your door? For all you know, the one that he removed was just one random one of the goat doors. Your chance of picking the car was 1/3 before, if you could have the car already, why would it be better to switch now that he…

Your simulation is not correct.

Look at it this way: 1/3 of the time, you pick the right door up front. If you switch, you lose.

2/3 of the time, you didn't pick the right door. If you switch, you win.

So switch.

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#178

Post by ricardobeat » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

wrsh07 wrote: post #170

zodPod wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great clarification of how this problem works. I STILL can't grasp why you'd switch. Since you have no idea which door it is, couldn't the 2/3 probability be applied to either his door or your door? For all you know, the one that he removed was just one random one of the goat doors. Your chance of picking the car was 1/3 before, if you could have the car already, why would it be better to switch now that he…

I find it clearer if you have 100 doors. Pick one. The host eliminates 98 doors [with no prize behind them]. Do you switch? Or do you stick with your original guess? As the parent mentioned, switching gives you a 99/100 chance of being correct, staying gives you a mere 1/100 chance.

I don't see why the other door has 99x more probability of being correct. It's still 50/50, original door or remaining door, the other 98 don't change the odds.

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#179

Post by the_ancient » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #174

the_ancient wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Constitution is silent, that means it is prohibited. The constitution is first and foremost a document outlining what the federal government is allowed to do. If it is not listed in the Constitution, then by design the government does not have the authority. I think this has been lost, in part by the inclusion of the bill of rights, which where never intended to be an all inclusive lists of a persons rights.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; That's some pretty broad power that is enumerated right there. to ... provide for the ... general Welfare

Actually it is not, unless you take it out of context like you have....

Allow me to Quote Jefferson...

"“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose"

Meaning to the founders that section was explicitly about collecting taxes and does not give wide over arching powers to legislate things about the "general welfare" of the population.

Re: Your iPhone just got less secure. Blame the FBI

#180

Post by pklausler » Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

adekok wrote: post #88

wrsh07 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny to call it reporting when it's more of an editorial by the renowned security researcher Bruce Schneier. However, I'll defend his point: take the Monty Hall problem [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem ]. The probabilities change, even when a door you didn't pick [and doesn't hold the prize] is opened. I think this is a fair analogy. We've now gained knowledge about the existence of a vulnerability…

> The probabilities change, even when a door you didn't pick [and doesn't hold the prize] is opened. That's the common misunderstanding of the problem. Most people think that the probabilities go fro 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 to 1/2, 1/2, after choosing a door and having Monty Hall open one of the others. The probabilities don't change. The probabilities are 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 at the start. After you choose a door, they're still 1/3,…

This is good reasoning. Unlike other probability puzzles, the new information isn't useful in this one.

P(my first choice was right) = P(my first choice was right | given that I've been shown a goat in another door)

It's my second-favorite probability puzzle; my favorite is the one in which the new information has no relevance at all but still changes the probabilities, the "not both daughters" problem.