Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#181

Post by newjersey »

ikeboy wrote: post #178
rubyfan wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you explain the comment on relevance a bit more? You said it twice but I'm not seeing your point. Regarding the Director's double speak I think it is relevant. The FBI or federal government is still not the owner . Regardless of whether the device was seized or surrendered the property is still owned by the county. > What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we jus…

If they have permission from the owner, it's wrong to describe it as trying to get into "someone else's phone". There's no expectation of privacy in a government owned phone.

Who decides paying $1M to get access to a government owned device is appropriate use of public money though?

Why didn't they go through proper channels? Why did they reset the iCloud passwords? What steps have they taken to prevent this from happening in the future?

The FBI is doing a lot of hand waving and there is no accountability. Where are all those fiscal conservatives when we need them?

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#182

Post by makecheck »

rmc wrote: post #168
makecheck wrote: post #108

I wish people who paid lots of government money for things were always forced to do so out of their salary. For example: we will pay you $X per year in exchange for giving you the responsibility to make up to 10 big purchases; each time you purchase however, 1% of the proposed sum comes out of that $X salary; now then, how judicious will you be? One thing Ron Paul did in Congress years ago, after one of those stupid…

I've often seen people propose things like that, such as congress being paid the average salary or maybe even no salary. However they're much more likely to take kickbacks if they have the power and not the money.

Kickbacks are a risk, though that could also be balanced with harsh penalties such as minimum sentences for being caught accepting kickbacks.

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#183

Post by ikeboy »

newjersey wrote: post #181
ikeboy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have permission from the owner, it's wrong to describe it as trying to get into "someone else's phone". There's no expectation of privacy in a government owned phone.

Who decides paying $1M to get access to a government owned device is appropriate use of public money though? Why didn't they go through proper channels? Why did they reset the iCloud passwords? What steps have they taken to prevent this from happening in the future? The FBI is doing a lot of hand waving and there is no accountability. Where are all those fiscal conservatives when we need them?

Re icloud, see http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terro...

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#184

Post by newjersey »

ikeboy wrote: post #183
newjersey wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides paying $1M to get access to a government owned device is appropriate use of public money though? Why didn't they go through proper channels? Why did they reset the iCloud passwords? What steps have they taken to prevent this from happening in the future? The FBI is doing a lot of hand waving and there is no accountability. Where are all those fiscal conservatives when we need them?

Re icloud, see http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terro...

I would not trust their word over Apple's because Apple has a better insight of the situation.

The whole thing was a very poor allocation of resources. Of course, those whose promotions and maybe even jobs are on the line will fight back any claim of incompetence or malice.

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#185

Post by ikeboy »

newjersey wrote: post #184
ikeboy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re icloud, see http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044025/apple-ios/terro...

I would not trust their word over Apple's because Apple has a better insight of the situation. The whole thing was a very poor allocation of resources. Of course, those whose promotions and maybe even jobs are on the line will fight back any claim of incompetence or malice.

Huh? Apple has no idea what's on the phone, how could they have better info than the FBI on this?

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#186

Post by developer2 »

and-can wrote: post #43
isleyaardvark wrote: post #33

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…

The only way to accomplish the goal in the first paragraph is to execute the steps they "don't want to" do from the second paragraph. It's more than double-speak, it's pure bullshit.

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#187

Post by jdbernard »

GeechieCloud wrote: post #53
euyyn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by all accounts, received nothing of value for the money How can you know that?

come on do all internet comments have to be perfect? how about "by all public accounts to date". I'd have though that extra context wasn't necessary.

The point is that the people who would be in a position to provide concrete evidence one way or another are very unlikely to make a public account. "All public accounts to date" that I know of are basically hearsay.

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#188

Post by jMyles »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #132
jMyles wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...

> absurdly reductionist view > Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? > a pithy but pointless HN comment > might expand your thinking on this topic Just throwing it out there: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head: > They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they…

You're right. I got a bit impatient there. This argument seems to come up again and again and no amount of reason and explanation seems to be able to overcome it, even to the point of convincing its adherents to read what others have said about it.

This notion ("the people get exactly what they vote for") goes back to Ancient Greece; it's not like its a novel topic.

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#189

Post by fweespee_ch »

newjersey wrote: post #171
fweespee_ch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.” That is exactly what we want. If its clearly in the public interest to expended substantial…

Was there something on the phone what made it worth it? I don't know if I understand the hypocrisy of hn. We cry "oh humanity" when Ford pays $50k over sticker for a new Tesla car for reverse engineering but of course if the FBI does something then surely they were judicious with their purse strings. Surely.

> Was there something on the phone what made it worth it?

It doesn't matter to me tbh. They want to investigate, they can.

I just don't want them to be able to "scale" their investigations like they seem to want so they can get into all encrypted communications without a serious financial hurdle because they'll abuse it.

> I don't know if I understand the hypocrisy of hn. We cry "oh humanity" when Ford pays $50k over sticker for a new Tesla car for reverse engineering but of course if the FBI does something then surely they were judicious with their purse strings.

I didn't. Generalizing like that is unhealthy because it causes you to make some silly assumptions.

Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone

#190

Post by Ntrails »

thoman23 wrote: post #106
Nutmog wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's that straightforward. It's hard to vote for something that doesn't come up for a vote. And it doesn't come up for a vote if the right people don't want it to come up for a vote.

"The people" aren't given the opportunity to vote on many things, yet the people they elect do vote. The people they elect often side with their supporters (especially financial ones) on issues that are important to said supporters. A candidate can use their NRA/pro gun status as part of their platform and it will have a meaningful impact on the turnout.

Logically if the US electorate cared even half as much about [topic x] as they do about guns - candidates would care too and "democracy" would follow... no?

(I'm not bashing the US, just taking gun control as an example where a passionate popular view is reflected democratically)

Post reply on HN