Earlier quoted context omitted.
On iPhone 5. Until Apple updates the software to fix the vulnerability.
If they know what to fix. FBI aren't idiots to tell them.
Apple could probably buy the same tool and analyze it.
FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
191–200 of 206 posts
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing to me too that the very concept of an "unwarrantable" space is simply impossible to conceive.
Considering all communication is subject to eavesdropping the space they are wanting to access borders on the realm of private thoughts. And some day soon it just may exist in that realm.
I will be reporting this thought crime to the Ministry of Truth.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree, but do some countries truly publicly accept unwarranted spaces? I can imagine most governments wouldn't really want to give up that ability if possible.
In some civilized countries, yes. Take eg. your brain (as an accused), a doctor, a lawyer. There are even countries respecting the sources of journalists...
...also military, law enforcement, and other government secrets.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#194Same 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.”
Can I live in a country that doesn't think a million dollars to break encryption on one phone is worth it? I value my tax dollar way more than they seem to, and way more than 50 thousand dollar air conditioners for jet fighters.
Air conditioning in most jet fighters is a necessity in order to keep the avionics cool.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#195Earlier 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?
In my personal experience with an iPhone, it will not backup to iCloud without wifi and it will not connect to wifi without having the passcode entered at least once since boot. According to the government, the device was found powered off. If that is true, the iCloud backup would never have worked.
The government ran its own tests of the scenarios and found that to be true: https://www.scribd.com/doc/303759192/Declaration-by-Stacey-P... (paragraphs 37-39)
Apple's engineer's response left that assertion unchallenged (while challenging other stuff wrong with paragraphs 37-39, see his paragraphs 32-33): https://www.scribd.com/doc/304898553/SUPPLEMENTAL-DECLARATIO...
Of course, you can choose not to believe the government that the phone was found powered off (http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Apple-govt-R...), but I think you'd have to pick and choose what you're willing to believe and not believe from what the government have said.
Finally, even though it wouldn't have helped, it's clear Pluhar's team did not consider the iCloud backup possibility when they were making their examination, so they very well could have screwed this up. It's just that they didn't in this case.
It's also possible the phone was actually found powered on and the battery was drained and it turned off by the time Pluhar's team examined it the same day. It wasn't mentioned if anyone checked it and tried to make sure it was kept charged (probably not). I imagine it might be difficult to train the officers on the ground about mobile device forensics best practices, since they change fairly frequently.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#196Ugh - total paywall on the article.
Seriously, we need to just ban domains that do that (full paywall after 1st paragraph) - it's not really sharing any content with the community.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#197Earlier 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.
I was just being charitable. If I had to bet, he has no idea and no way of knowing (because the FBI isn't going to go around disclosing whatever intel they got from the phone). But maybe he had a way of knowing, so I asked. Turns out he didn't.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#198Earlier 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 of course disagreement should be explained better.
But he is responding to a one-line meme whose only purpose is to establish learned helplessness and end discussion that massively oversimplifies a very complex issue and is essentially copy pasted in any article here that even touches on politics. It gets quite exhausting engaging, having long in depth discussion about how this view is overly simplistic on every single thread only to have it appear again tomorrow, exactly the same as before.
I think downvotes and silence is the correct move here.
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? The government pwning some terrorists iPhone will prevent terrorist attacks from happening again? How? I'm completely gobsmacked at the line of reasoning here.
The reasoning is that there may be new information that helps identify conspirators or abettors. We all know the chances of finding smoking-gun type evidence on that phone was slim, but that doesn't mean you ignore possible leads when attempting to piece together how a crime was committed. Just because the shooter didn't intend to leave any evidence on the company-issued phone, doesn't mean that there wouldn't have b…
All the data you mentioned was already vacuumed up, "ingested" through the NSA's illegal surveillance dragnet....you know - the one for "fighting terrorism" ?
Re: FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone
#200This is our tax money down the drain by scaring us to death for fear of non-existent terrorist threat. It is remarkable how such FBI directors don't get fired from their job.
I'm not entirely sure how you can call 14 deaths "non-existent".
14 deaths for 300 million is non existent if you understand statistics. More people commit suicide each year and even more people die each year because FDA takes too long to approve new medicines.