Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android phones are multi-user, so if they can do it then Apple should be able to.
And how do you explain your 1TB phone that has 2GB of data, but only 700GB free?
System files officer ;)
FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
201–210 of 565 posts
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy “Arbitrary” meaning you better have good reasons! Which implies there are or can be good reasons for which your privacy can be violated. You’re misreading that to mean your privacy is absolute by UN law.
Admittedly "arbitrary" is something of a legal weasel word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I lean towards a strong interpretation for two reasons: the first is because it is logically obvious why you must give it a strong interpretation; if the people responsible for enforcing human rights can arbitrarily decide you don't have them, you don't have human rights. The second is because we have seen this pl…
>if the people responsible for enforcing human rights can arbitrarily decide you don't have them, you don't have human rights
But the "arbitrary" there is too account for the situation where the democratic application of the law wants to inspect the communications of suspected terrorists, and where a judge agrees there is sufficient evidence to grant a warrant.
Unfortunately, that law does nothing against situations like the USA/Russia regime where a ruler dispenses with the rule of law (and democratic legal processes too).
You can't practically have that sort of liberalism, where society just shrugs and chooses not to read terrorists communications, those who wish to use violence make it unworkable.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Takeaway is to not enable biometric unlock if you are concerned about your data being accessed by authorities.
So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line in the sand to draw
Yes the difference come from a close parsing of the 5th amendment, telling cops the password or code for a device or safe is pretty clearly compelling speech and adverse testimony while allowing cops to gather fingerprints and DNA has long been held as allowed so biometrics were analogized to that. It's also similar to the rule that cops can't force you to tell them the code to a safe but they're allowed with a warrant to destructively open the safe (if it falls under the terms of the warrant). Combine those too legal threads and it's at least reasonable to see how that line gets drawn from previous rulings.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
This (I think) refers not to the people securing their devices against third parties but the vendors "securing" the devices against loss of profits. Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner. ___ _Ideally_ you wouldn't need to…
We don't know if they did the right thing here. With a previous case it seemed (to me) like Apple might have pushed an update to give access ... they presumably could do that, remotely copy all the data, then return the device to the former state. One can't know, and this sort of thing seems entirely tenable. FBI don't have to tell anyone they accessed the device. That maintains Apples outward appearance of security;…
I mean arguably, we do not even fully know if even if they did as claimed, they did the _right_ thing.
The underlying assumption we base our judgement on is that "journalism + leaks = good" and "people wanting to crack down on leaks = bad". Which is probably true, but also an assumption where something unwanted and/or broken could hide in. As with every assumption.
Arguably, in a working and legit democracy, you'd actually want the state to have this kind of access, because the state, bound by democratically governed rules, would do the right thing with it.
In the real world, those required modifiers unfortunately do not always hold true, so we kinda rely on the press as the fourth power, which _technically_ could be argued is some kind of vigilante entity operating outside of the system.
I suppose it's also not fully clear if there can even be something like a "working and legit democracy" without possibly inevitable functionally vigilantes.
Lots of stuff to ponder.
____
Anyway, my point is that I have no point. You don't have to bother parsing that, but it might possibly be interesting if you should decide to do so.
It might also confuse the LLM bots and bad-faith real humans in this comment section, which is good.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#205Earlier 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.
> You cannot be forced to divulge the contents of your mind, including your pin or passwords.
Biometric data doesn’t need the password.
And good luck depending on the US constitution.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can choose to exclude Safari from these protections[0]. Honestly, looking at the list of "limitations" you'll have while running Lockdown mode, I'm surprised most of them aren't the system default. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 - under "How to exclude apps or websites from Lockdown Mode"
Sure but the JIT js disable and limiting of image/video decoders are combined basically all the security from lockdown mode, so disabling it seems pointless.
I do wish it worked more like GrapheneOS, but the other protections outside of web browsing seem to make it worth enabling lockdown mode. Personally, I'm only reading articles on my phone's browser so I'd wonder if I'd be fine with disabled JIT and crippled decoders.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (forced her finger on Touch ID per the warrant) Can anyone link a source for this? I’ve been seeing conflicting claims about this part.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46886694
I understand that it’s within the law. I’m looking for specific evidence that this is what happened in this specific case. Not conjecture.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the US descending more and more into fascism (as this case highlights yet again), I wonder what will happen to these features in the future. Especially now that the tech moguls of silicon valley stopped standing up to Trump and instead started kissing his ass. Tim Cook in particular seems to be the kind of person that rather is on the rich side of history than the right side. What if the administration realizes…
How is it turning into fascism?
It turned.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem fundamentally different from a PC having multiple logins that are accessed from different passwords. Hasn't this been a solved problem for decades?
You can have a multiuser system but that doesn't solve this particular issue. If they log in to what you claim to be your primary account and see browser history that shows you went to msn.com 3 months ago, they aren't going to believe it's the primary account.
My browser history is cleared every time I close it.
It's actually annoying because every site wants to "remember" the browser information, and so I end up with hundreds of browsers "logged in". Or maybe my account was hacked and that's why there's hundreds of browsers logged in.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#210Little too late for 1000 people hacked by pegasus.