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

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#211

Post by cookiecaper »

marvin wrote: post #93
cookiecaper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden had the element of surprise. They weren't actively trying to monitor his comms because they didn't know he was a risk until after the leaks. If the state wants to decrypt your messages badly enough, they have resources that they can devote to that (as well as multiple side channels that are probably easier than forcibly decrypting, including the infamous "beat with a wrench" trick). It's not trivial to defeat…

Is there any evidence that any actor in the world is (in general) capable of figuring out the contents of e.g. an AES-encrypted message with the key unknown, assuming good opsec and a good implementation? I agree with your statement that state-level actors have strong capabilities, but this seems like a blanket statement which is likely untrue.

I know it's not worth anything, but I used to work with an ex-NSA cryptographer (whom I personally knew in meatspace and yes, actually had worked at the NSA) who claimed that they could create purpose-built machines to factor out keys and read the contents of encrypted messages. The target would have to be high-value as this was a costly exercise. He may have been yanking our chain, but for what it's worth, that's what he would claim. He didn't specify which individual ciphers this applied to.

However, there are so many ways to circumvent encryption that it seems that there aren't a lot of cases where a hard decryption of a previously-coded message would really be required (the target can often be compelled or tricked into giving up his keys, a plaintext version may be intercepted at some point, etc.).

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#212

Post by mchahn »

noelsusman wrote: post #201
panarky wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more…

The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 200…

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible.

The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#213

Post by [deleted] »

teacup50 wrote: post #126
Johnny555 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the DoJ stopped fighting. If the DoJ ultimately won the case, then it's fair that Apple should have to pay their legal costs. But since using a 200 year old law to force Apple to do work they don't want to do was a legal stretch, if the DoJ lost the case then again I'd say the DoJ should pay Apple's legal costs.

The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment. Please stop parroting "200 year old law".

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#214

Post by delecti »

Someone wrote: post #109
downandout wrote: post #15

I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…

As to the possible lying, English isn't my native tongue, but I found the use of the phrase "without compromising any information on the phone" in this statement: “Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” Eileen Decker, the U.S. attorney in Los Angele…

If you did a complete wipe and reset of the phone, you could unlock it but the data would all be gone. Obviously that's not a very useful outcome for them, but it's still "unlocking" the phone.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#215

Post by aaronharnly »

syshax wrote: post #110
snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

>We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. Actually, I think this is the genius of the amendment system. You are correct that it could happen. But unlike laws that can be passed or revoked by Congress by political whim, the barrier to creating or overturning Constitutional amendments is much higher and more difficult to pass.

There's a famous story about the logician Kurt Gödel related to this.[1] In preparation for the US citizenship test, despite assurances from his friends Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern that the test was a mere formality, he studied assiduously all sorts of details about local and national government, including the US Constitution.

He quite excitedly told Einstein and Morgenstern that he had found a weakness in the Constitution that would allow the US to become a dictatorship. They were horrified and tried to tell him not to bring up such ideas at the hearing, but the judge happened to note that it was a good thing that in the US, unlike Gödel's native Austria, we were not a dictatorship -- which prompted Gödel to begin explaining his discovery...[2]

Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to write down what Gödel's idea was! But it has been speculated[3] that it is this: that the Article V provision for constitutional amendments does not exclude that provision itself from amendment -- so it is possible to first pass an amendment making it easier to pass amendments, after which it could be a short trip to dictatorship under the right conditions.

Fanciful, but a fascinating story. Picturing Gödel, Einstein, and Morgenstern hanging out and being playful with each other is a treat.

[1] http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com

[2] https://d78508e2-a-97b1dc77-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/jeffr...

[3] http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=42406910501309506...

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#216

Post by nkurz »

studentrob wrote: post #190
rayiner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your examples are all pretty disingenuous. > A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only min…

> Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. I was with you until this part. States gave us a path to gay marriage, and allow people to move to different areas that hold different values than the whole nation. I'd suggest trying instant runoff voting before moving to something as drastic as abolishing states. I think IRV would allow people to express their votes and opi…

I think 'rayiner' might just have meant "it would be preferable that the President be elected by popular vote of the entire nation without regard to state boundaries". While it's possible he was suggesting that the States themselves should be abolished, I think it's just awkward phrasing.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#217

Post by ArkyBeagle »

fsck--off wrote: post #196
rayiner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your examples are all pretty disingenuous. > A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only min…

Why is the 2000 election a disingenuous example? Bush lost the overall popular vote and it is almost certain that a majority of people tried to vote for Gore in Florida.

An electoral college winner losing the overall popular vote has happened much more than once. Florida was more or less a coin flip that landed on its edge and stayed that way.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#218

Post by ArkyBeagle »

jMyles wrote: post #161
dpark wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.

It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."

Democracy is a term which refers to both republics and plebiscites. The word you are looking for is "plebescite". Plebescite is widely believed to have been problematic in ancient Greece, which is why it's relatively rare.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#219

Post by phamilton »

mchahn wrote: post #212
noelsusman wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 200…

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

The people whose jobs are to determine that say otherwise.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#220

Post by rayiner »

nkurz wrote: post #216
studentrob wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. I was with you until this part. States gave us a path to gay marriage, and allow people to move to different areas that hold different values than the whole nation. I'd suggest trying instant runoff voting before moving to something as drastic as abolishing states. I think IRV would allow people to express their votes and opi…

I think 'rayiner' might just have meant "it would be preferable that the President be elected by popular vote of the entire nation without regard to state boundaries". While it's possible he was suggesting that the States themselves should be abolished, I think it's just awkward phrasing.

Nope, I think we should get rid of the states and turn them into administrative districts of the federal government. The state governments are hotbeds of corruption, ruled by minority interests because state elections have low voter turnout, and add an enormous administrative tax to pretty much every economic or legal transaction that happens in the U.S.
Post reply on HN