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

FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 565 posts

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#211

Post by lostlogin »

Zak wrote: post #171
stackghost wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting about the Constitution-Free Zone within 100 miles of all points of entry including international airports that covers essentially all of the 48.

This is a misunderstanding. That's the area in which the border patrol has jurisdiction to can conduct very limited searches of vehicles and operate checkpoints without individualized suspicion in order to enforce immigration law. It does not allow searches of electronic devices. There is a separate border search exception at the point a person actually enters the country which does allow searches of electronic devic…

With ICE on the prowl, I’d have thought ‘Constitution Free Zone’ a fitting description of how they operate.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#212

Post by reaperducer »

greesil wrote: post #199
stouset wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely every aspect of it? What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fractio…

Android has work profiles, so that could be done in Android. iPhone still does not.

Android has work profiles

Never ever use your personal phone for work things, and vice versa. It's bad for you and bad for the company you work for in dozens of ways.

Even when I owned my own company, I had separate phones. There's just too much legal liability and chances for things to go wrong when you do that. I'm surprised any company with more than five employees would even allow it.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#213

Post by pbhjpbhj »

nxobject wrote: post #146

Sadly, they still got to her Signal on her Desktop – her sources might still be compromised. It's sadly inherent to desktop applications, but I'm sad that a lot more people don't know that Signal for Desktop is much, much less secure against adversaries with your laptop.

Did she have Bitlocker or FileVault or other disk encryption that was breeched? (Or they took the system booted as TLAs seek to do?)

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#214

Post by whynotminot »

handedness wrote: post #188
whynotminot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious. Terrorist has plans and contacts on laptop/phone. Society has a very reasonable interest in that information. But of course there is the rational counter argument of “the government designates who is a terrorist”, and the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation endangering rule of law. So all of us are adults…

> ...the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation... One would have to hold a fairly uninformed view of history to think the norms around that designation are anything but invasive. The list since FDR is utterly extensive.

I didn’t say he was the first to abuse powers. Indeed it’s kind of silly to even have to clarify “but other administrations…” because that’s fairly obvious to anyone old enough to have seen more than one president.

But the article is literally referencing the Trump administration seizing a reporter’s phone so the current administration’s overreach seems relevant here.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#215

Post by ExoticPearTree »

hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> It's a real world example of how these security features aren't just for "paranoid people" but serve a legit purpose for people who handle sensitive info.

Because they're in the US things might be easier from a legal standpoint for the journalist, but they also have precedent on forcing journalist to expose their sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

In other parts of the world this applies https://xkcd.com/538/ when you don't provide the means to access your phone to the authorities.

It just depends on how much a government wants the data that is stored there.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#216

Post by [deleted] »

frogcommander wrote: post #150
skeptic_ai wrote: post #100

Earlier 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”…

Why are you on a website for programmers and software developers if you arent a software developer and you know nothing of the subject?

[deleted]

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#217

Post by rtkwe »

benterix wrote: post #48
bawolff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I don't get it, touching finger is easy, but how do you compel someone to reveal their password?

Put them in jail until they do or charge them with whatever the local flavor for "obstruction" is. In places where they're allowed by law to require you to give up a password not doing so when the proper steps are taken would usually be it's own crime, usually phrased as some sort of "obstruction" charge with it's own sentence. And that's just places where the law and citizen rights are a meaningful concept in restraining state power.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#218

Post by operator-name »

tsol wrote: post #197
giraffe_lady wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be a parallel construction type thing. They already have access but they need to document a legal action by which they could have acquired it so it doesn't get thrown out of court. I think this is pretty unlikely here but it's within the realm of possibility.

Seems like it would be hard to fake. The was she tells it she put her finger on the pad and the OS unlocked the account. Sounds very difficult to do

I think they mean if they already have her fingerprint from somewhere else, and a secret backdoor into the laptop. Then they could login, setup biometrics and pretend they had first access when she unlocked it. All without revealing their backdoor.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#220

Post by lm28469 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #164
lm28469 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in the fantasy world of constitution maximalists. In real world it doesn't work like that and you might still lose money/time/your sanity fighting a system who cares less and less about your rights

Do you think this is for fighting parking tickets? It is for journalists to not reveal their sources, whom might be at risk of severe consequences including death. That's a whole lot more to loose than your money and time.

That's not what we're discussing here, you can't just say "I plead the fifth" and walk away if the people in charge decided you wouldn't walk away, no matter what's right or "legal"

Francis Rawls stayed 4 years in jail despite pleading the fifth all day long

Post reply on HN