241–246 of 246 posts
Essentially you can just automate the backup/restore of the eMMC flash storage and brute force the PIN. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Apple are quite good with privacy. Unlike Microsoft, for example, Apple's operating systems have encryption on by default.
They removed their warrant canary. That's a giant red flag if there ever was one. Cooperation w/ governments negates encryption, no matter how good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This discussion is a bit confused. There are plenty of "valid" subpoenas or search warrants which are squashed after being opposed in court. I'm not sure if the other commenters really believe that no company should ever oppose a search warrant, or if they think "valid" search warrants can't be opposed, or what. But opposing an over-broad or otherwise screwed up "valid" subpoena or search warrant is a necessary part…
Correct. That's what I was trying to deduce, the difference between a valid warrant (eg, a warrant following CALEA for communications data stored on a third party server), and a warrant that is currently being argued as invalid (eg, a warrant for Apple to create software that allows some party to brute force a PIN without restriction). Sure, it would be nice for Apple to oppose even "valid" warrants for iCloud data b…
I agree that the second case - court order to create new software - is a lot more obvious and clear, and deserves opposition in court.
The reason I'm being so pedantic is that it's important to disagree with the notion that corporations should roll over in any situation that involves claims of terrorism. Lots of people think that, but it throws away an important part of our legal system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The XIV amendment says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which sounds like all people should have the same protection from unlawful searches ... as I'm a conditional law novice can someone briefly outline why this doesn't stand, what removed the protections for "all peopl…
The 14th amendment is not relevant to actions taken by the FBI. It's an arm of the federal government, and the 14th amendment serves mostly to clarify that state governments (in addition to the federal government) must refrain from violating rights granted to US citizens through the constitution. However, the FBI must abide by the 4th amendment, which specifies that warrants are needed for searches. The issue of whet…
If the 4th requires warrants and the 14th requires state to treat all people as having equal protection under the law in their jurisdiction I don't see where the FBI can go [legally speaking] to do warrantless search of foreign nationals.
In short, how then can a State allow the FBI to operate within its jurisdiction in a way that doesn't provide all people equal legal protections. The State would have to prevent the FBI from operating?
Thanks for any further insights.
I just want to point out that lots of HN recently has been saying "Apple would NEVER deal with the FBI, there's too much risk of a leak!".. and yet, with the example of what happened to Manning, Snowden (ETC) -- would you, with a 6 figure salary, want to tell the world of misdeeds when you could toil away comfortably? "So obvious no one will ever notice" Apple removed their warrant canary about a year ago timed with…
What? Apple are quite good with privacy. Unlike Microsoft, for example, Apple's operating systems have encryption on by default.
The warrant canary! The warrant canary! It vanished. We really don't know what they're up to now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Apple are quite good with privacy. Unlike Microsoft, for example, Apple's operating systems have encryption on by default.
They removed their warrant canary. That's a giant red flag if there ever was one. Cooperation w/ governments negates encryption, no matter how good.
If you didn't build it, you can't trust it.