241–250 of 381 posts
From here, what's stopping the FBI from claiming they found X, Y, and Z on the phone, and further claiming they were all important pieces of evidence, that could possibly have prevented the attack, etc., etc., when they really didn't? Then, use that to bolster their arguments against encryption and privacy?
What means will keep them honest about what they did or did not find?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. [0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/…
Reducing the discussion to a dictionary definition is emblematic of many of the problems in today's political discourse. This pithy, literal definition of a term is not relevant, especially when that same term, in the same context, is discussed at length, in light of various philosophies on the matter, in the Federalist Papers. I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the u…
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…
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'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…
If a well-funded superpac would systematically and indefinitely try every legal exploit to re-enact slavery you'd be grinning each attempt because "democracy"? ....
The idea that our form of government allows us the freedom to resist predatory laws is inspiring, the necessity to fight that fight... over and over again... is the best representation that true freedom is delicate.
To protect that freedom we need to hold critical thinking above all else to guard ourselves against the faux intellectualism of statements like yours.
So, the US DOJ has in hand an exploit which allows them to access protected data on an iPhone, access that Apple and the phone's designers clearly did not intend to be allowed. Ethical behavior would have the US DOJ describe the exploit to Apple immediately so that the flaw in the system can be repaired. Publishing the exploit in publicly available documents would speed Apple's efforts to repair the fault.
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…
Really? If a well-funded superpac would systematically and indefinitely try every legal exploit to re-enact slavery you'd be grinning each attempt because "democracy"? .... The idea that our form of government allows us the freedom to resist predatory laws is inspiring, the necessity to fight that fight... over and over again... is the best representation that true freedom is delicate. To protect that freedom we need…
If everyone in the US strongly valued privacy, then our government would have to behave very differently. The US government's lack of respect for personal privacy merely reflects the apathy towards the issue held by the American voting public.
I agree with the parent, that if we want progress, there is no easy path. The only long term solution is to educate the voting public as to the value of privacy. Anything else is just a band-aid.