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

251–260 of 565 posts

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

#251

Post by wackget »

nova22033 wrote: post #236

Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password. https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20 The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.

Link which doesn't directly support website owned by unscrupulous trillionaire: https://xcancel.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20

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

#252

Post by whynotminot »

handedness wrote: post #226
whynotminot wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's not what I said. My point was that your stated assumption of what the norms are is inaccurate. If nearly every modern administration does it, that is literally the norm. The present administration, like many before it, is following the norm. The norm is the broader issue. Which makes the rest of it (and your followup) come across as needlessly tribal, as both major parties are consistently guilty of tendin…

Frankly I really don’t care about both sides-ism anymore. I can agree with you that a lot of administrations have been irresponsible on this point while also believing that the current administration is particularly dangerous in this area.

If I lose you here because of “needless tribalism” oh well.

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

#253

Post by stronglikedan »

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.

If people don't have Signal set to delete sensitive messages quickly, then they may as well just be texting.

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

#254

Post by NewsaHackO »

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.

Yea, I also would want to question the conclusions in the article. Was the issue that they couldn't unlock the iPhone, or that they had no reason to pursue the thread? To my understanding, the Apple ecosystem means that everything is synced together. If they already got into her laptop, wouldn't all of the iMessages, call history, and iCloud material already be synced there? What would be the gain of going after the phone, other than to make the case slightly more watertight?

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

#255

Post by palmotea »

davidwritesbugs wrote: post #248
palmotea wrote: post #168

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. Besides the technical challenges, I think there's a pretty killer human challenge: it's going to be really hard for the user to create an alternate account that looks real to someone who's paying attention. Su…

Background agent in the decoy identity that periodically browses the web, retrieves email from a banal account etc.?

> Background agent in the decoy identity that periodically browses the web, retrieves email from a banal account etc.?

No. Think about it for a second: you're a journalist being investigated to find your sources, and your phone says you mainly check sports scores and send innocuous emails to "grandma" in LLM-speak? It's not going to fool someone who's actually thinking.

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

#256

Post by pluralmonad »

skeptic_ai wrote: post #100
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

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”…

I always wondered if this was the feature of TrueCrypt that made it such a big target. LUKS is fine, I guess, but TrueCrypt felt like actual secrecy.

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

#257

Post by edm0nd »

ratg13 wrote: post #225
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truecrypt had that a decade+ ago.

Not sure if you know the history behind it, but look up Paul Le Roux Also would recommend the book called The Mastermind by Evan Ratliff

imo Paul Le Roux has nothing to do with TrueCrypt

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

#258

Post by patrickmay »

nova22033 wrote: post #236

Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password. https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20 The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.

Is the knowledge of which finger to use protected as much as a passcode? Law enforcement might have the authority to physically hold the owner's finger to the device, but it seems that the owner has the right to refuse to disclose which finger is the right one. If law enforcement doesn't guess correctly in a few tries, the device could lock itself and require the passcode.

Another reason to use my dog's nose instead of a fingerprint.

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

#259

Post by fluoridation »

palmotea wrote: post #168
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”…

> 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. Besides the technical challenges, I think there's a pretty killer human challenge: it's going to be really hard for the user to create an alternate account that looks real to someone who's paying attention. Su…

But at that point it turns from "the person refused to unlock the device" to "we think the person has unlocked the device into a fake account".

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

#260

Post by Terretta »

TheDong wrote: post #250

I find it so frustrating that Lockdown Mode is so all-or-nothing. I want some of the lockdown stuff (No facetime and message attachments from strangers, no link previews, no device connections), but like half of the other ones I don't want. Why can't I just toggle an iMessage setting for "no link preview, no attachments", or a general setting for "no automatic device connection to untrusted computers while locked"? W…

The profiles language may be confusing -- what you can't do is change them while in Lockdown mode.
Post reply on HN