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

261–270 of 381 posts

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

#261

Post by roel_v »

imh wrote: post #162
nickff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.

That seems like a massive failing of our legal system when one party "refusing to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence" can lead to bad legal precedents. Money should be irrelevant to it, especially because most parties can't afford to spend that money. But back in reality, you're absolutely right :(

Please describe a plausible construct how your proposed concept could work.

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

#262

Post by roel_v »

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.

" assuming good opsec"

Big assumption right thurr. Besides, "good" won't cut it - you'd need "perfect even under adversarial circumstances". Good luck with that.

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

#263

Post by chii »

ww520 wrote: post #138
geggam wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lost interest in a speeding ticket case.... guess what happened ?

It's a valid argument.

Criminal cases are not precedent based are they? This whole thread is about civil suits.

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

#264

Post by Retra »

woodman wrote: post #207
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…

> It's not trivial to defeat strong encryption, but it is doable given sufficient interest. That is as wrong as saying that, given enough effort, you can make 1 + 1 = 3. Cryptography deals with unimaginably large numbers, to the point that for some algorithms and keylengths an exhaustive bruteforce attack would require more energy than exists in the universe.

You don't do brute force. And any information you already know about the message can theoretically help you decipher it. In fact, there is no such thing as unbreakable encryption, even if you disallow brute force methods.

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

#265

Post by lultimouomo »

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

Could, but won't. Government won't ever try. People are saying - right or wrong - that they will try again to enforce backdoors.

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

#266

Post by StanislavPetrov »

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…

>Well, welcome to life in a democracy.

If there has ever been a time to illustrate that our country is an oligarchy and not a Democracy, this has been the year. There is a non-zero chance that even in our rigged, broken system that the candidates that are recognized in one or both parties will be ones that received less voter support and were chosen by the wealthy.

>We have to be prepared to fight the crypto wars forever, like unions are still fighting the labor wars a century later.

Just like the war against CISPA, which was lost to attrition.

>We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that

What does the Constitution matter at all? Our system of checks and balances is beyond broken - its gone. Not to be disrespectful, but anyone who thinks that the Constitution is recognized by the government is delusional or worse. The 1st, 4th, 6th, and 9th amendments have been rendered basically moot by recent government action and court inaction. The truth is that you can't have a functioning democracy without the informed consent of the governed. When the majority of the population lacks the capacity to generate informed consent and those in power work actively to suppress that capacity you end up with the authoritarian oligarchy that we have today.

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

#267

Post by kamjam »

enraged_camel wrote: post #199
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…

>>they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old iPhone with an old version of iOS - they will just hear or read that an iPhone was cracked) And? What makes you think most consumers will care that the government cracked an iPhone?

Exactly. At _best_ most people will just say "well, it's the government, _of course_ they can crack it". If it was some 15 year old kid in his bedroom, then that's a different matter...

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

#268

Post by woodman »

Retra wrote: post #264
woodman wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not trivial to defeat strong encryption, but it is doable given sufficient interest. That is as wrong as saying that, given enough effort, you can make 1 + 1 = 3. Cryptography deals with unimaginably large numbers, to the point that for some algorithms and keylengths an exhaustive bruteforce attack would require more energy than exists in the universe.

You don't do brute force. And any information you already know about the message can theoretically help you decipher it. In fact, there is no such thing as unbreakable encryption, even if you disallow brute force methods.

One time pad using a TRNG - impossible to break, even in the case of chosen plaintext attacks. Now you could argue that having a key as long as the plaintext is impractical, but if that is your concern then let me direct your attention back to my original point. There is a big difference between what is mathematically possible and what is possible within the constraints of thermodynamics.

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

#269

Post by studentrob »

ocfx wrote: post #193
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…

States arguably also inhibited the path to gay marriage as well. You can't really know that one for sure.

Maybe, but it would not have stuck if passed unilaterally. When we collectively decided to legalize gay marriage, it was very clear there was a majority in favor. This came about by pockets of the government trying it out first.

You're overlooking the fact that people and politicians need time to grow and hone their skills. Without states, without giving them some ability to be corrupt, there is no testing ground. Politicians at the national level would not be experienced negotiators because the first step in being a politician would be joining the federal government. And I don't think forcing gay marriage on the US would've been a good idea any sooner even if we'd had a sufficiently progressive president and congress. I have deep sympathy for all the people who had to wait so long for society to officially accept them, but I think even they can respect that we might not be as strong of a unified society if gay marriage had become legal in, say, the 80s, rather than today. A unilateral decision by a president and majority congress could have set the issue back even further.

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

#270

Post by studentrob »

mdpopescu wrote: post #251
studentrob wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? There's plenty of time to undo the actions of the past 10, 20, even 30 years. If you sit back on your heels, throw your arms up in the air, don't vote and say nothing, then you won't be participating in democracy. But if you do use your voice and vote then at least you…

Personally, I don't believe that "at least you can say you tried" is morally superior to not participating in a rigged game.

I did not say anything about morals. I'm not superior to you. I'm just stating my opinion. Choose to do as you wish. If you choose to not participate in the formation of this government, you are free to continue living in the US or live elsewhere. You could even try to start a revolution though I wouldn't recommend it. It is entirely up to you.
Post reply on HN