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

261–270 of 565 posts

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

#261

Post by ectospheno »

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…

Family albums work with lockdown mode. You can also disable web restrictions per app and website.

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

#262

Post by deno »

Gud wrote: post #178
billfor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android phones are multi-user, so if they can do it then Apple should be able to.

And how do you explain your 1TB phone that has 2GB of data, but only 700GB free?

The "fake" user/profile should work like a duress pin with addition of deniability. So as soon as you log in to the second profile all the space becomes free. Just by logging in you would delete the encryption key of the other profile. The actual metadata that show what is free or not were encrypted in the locked profile. Now gone.

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

#263

Post by snowwrestler »

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”…

“Plausible deniability” is a public relations concept. It doesn’t confer any actual legal protection.

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

#264

Post by afavour »

intrasight wrote: post #112
afavour wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is genuinely the current state of law, yes. There's no real logic at work, just attempts at clawing back control whenever a new gray area appears.

It is very logical, as revealing a password is considered testimonial and is protected by the fifth amendment.

Right, and pressing your finger on a fingerprint sensor is also revealing a password, just via different means.

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

#266

Post by ashdksnndck »

stouset wrote: post #127
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”…

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…

You think iPhones aren’t multi-user for technical reasons? You sure it’s not to sell more phones and iPads? Should we ask Tim “buy your mom an iPhone” Cook?

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

#267

Post by mbil »

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.

Reminder that you can press the iPhone power button five times to require passcode for the next unlock.

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

#268

Post by ashdksnndck »

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…

Doesn’t matter if the agent believes you. Only matters if the court jails you on a contempt charge.

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

#269

Post by macintux »

pc86 wrote: post #194
macintux wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fair bit of dispute about whether this is valid. The active criminalization of journalism is worrisome.

It's signed by a judge, it's valid. What is in dispute, exactly?

> The Justice Department failed to tell a magistrate judge about a 1980 law protecting journalists in its application materials for a warrant

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/us/politics/doj-press-law...

Previously:

> U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter wrote in his order that the government must preserve any materials seized during the raid and may not review them until the court authorizes it

https://san.com/cc/judge-blocks-fbis-access-to-washington-po...

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

#270

Post by vlovich123 »

stouset wrote: post #127
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”…

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…

iPhone and macOS are basically the same product technically. The reason iPhone is a single user product is UX decisions and business/product philosophy, not technical reasons.

While plausible deniability may be hard to develop, it’s not some particularly arcane thing. The primary reasons against it are the political balancing act Apple has to balance (remember San Bernardino and the trouble the US government tried to create for Apple?). Secondary reasons are cost to develop vs addressable market, but they did introduce Lockdown mode so it’s not unprecedented to improve the security for those particularly sensitive to such issues.

Post reply on HN