Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 417 posts

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#291

Post by solidsnack9000 »

wellyeah wrote: post #7
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were clear and transparent -- like public -- procedures -- by which the FBI could get into an iPhone, it might be alright. Say that if they broke into the iPhone it was indelibly marked -- it flipped a flag in the hardware and there was no way to disguise it, and the OS would broadcast it over the web and over BlueTooth and WiFi, making it easy to provide tools that caught the message and published it. Then…

No, it's not alright. I'm sick of giving up freedoms every time some violent psycho/group of psychos decided to commit more violence.

Let's all remember this post when it comes to vote for one of those Democrats who wants to take our guns away.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#292

Post by solidsnack9000 »

tathougies wrote: post #19
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were clear and transparent -- like public -- procedures -- by which the FBI could get into an iPhone, it might be alright. Say that if they broke into the iPhone it was indelibly marked -- it flipped a flag in the hardware and there was no way to disguise it, and the OS would broadcast it over the web and over BlueTooth and WiFi, making it easy to provide tools that caught the message and published it. Then…

No thanks. I live in america and the fifth amendment means I am never under obligation to incriminate myself.

But a simple counter-amendment could fix that, just like with the 2nd Amendment.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#293

Post by randallsquared »

coldtea wrote: post #230
ufmace wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ban are you referring to? I've yet to see any evidence that any such ban has reduced violent crime in any way.

It doesn't have to decrease "violent crime", it's enough that it reduces violent murders (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc).

> (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc)

I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are not crime. Of course, they certainly are crime.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#294

Post by ineedasername »

harimau777 wrote: post #206
ineedasername wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had an assault weapons ban before, related shootings declined, and millions of people did not become criminals overnight.

The old "Assault Weapons Ban" grandfathered in existing guns. Since AR-15s and similar rifles are so much more common now its possible that re-instating the ban wouldn't help as much without also implementing a gun buyback. That could in turn be very expensive. Not necessarily insurmountable, but potentially a significant obstacle.

That just means it will take longer for the full effects to kick in. The gun lobby puts out tons of arguments that amount to "your proposed solution isn't perfect so it shouldn't be done."

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#295

Post by ineedasername »

ufmace wrote: post #210
ineedasername wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had an assault weapons ban before, related shootings declined, and millions of people did not become criminals overnight.

Which ban are you referring to? I've yet to see any evidence that any such ban has reduced violent crime in any way.

Doesn't take much to find it. You're only a search away. You can't claim to be knowledgeable in the least on this subject if you haven't become across it, even if just to find some of its criticisms .

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#296

Post by dillonmckay »

weberc2 wrote: post #123
bredren wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t just detective work, it is personnel with the skills to identify and pursue likely evidence. Digital forensics is way outside typical leo training and believe it or not you can make a lot more money in the private sector with IT training. Local, state and federal case loads get backlogged behind, leaving the highest priority cases to get staffed.

What stops LEO from contracting with a digital forensic company or consultancy?

Thompson Reuters provides ICE with information for immigration enforcement.

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#297

Post by randallsquared »

coldtea wrote: post #283
vageli wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they still wont comply after one year, mass incarceration is an option. Alternatively people could be executed on sight. Surely this is in jest?

It will be only slightly bloodier than current mass shootings, and not upon innocent (but on people breaking the law by having guns) at that!

You want to convert a tragedy into a statistic?

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#298

Post by cronix »

otakucode wrote: post #257
pdkl95 wrote: post #49

> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…

And it's crystal clear and obvious in this case that it doesn't matter. The man shot a bunch of people, and was subsequently killed to stop his slaughter. There is no doubt to his guilt. There is no case to build. While the public may wish to know more about the shooters motives, that's not something the public or any law enforcement agency needs to keep people safe.

Yes, there was lots on his Twitter feed and other social accounts before they shut them down immediately after discovering he was an Antifa supporter, praised the attempted bombing of the ICE facility last month, and talked about supporting Warren/Sanders a lot. There's more than enough evidence out there, just a lot has been hidden because he doesn't fit their Alt-Right narrative they keep pressing. You don't need his phone. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dayton-shooter-warren/

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#299

Post by dillonmckay »

SpaethCo wrote: post #276
opencl wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to completely defeat the point of it being end to end encrypted in the first place.

True, but these days you can disable iCloud backups without giving up all that much. (it also re-keys Messages in iCloud when you turn off backups) Keychain, messages, and health data are all E2E encrypted and synced to iCloud. By not doing iCloud backups, you're basically only giving up backups of app icon placement, home/lock screen background images, app data that isn't otherwise synced via iCloud or the app's ded…

How much longer will iTunes be around?

Re: FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone

#300

Post by thirstywhimbrel »

01100011 wrote: post #63

We (HN commenters) all know that the demonization of encryption is bullshit. What we need to do is to figure out how to communicate that effectively to the public.

I think there are different counters that will resonate for different people:

You can oppose banning/weakening encryption because you believe encryption is an irreplaceable tool for security.

You can oppose banning encryption because you believe that would actually be an ineffective tactic for preventing crime.

You can oppose banning encryption because you believe such bans violate inherent civil liberties.

There's another one that's really hard for me to explain -- You can oppose banning encryption because you've read Shannon or have a general sense of how RC4 worked and it feels just gross to ban basic operations, like shuffling information in a particular way. It's a bit like banning addition, or like banning pig latin.

I hear rebuttals and debates around the first three, but I don't think there's an effective rebuttal to the last one, which is just a paradigm shift. It's like, "I don't support this because I do not understand information the way you do."

Maybe we should print copies of "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" and leave them in hotel rooms, like the Gideons do with Bibles.

Post reply on HN