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

301–310 of 565 posts

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

#301

Post by achierius »

vlovich123 wrote: post #270
stouset wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> iPhone and macOS are basically the same product technically

This seems hard to justify. They share a lot of code yes, but many many things are different (meaningfully so, from the perspective of both app developers and users)

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

#302

Post by reactordev »

pc86 wrote: post #23
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Serious question: What are the "valid concerns" about people securing their computing devices against third parties?

Pegasus.

Jedi.

SKyWIper.

Rogue Actors.

Rogue thief’s.

Rogue governments.

Your spouse.

Separating corporate IT from personal IT.

There’s plenty of reasons.

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

#303

Post by fogzen »

mbil wrote: post #267
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.

In case anyone is wondering: In newer versions of MacOS, the user must log out to require a password. Locking screen no longer requires password if Touch ID is enabled.

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

#304

Post by GeekyBear »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #172
hypfer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This (I think) refers not to the people securing their devices against third parties but the vendors "securing" the devices against loss of profits. Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner. ___ _Ideally_ you wouldn't need to…

We don't know if they did the right thing here. With a previous case it seemed (to me) like Apple might have pushed an update to give access ... they presumably could do that, remotely copy all the data, then return the device to the former state. One can't know, and this sort of thing seems entirely tenable. FBI don't have to tell anyone they accessed the device. That maintains Apples outward appearance of security;…

> With a previous case it seemed (to me) like Apple might have pushed an update to give access

You're going to have to provide a cite here, since Apple has publicity stated that they have not and will not ever do this on behalf of any nation state.

For instance, Apple's public statement when the FBI ordered them to do so:

https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

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

#305

Post by aschobel »

AdamN wrote: post #280
stronglikedan wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a strong statement. Also imho it's important that we use Signal for normal stuff like discussing where to get coffee tomorrow - no need for disappearing messages there.

I'm weird, i even have disappearing messages for my coffee chats. It's kind of refreshing not having any history.

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

#306

Post by PlatoIsADisease »

mandeepj wrote: post #2

For now! They’ll get something from open market like the last time when Apple refused to decrypt (or unlock?) a phone for them.

Yeah this is low stakes stuff, Pegasus historically breaks Apple phones easy. Bezos's nudes and Khashoggi knows. (not really Khashoggi is dead)

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

#307

Post by bradley13 »

boston_clone wrote: post #27
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Both of your comments here, posted just one minute apart yet with completely different content, reek of LLM output.

So what, if the content is good?

Also, some of us draft our comments offline, and then paste them in. Maybe he drafted two comments?

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

#308

Post by altairprime »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #247
QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably enabled it at some point and forgot. Perhaps even during setup when the computer was new.

I want to say that is generous of her, but one thing that is weird is if I didn’t want someone to go into my laptop and they tried to force me to use my fingerprint to unlock it, I definitely wouldn’t use the finger I use to unlock it on the first try. Hopefully, Apple locks it out and forces a password if you use the wrong finger “accidentally” a couple of times.

Correct. That’s why my Touch ID isn’t configured to use the obvious finger.

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

#309

Post by quesera »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #290
quesera wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. iOS has well-known poorly documented zero-click exploits PoC || GTFO, to use the vernacular. If you're talking about historical bugs, don't forget the update adoption curves.

No one will hand over the several $1m 0-day as PoC for free, as there are grey-market products based on the same tired exploits. "Not My Circus, Not My Monkeys" as they say. =3

My understanding is that there is current consensus that active iOS 0days are not likely to be available at the LE level.

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

#310

Post by nickff »

jampekka wrote: post #292
nickff wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which countries actually grant reporters immunity from having to reveal information related to criminal investigations (where others would be compelled to, and without criminal penalties)? Such immunity may be desirable (at least in some circumstances), but I am not aware of any jurisdiction that actually grants it.

At least in Finland there's a specific law about journalistic source protection (lähdesuoja) explicitly saying journalists have the right to not reveal sources. In serious crime cases in some circumstances a court may order a journalist to reveal sources. But it's extremely rare and journalists don't comply even if ordered. https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A4hdesuoja Edit: the source protection has actually probabl…

Thanks for the info & link! After some searching, I found this rather interesting study on source protection in many (international) jurisdictions, and it calls out Finland, though other countries have interesting approaches as well: https://canadianmedialawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/...
Post reply on HN