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

71–80 of 565 posts

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

#71

Post by pc86 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #38

Every time something like this happens I assume it is a covert marketing campaign. If the government wants to get in they’re going to get in. They can also hold you in contempt until you do. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing that law enforcement cant easily access this on their own. Just feels like the government is working with Apple here to help move some phones.

"Government propaganda to help one of the richest companies in the history of the world sell 0.000000001% more phones this quarter" is quite frankly just idiotic.

You only said half the sentence anyway. The full sentence is: "If the government wants to get in they're going to get in, unless they want to utilize the courts in any way, in which case they have to do things the right way."

If this reporter was a terrorist in Yemen they would have just hacked her phone and/or blown up her apartment. Or even if they simply wanted to knock off her source they probably could have hacked it or gotten the information in some other illicit fashion. But that's not what is happening here.

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

#72

Post by Brian_K_White »

whynotminot wrote: post #50
pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious. Terrorist has plans and contacts on laptop/phone. Society has a very reasonable interest in that information. But of course there is the rational counter argument of “the government designates who is a terrorist”, and the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation endangering rule of law. So all of us are adults…

This means there are no valid concerns.

There are just things some people want and the reasons they want them.

So the question that you are so annoyed by remains unanswered (by you anyway), and so, valid, to all of us adults.

@hypfer gives a valid concern, but it's based on a different facet of lockdown. The concern is not that the rest of us should be able to break into your phone for our safety, it's the opposite, that you are not the final authority of your own property, and must simply trust Apple and the entire rest of society via our ability to compel Apple, not to break into your phone or it's backup.

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

#74

Post by pc86 »

shaky-carrousel wrote: post #34
pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Corrupt government officials gunning down inconvenient people.

I'd love to hear what you think that has to do with this?

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

#76

Post by pc86 »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #54
pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some platforms will side-load anything the telecom carrier sends. It is naive to assume iOS can be trusted much more than Android. =3

Let's assume for the sake of argument you're making a valid point. What does that have to do with my question?

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

#77

Post by whynotminot »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #70
whynotminot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious. Terrorist has plans and contacts on laptop/phone. Society has a very reasonable interest in that information. But of course there is the rational counter argument of “the government designates who is a terrorist”, and the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation endangering rule of law. So all of us are adults…

The better rational counter argument is that "privacy is a human right enshrined in international law". Society has zero business knowing anyone's private communications, whether or not that person is a terrorist. There is nothing natural about being unable to talk to people privately without your speech being recorded for millions of people to view forever. Moreover, giving society absolute access to private communi…

Who decided absolute privacy in all circumstances is a fundamental human right? I don’t think any government endorses that position. I don’t know what international law you speak of. You’re basing your argument on an axiom that I don’t think everyone would agree with.

This sounds like a Tim Cook aphorism (right before he hands the iCloud keys to the CCP) — not anything with any real legal basis.

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

#78

Post by digiown »

theragra wrote: post #58

[flagged]

> full-drive encryption

Note that these are not crackable only if you have a strong password (random one will work). Unlike on phones, there is nothing slowing down brute force attempts, only the comparatively much weaker PBKDFs if you use a password. You want at least about 64 bits of entropy, and you should never use that password anywhere else, since they would basically run "strings" on your stuff to attempt the brute force.

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

#79

Post by hypfer »

whynotminot wrote: post #50
pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious. Terrorist has plans and contacts on laptop/phone. Society has a very reasonable interest in that information. But of course there is the rational counter argument of “the government designates who is a terrorist”, and the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation endangering rule of law. So all of us are adults…

> I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious.

Yeah after seeing the additional comments, my gut also says "sea lion".

Truly a shame

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

#80

Post by rob »

coldpie wrote: post #59
Jensson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People probably didn't see the other post, but both posts are several paragraphs and posted the same minute. No human would do that. Its also a new account that only posted these two posts.

Good spot, thanks for pointing it out. I normally don't like the LLM accusation posts, but two posts from a brand new user in the same minute is a pretty huge red flag for bad behavior. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46886472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46886470

This is another bot I pointed out yesterday:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Soerensen

Their comment got flagged, but looks like they made a new one today and is still active.

That account ('Soerensen') was created in 2024 and dormant until it made a bunch of detailed comments in the past 24-48 hrs. Some of them are multiple paragraph comments posted within 1 minute of each other.

One thing I've noticed is that they seem to be getting posted from old/inactive/never used accounts. Are they buying them? Creating a bunch and waiting months/years before posting?

Either way, both look like they're fooling people here. And getting better at staying under the radar until they slip up in little ways like this.

Post reply on HN