|
Trabisnikof posted:Only the FBI argues the tool would be immune from the public record. It seems from the non-FBI sources I've read that if this phone was ever actually criminal evidence then it would be open to defense lawyers demanding inspection of the tool. Yeah, that's the real rub, if the FBI really does mean to let Apple handle it on their own and only share the compromised phone, any evidence obtained from it won't be allowed in a court by a good defense attorney making the whole thing moot if you're looking to actually prosecute people.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Pervis posted:Then you are 100% behind not getting intel from those countries through consumer devices or services. Nobody cared as much previously but once the actual details were out it was obvious that the NSA/CIA were not content with what they were getting through normal legal means and decided to get it all. There's no reason the top internet and phone companies will be in this country in the future, and we don't need to give countries reasons to put up protectionist measures. This poo poo is a valid reason. This is an entirely reasonable argument and I have now moved from "lukewarm" to "moderately opposed for reasons of counterproductiveness".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
19 o'clock posted:Wasn't this link posted earlier in the thread? http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 I've got a secret for you: the model of iPhone they're dealing with here isn't really a secure platform, and the older phones were even worse. The later and current phones are kind of ok as of right now for security, but they're probably going to have stuff come up in time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Remember how Cruz ratfucked Carson in Iowa with robocalling saying he was going to drop out? He is doing it to Rubio in South Carolina
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Remember how Cruz ratfucked Carson in Iowa with robocalling saying he was going to drop out? I can't wait till he tries this on Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Remember how Cruz ratfucked Carson in Iowa with robocalling saying he was going to drop out? He's had Spanish speaking robo calls claiming to be from Rubio talking about amnesty. Cruz is a nixonion slimeball. Trump is a shithead but he's very forthright. Cruz is a snake in the grass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I've got a secret for you: the model of iPhone they're dealing with here isn't really a secure platform, and the older phones were even worse. The later and current phones are kind of ok as of right now for security, but they're probably going to have stuff come up in time. Apparently secure enough to warrant vendor help. That's kind of the whole point here is that precedent shouldn't be set allowing the government the ability to compel a manufacturer to do something like this. That's probably not even half of the argument considering the massive outlay of resources and transparency needed to bring Apple's help into the legal sphere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Is there a good reason Clinton/Sanders aren't campaigning for the public option? I feel like it's the most realistic way towards single-payer healthcare without completing upsetting the current system immediately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
19 o'clock posted:Apparently secure enough to warrant vendor help. That's kind of the whole point here is that precedent shouldn't be set allowing the government the ability to compel a manufacturer to do something like this. That's probably not even half of the argument considering the massive outlay of resources and transparency needed to bring Apple's help into the legal sphere. The government is asking Apple to take advantage of a known vulnerability in the "security" design of that phone. It's such a known vulnerability that it's been fixed in later models of iPhones, in fact. Truth be told, they could probably get the NSA to use their existing exploits against it, but I doubt that'd be kosher if they wanted to use any evidence in court. I get that uneducated consumers just assume that if they say it's secure it's secure. But the reality is that it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:Is there a good reason Clinton/Sanders aren't campaigning for the public option? I feel like it's the most realistic way towards single-payer healthcare without completing upsetting the current system immediately. Healthcare has rotated back to "a major plank but not the primary focus of the election". The primary focus for 2016 seems to be income inequality, of which healthcare is one aspect but not the major one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The government is asking Apple to take advantage of a known vulnerability in the "security" design of that phone. It's such a known vulnerability that it's been fixed in later models of iPhones, in fact. Truth be told, they could probably get the NSA to use their existing exploits against it, but I doubt that'd be kosher if they wanted to use any evidence in court. Actually they could use any method they want and it would be just fine in court because no ones rights are being violated and the owner of the phone consents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:Is there a good reason Clinton/Sanders aren't campaigning for the public option? I feel like it's the most realistic way towards single-payer healthcare without completing upsetting the current system immediately. Sanders isn't because he wants single payer and it's pretty stupid to tell people you may soon be negotiating with "but I'd also be ok with this weaker thing too I guess". Hillary isn't because she thinks making tweaks to Obamacare is good enough. Make of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Actually they could use any method they want and it would be just fine in court because no ones rights are being violated and the owner of the phone consents. But then you have to admit you have such a capability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Actually they could use any method they want and it would be just fine in court because no ones rights are being violated and the owner of the phone consents. You have to show that the contents of the phone were unmodified and have a proper chain of custody.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Hillary isn't because she thinks making tweaks to Obamacare is good enough. Make of that what you will. Maybe not "good enough" but "the only possible positive change barring massive gains in congress."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Remember how Cruz ratfucked Carson in Iowa with robocalling saying he was going to drop out? I gotta say, as much as I hate Cruz, I do enjoy him helping drag the GOP discourse down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:Is there a good reason Clinton/Sanders aren't campaigning for the public option? I feel like it's the most realistic way towards single-payer healthcare without completing upsetting the current system immediately. Clinton is focusing on expanding Medicaid under the ACA on a state by state basis. Thats basically a public option for low income people. If your state accepted the Medicaid expansion you aren't seeing it because it's not an issue where you are. This isn't something she can do through the presidency so she is doing it basically as a side project, her campaign in states that refused the expansion are distributing information and her events there call on people to force their state government to accept the expansion. She is also reaching out to state level legislators and governors to help build state level coalitions to push the issue. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/01/19/hillary-clinton-echoes-house-democrats-call-to-expand-medicaid-in-georgia/ quote:
http://m.cjonline.com/news/2016-01-11/ray-merrick-response-hillary-clintons-call-kansas-expand-medicaid-hillary-who#gsc.tab=0 quote:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article37388307.html quote:
http://nondoc.com/2015/12/12/hillary-clinton-calls-for-medicaid-expansion-at-tulsa-rally/ quote:
When Medicaid first passed it took 17 years before all 50 states opted into the program. I think Arizona was the last hold out but I may be misremembering. People in jackass states had to organize and push to get it through, but they did then and they will now. Journey of a thousand miles and all that. It's not a public option for everyone, it's just for the people who need it most. Like that Simpsons quote, "that's the trouble with being middle class, anyone who really cares will leave you for someone who needs them more". I so want a public option for me, but if that isn't politically feasible then hell yeah fight for people in worse straights than me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You have to show that the contents of the phone were unmodified and have a proper chain of custody. There's already been a problem with the phone when the San Bernardino people changed the passcode. Using a different method to get the contents isn't really that big of a deal. They're specifically doing this because they finally have a good test case to use as precedent to force future manufacturers to take similar action. This isn't something that needs to be done for a current case as the guilty party here is dead. There is no pressing issue or matter or problems with an evidentiary chain because the phone isn't part of any criminal case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The government is asking Apple to take advantage of a known vulnerability in the "security" design of that phone. It's such a known vulnerability that it's been fixed in later models of iPhones, in fact. Truth be told, they could probably get the NSA to use their existing exploits against it, but I doubt that'd be kosher if they wanted to use any evidence in court. This just continues on the path for a technological arms race between people and the government. It's sort of like when we laugh at guns rights people ignoring they're not going to stop poo poo against tanks and bombs, but basic security does not directly kill people. I know the legal precedent supports it, but I honestly think that a right to privacy should be considered stronger than "well you didn't try to keep it a secret hard enough because you're not a paranoid tech guy, so, sorry." Eh, it's a moot point considering how much people are just willing to give up to private companies like Apple, who have a conflict of interest in keeping that information truly secure because they want to use it for their own means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Maybe not "good enough" but "the only possible positive change barring massive gains in congress." Doubtful. When you're dealing with people going 100% against an idea there's no more room for more percentage if the idea is different or the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I gotta say, as much as I hate Cruz, I do enjoy him helping drag the GOP discourse down. Eh, Karl Rove was push polling people suggesting McCain had an illegitimate black child back in 2000, and races have had mudslinging since Washington said "uh, don't do this, guys" and we said "nope, gently caress these guys".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I gotta say, as much as I hate Cruz, I do enjoy him helping drag the GOP discourse down. http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/46742...ontent=20160220 quote:A superPAC supporting Ted Cruz is hitting Donald Trump in South Carolina radio ads and robo calls for his support of the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the State Capitol grounds quote:It's not about tolerance anymore. It's about mandatory celebration. It's about forcing people to bake cakes and forcing people to photograph gay weddings. Forcing clergy to officiate. It's about transgender bathrooms in your child's school. It's about tearing down our Judeo-Christian values. It's about tearing down our America. Open the bloodgates 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
foobardog posted:This just continues on the path for a technological arms race between people and the government. No it doesn't. Security is inherently an arms race of everyone against everyone. If Apple hadn't fixed the vulnerability in question here on their later phones, it wouldn't just be the FBI that could take advantage of it, it's everyone who might want your data. foobardog posted:
There is no right to privacy on work equipment, broheim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No it doesn't. Security is inherently an arms race of everyone against everyone. If Apple hadn't fixed the vulnerability in question here on their later phones, it wouldn't just be the FBI that could take advantage of it, it's everyone who might want your data. I understand it's the nature of the security beast, but it's not something the government should be encouraging in an adversarial way! The fact it's a work phone is orthogonal to me. I just don't agree that companies should have a duty to work around their own security without a more compelling state interest than I currently see. It's kind of tricky because we are reaching a weird combination between Apple's right to trade secrets and the user's right to privacy of their own data. I guess it's not unlike phone tapping or pen registers, or a safe deposit box at the bank, but it's prevalent in a way I think is new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
foobardog posted:I understand it's the nature of the security beast, but it's not something the government should be encouraging in an adversarial way! They're not encouraging it, it simply already is. They're not being asked to work around their own security, they're being asked to work around their own already known lack of security here. Apple has already made it clear in public vulnerability listings that this group of their phones can have their functionality to wipe the keys and thus make it impossible to recover the data invalidated by a software update. If you want privacy of your data so that Apple can't violate it, then don't trust Apple to hide your data on your Apple phone - use another app, or even multiple apps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
I suppose I'm not worried about this phone in this case. The phone itself is government property and the user is dead. I'm worried about a legal precedent where a court order can successfully compel a company to utilize trade secrets transparently in a public arena. I would feel better about this if Apple wasn't being asked to do the work. If it is insecure then we shouldn't have to go after the company itself to perform the work, no? Isn't the point that it's inherently insecure moot if you need the actual manufacturer to perform the work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
19 o'clock posted:I suppose I'm not worried about this phone in this case. The phone itself is government property and the user is dead. I'm worried about a legal precedent where a court order can successfully compel a company to utilize trade secrets transparently in a public arena. That already exists. RIM/Blackberry has done it multiple times in the past. 19 o'clock posted:I would feel better about this if Apple wasn't being asked to do the work. If it is insecure then we shouldn't have to go after the company itself to perform the work, no? Isn't the point that it's inherently insecure moot if you need the actual manufacturer to perform the work? They don't "need" Apple to do it. The NSA could surely do it for them, there's no way they don't have the expertise. They just would really prefer Apple does the work, because that would be much quicker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That already exists. RIM/Blackberry has done it multiple times in the past. It's happened before and it'll be easier for the FBI are never compelling arguments for weakening limitations on searches and seizures. In fact, that's almost always true. Different right, but being arrested without getting mirandized definitely happened before, and made it easier for the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
foobardog posted:It's happened before and it'll be easier for the FBI are never compelling arguments for weakening limitations on searches and seizures. In fact, that's almost always true. Different right, but being arrested without getting mirandized definitely happened before, and made it easier for the state. This is not weakening limitations on searches and seizures. So I don't see why doing that being bad is relevant, considering as it ain't happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is not weakening limitations on searches and seizures. So I don't see why doing that being bad is relevant, considering as it ain't happening. Maybe it's not weakening because the war on drugs and the war on terror already did, but if you don't understand why the FBI compelling companies to let them into security holes on their behalf should have a higher bar than being shown here, you don't really get the point of civil liberties like these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The other thing to note is that since not everyone can afford the latest phone, depending on these while shrugging it off as "well too bad your phone is old" is the exact case of higher impact of the justice system being placed on the poor!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Maybe it's not weakening because the war on drugs and the war on terror already did, but if you don't understand why the FBI compelling companies to let them into security holes on their behalf should have a higher bar than being shown here, you don't really get the point of civil liberties like these. This has already been done in the past, continuing to do it isn't weakening anything. You don't seem to get that the doomsday scenario you are worried about already occurred a decade plus ago. Companies can be compelled to help with known vulnerabilities. This is long standing precedent. foobardog posted:The other thing to note is that since not everyone can afford the latest phone, depending on these while shrugging it off as "well too bad your phone is old" is the exact case of higher impact of the justice system being placed on the poor! Yes, all those poor people with iPhones that are actually owned by a government entity, who therefore have the power to demand access regardless of if the person who carries it around wants the police to have access. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This has already been done in the past, continuing to do it isn't weakening anything. Oh my loving God, do you understand how someone can recognize current precedent but also think that's it's wrong and harmful to society? It's kind of part and parcel of being a progressive or otherwise seeking change in society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I don't get it, if the phones are already extremely insecure to the point of this precedent being pointless to establish, why demand it of Apple in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yes, all those poor people with iPhones that are actually owned by a government entity, who therefore have the power to demand access regardless of if the person who carries it around wants the police to have access. The fact it's a government phone doesn't loving matter, because they're not asking the government to break the phone, they're asking Apple, which extends the impact to many other iPhone users.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Oh my loving God, do you understand how someone can recognize current precedent but also think that's it's wrong and harmful to society? Do you "loving" realize that there is nothing Apple can do against the current precedent? You're really naive here dude. foobardog posted:The fact it's a government phone doesn't loving matter, because they're not asking the government to break the phone, they're asking Apple, which extends the impact to many other iPhone users. This does not "extend the impact" to other iPhone users. Epic High Five posted:I don't get it, if the phones are already extremely insecure to the point of this precedent being pointless to establish, why demand it of Apple in the first place? The government prefers to have the phone company or software provider do it if possible, because they don't want to have to do it themselves. fishmech fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There's already been a problem with the phone when the San Bernardino people changed the passcode. Using a different method to get the contents isn't really that big of a deal. They're specifically doing this because they finally have a good test case to use as precedent to force future manufacturers to take similar action. This isn't something that needs to be done for a current case as the guilty party here is dead. There is no pressing issue or matter or problems with an evidentiary chain because the phone isn't part of any criminal case. It's not new precedent
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I don't get it, if the phones are already extremely insecure to the point of this precedent being pointless to establish, why demand it of Apple in the first place? It's a situation similar to the nonathletic kid on the playground eschewing physical feats with, "I could do that...if I wanted to." I'm a big fan of having the government do this themselves if it's a trivial matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Do you loving realize that there is nothing Apple can do against the current precedent? Apple is doing what they can do without going Galt. They will lose, but that doesn't mean justice has been served. Or that we should stay the course. The idea that the a request to replace the firmware so the FBI can brute force the pin should be honored does mean it covers other iPhone users because it'll definitely be asked if them again. And if it was a CEO demanding it of a worker they fear is union organizing, then it'd be OK? gently caress no, Apple would be in their rights to tell them to gently caress off. But when the government gets involved the bar is even higher. Anyway, gently caress the feds free Cascadia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
foobardog posted:Apple is doing what they can do without going Galt. They will lose, but that doesn't mean justice has been served. Or that we should stay the course. The idea that the a request to replace the firmware so the FBI can brute force the pin should be honored does mean it covers other iPhone users because it'll definitely be asked if them again. Apple is doing what they can, which is loving nothing. What you aren't getting is that the FBI is already fully entitled to ask for all of this because of standing precedent, it's considered well within the limits of the 4th amendment et al. Yeah guess what buddy? The person who owns a phone does get to demand access to it. That's why when I was a union organizer, we specifically advised people in places that weren't union yet to never do union business on business-owned phones. Cascadia is an inherently white supremacist project, so uh, glad to hear you support that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 22:43
|
|