|
The FBI themselves said it would be precedent setting to use the AWA in such a sweeping manner. Especially considering the 5th Amendment implications of mandating that Apple writes new case-specific code versus requiring, say, records from a pen register that was already being maintained by a phone company. e: A federal court also disagrees with you. It's not cut and dry. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-prevails-in-forced-iphone-unlock-case-in-new-york-court/ DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Mar 29, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:07
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Isn't this all for new leads? It's not like the San Bernardino couple are on trial for murder. Now if the data from their phone points fingers at someone else and that's the only evidence the FBI can come up with then yes I would not trust that data but who would? Follow the leads up and build a case with more evidence. No, if you can't trust the data that 'fingers' new people then you can't trust the data found later that would implicate them. Sure you can come up with some sort of parallel reconstruction but I"m not sure that tactic has much life long term. quote:Still, it doesn't stop Apple from implementing new security features that are harder for themselves to break. Isn't that already the case? Couldn't Apple just use that defense in the shadow of precedent "we can't do it that way anymore because we've changed the way it works. It currently seems that this would be legal. The caveat is that it may only be fore new phones. Apple has signaled they have every intention of implementing a feature to prevent the OS or Secure Enclave from being updated (OTA or side loaded) without user intervention on an unlocked phone (something that is not required now, both the os and secure enclave can be updated by signed software via itunes without an unlocked phone. Which is what makes this current ask possible). Now, Imagine FBI had continued this course of action and the all writs act does apply. Then apply would of had to create software to unlock whatever vulnerable phone. If a software update could disable that vulnerability one could argue they are in contempt of court by trying to make it impossible to obey the court order. I.E losing a key to a safe you've been ordered to open. It's a stretch i'll give you, but consider the case where apple is ordered, secretly, to deliver a targeted OTA update to meet the FBI needs (be that with this brute force situation or something even more insidious), that alone could make it impossible for them to update ANY phone available to the general public to avoid a contempt order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
pigz posted:Now, Imagine FBI had continued this course of action and the all writs act does apply. Then apply would of had to create software to unlock whatever vulnerable phone. If a software update could disable that vulnerability one could argue they are in contempt of court by trying to make it impossible to obey the court order. I.E losing a key to a safe you've been ordered to open. It's a stretch i'll give you, but consider the case where apple is ordered, secretly, to deliver a targeted OTA update to meet the FBI needs (be that with this brute force situation or something even more insidious), that alone could make it impossible for them to update ANY phone available to the general public to avoid a contempt order. Yeah that's really the crux of it, I think. One of Apple's arguments was that that CALEA explicitly prevents the government from specifying feature design, and so the FBI couldn't use the All Writs Act to compel them to write software they wouldn't otherwise write.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is already a precedent dude. There has been one for over a decade. I'm not finding it, care to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not finding it, care to elaborate? Phone companies have routinely bent over backwards to comply, including Apple in the past, and Blackberry/RIM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Pre-existing pen register, etc. etc. =! "write us fresh code specifically for our search" Read the court decision I linked in my last post and see how this application of AWA is not settled precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
So is this a sort of milestone moment in disguise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Pre-existing pen register, etc. etc. =! "write us fresh code specifically for our search" It seems really ignorant of you to claim that Apple unlocking pretty much every phone cops gave them, or Blackberry straight up disabling their server network security for the likes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, is just a "pen register". Your court decision is completely and utterly irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It seems really ignorant of you to claim that Apple unlocking pretty much every phone cops gave them Can you give a concrete example of what steps Apple took, in response to what demands? Details matter here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Your court decision is completely and utterly irrelevant. Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Can you give a concrete example of what steps Apple took, in response to what demands? Details matter here. The FBI and various police agencies brought them phones, they unlocked them. Because it doesn't bear on the actual case, or existing precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
The precedent is that the government can only force you to do something using the AWA if it's easy. Previous requests were easy, this one wasn't. It's as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because it doesn't bear on the actual case, or existing precedent. Again, why doesn't bear on precedent? Use your words. Judge James Orenstein posted:But the concern about whether the AWA, as construed by the government, would confer on the judiciary an overbroad authority to override individual autonomy cannot be so easily avoided in this case. Nothing in the government's arguments suggests any principled limit on how far a court may go in requiring a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values to provide assistance to the government the court deems necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The FBI and various police agencies brought them phones, they unlocked them. Cite your sources on where you've come to the conclusion that Apple has "unlocked" them and then specify in what way and what was actually extracted. Hint, read page 9 because what you're going to say may be wrong: https://ssl.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf Lain Iwakura fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The FBI and various police agencies brought them phones, they unlocked them. What do you mean by "unlock"? It's not Apple's stated policy to unlock phones, but rather to perform limited data extraction, on older iOS versions, without unlocking. Their position is that they don't have the passcode and can't get it. It's a meaningful difference in terms of what can be done with the device. You're saying that Apple has unlocked phones, as they were being asked to do in this case, and I don't know of evidence that they have. Can you be more specific about your claim?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Again, why doesn't bear on precedent? Use your words. Corporations are people, my friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Corporations are people, my friend Agree unironically. Subjunctive posted:What do you mean by "unlock"? It's not Apple's stated policy to unlock phones, but rather to perform limited data extraction, on older iOS versions, without unlocking. Their position is that they don't have the passcode and can't get it. It's a meaningful difference in terms of what can be done with the device. Yep, fishmech keeps papering this over. This is exactly why that judge ruled for Apple in NY.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yep, fishmech keeps papering this over. This is exactly why that judge ruled for Apple in NY. This has been the problem with this whole issue for the past while. People will read something in the New York Times or Vice and assume they know how things work. What Fishmech is demonstrating is nothing new unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:This has been the problem with this whole issue for the past while. People will read something in the New York Times or Vice and assume they know how things work. What Fishmech is demonstrating is nothing new unfortunately. Fishmech is usually technically correct though so being completely wrong is in fact pretty new! Wait a second...   
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Why would the FBI even tell anyone they cracked it? Info is better to just sit on and use
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Fishmech is usually technically correct though so being completely wrong is in fact pretty new! Wait a second... Except in this case he is wrong because he's never bothered to read anything beyond what the news has said. From page 9, under section "I" of that document: quote:For iOS devices running iOS versions earlier than iOS 8.0, upon receipt of a valid search warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause, Apple can extract certain categories of active data from passcode locked iOS devices. Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. Apple can perform this data extraction process on iOS devices running iOS 4 through iOS 7. Please note the only categories of user generated active files that can be provided to law enforcement, pursuant to a valid search warrant, are: SMS, iMessage, MMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party app data. So from this we can determine: - iOS devices running versions earlier than 8.0 that are active--an iPhone 5s or later will by default be running iOS 8 or higher - Only data that isn't encrypted with the passcode can be extracted - It's limited to Apple-provided applications and does not include e-mail or calendar details as well anything third-party (so not WhatsApp) Nowhere does it mention that they can bypass the lock mechanism that Fishmech believes that Apple has bypassed for the FBI. All that Apple was able to do prior to this was just get at whatever wasn't being encrypted to disk and could only do so from their own facilities with a valid warrant. The Wikipedia article on this matter doesn't do a good job explaining this so I can understand Fishmech's confusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Why would the FBI even tell anyone they cracked it? It's pretty obvious either way, when they would have suddenly lost any interest in the phone for which they threw a public temper-tantrum in Federal court for a month. The tantrum would have tipped off anyone who had interacted with them anyway, not to mention the fact that they were involved in a terrorist attack. They already publicly acknowledged having an older iCloud backup, this was a work phone, and the FBI can still get third-party records for things like phone calls or emails (eg from Gmail). It's highly unlikely that there was anything of significance on the phone, this was an attempt to set precedent in a case the FBI considered to have advantageous optics. The fact that unlike their personal phones they didn't even bother destroying this phone speaks volumes - who would plot an attack on a device your employer can see everything on? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Oh fishmech, where art thou?  So a murder case in the boot-shaped state has people trying to get Apple to open up a victim's iPhone, whether through a compromised OS update or backdoor designed into future systems. But it's totally not a slippery slope you guys. Interesting to note is that whatever infiltration techniques the FBI's third party assistants used to get into the SB shooter's phone is almost totally confirmed to not work on more recent iPhones. That means they most likely used the "enter code, disconnect memory power real fast in case of failure" technique. That won't work on newer OSes, which count a new code entry attempt at the beginning of the code being entered instead of afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh fishmech, where art thou? While it's the victim's phone, this ultimately proves the point that we need to come to grips with either everyone's privacy and security will be compromised on every device they own, or we have to deal with the fact that crimes may go unsolved because we cannot access everyone's personal data at will. There really is no middle ground given current encryption/security technology, and the efforts of individuals, organizations, and nations to circumvent said technology. I really feel for that poor girl's family, but if she set up her phone to stop uploading to iCloud and nobody knows her password, then there isn't much I'd be comfortable with Apple doing. Frankly, from the article, it sounds like she was targeted - I'd like to know what other investigative steps the police have taken. If she was fighting/feuding with someone (boyfriend, coworker, whatever) then I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have confided in anyone at all about it. One thing I would like to see, if possible, is how often/under what circumstances a person's device can stop replicating to iCloud (or choose your service) unintentionally. If it can even be determined that the victim did NOT set her phone to stop uploading, how did it happen? And what can be done to prevent that from happening in the future?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
In all honesty, how dangerous is this new precedent? Enough for the FBI to start doing Project MKUltra level bullshit with innocent civilians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:In all honesty, how dangerous is this new precedent? Enough for the FBI to start doing Project MKUltra level bullshit with innocent civilians? Do you think phones can administer drugs if you hack them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Do you think phones can administer drugs if you hack them? Aural LSD intake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
This one mom found out this one weird ASMR trick the CIA didn't want you to know. Find out how!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:While it's the victim's phone, this ultimately proves the point that we need to come to grips with either everyone's privacy and security will be compromised on every device they own, or we have to deal with the fact that crimes may go unsolved because we cannot access everyone's personal data at will. There really is no middle ground given current encryption/security technology, and the efforts of individuals, organizations, and nations to circumvent said technology. Crime rates have been steadily dropping for decades, allowing intrusion into our personal lives for the sake of "safety" is bullshit. I'd understand if there was a huge influx of crimes and current efforts were ineffective because of the constraints introduced by security. But that just isn't reality. If anything we should be stepping up security and encryption, since the largest growing types of crimes are identity and computer related. It's sad that this girl is dead, but police have been doing "police work" for ages before smart phones were a thing. Maybe they should ask the friends and family, do some actual police work for once. The amount of crimes solved by police is laughably low, unless the police are there while it happens you're pretty much hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:It's sad that this girl is dead, but police have been doing "police work" for ages before smart phones were a thing. Maybe they should ask the friends and family, do some actual police work for once. The amount of crimes solved by police is laughably low, unless the police are there while it happens you're pretty much hosed. Plan A wasn't right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Crime rates have been steadily dropping for decades, allowing intrusion into our personal lives for the sake of "safety" is bullshit. I'd understand if there was a huge influx of crimes and current efforts were ineffective because of the constraints introduced by security. But that just isn't reality. If anything we should be stepping up security and encryption, since the largest growing types of crimes are identity and computer related. This I absolutely agree with. There will always be crime, and that will always be the case - we've done a reasonably good job thus far, but there is always work to be done. Keep strong encryption, and make it stronger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Reddit's warrant canary is dead and people noticed, so it seems it served its purpose. quote:A collection of message boards filled with notoriously vocal users, the pseudo-anonymous service on Thursday removed a line – a “warrant canary” – from its annual report on government data requests that said it had never received a secret request for user data under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or Fisa. I'm honestly surprised it took this long. Government really is behind the curve when it comes to the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
The canary has been dead for a long time, just now people are starting to complain about the smell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Reddit's warrant canary is dead and people noticed, so it seems it served its purpose. Served it's purpose how? What actions do reddit posters now take they wouldn't otherwise? Stop posting their plans in r/Jihad?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Served it's purpose how? What actions do reddit posters now take they wouldn't otherwise? Stop posting their plans in r/Jihad? Making a statement about ~internet freedom~
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Making a statement about ~internet freedom~ Well, I've gotten to explain what a warrant canary means, and why, if this weren't Reddit, it might be interesting news, so, uh... yeah, it has successfully allowed them to Make A Statement. I feel 99.995% as free as I did before I knew about the canary's regrettable demise. (The five-thousandths-of-a-percent less freedom is because I had to think about the existence of secret warrants for about fifteen minutes.) There is a microscopic chance that they might get charged with a crime for Making A Statement, in which case their Fearless Statement Making would contribute to setting legal precedent about warrant canaries, I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
WhatsApp announced today that everything over the service (chat, photo, voice, group conversations, etc) is encrypted end-to-end as long as all parties are using the latest version. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Really interesting article on how the transition away from using cash on a day to day basis (for most people) might be a bad thing for individual privacy: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/cashless-society/477411/ It's a little different from most of what's been discussed in this thread, but it's absolutely true. I remember Operation Choke Point (and wonder if it's still ongoing), and was always skeptical of just how much my own bank would protect my information from scrutiny without being presented a warrant. And I'm not even a vendor! Personal anecdote - last year I went to Germany to visit a friend. A lot of Germany is very cash oriented and you surveillance cameras aren't nearly as ubiquitous (especially public ones) there, for some simple reason: Too many Germans still remember the Stasi, the East German secret police. Those guys were incredibly invasive into peoples' lives, some reports have numbers as high as 80% of East German citizens informing at one point or another on family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. It's changing, but there is still a very real awareness of just how far it can go, especially among those from east of the wall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
I know it sounds stupid, but I only use cash to buy books...especially on subversive topics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 02:58
|
|