Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80

Thread: iPhone encryption - John McAfee can break it, or he'll eat his shoe on TV

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,096
    So same question again. Can't they just get a warrant calling for Apple to use the encryption they know to access the data on the actual phone? That way the FBI gets the terrorist data and nobody else finds out the encryption? Or are we dealing with some kind of chain of evidence issue, where the FBI has to retain possession of the phone for legal reasons?

  2. #22
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    8,697
    The court would shoot that down. And that's not what the FBI wants.

    The FBI wants to set the precedent that, if a judge will sign the warrant, Apple is willing and able to "unlock" one of their phones so that the FBI can search it for the data inside. They have done this by using a very special case:

    1) It involves a highly publicized case of homegrown terrorism, arguably one of the scariest thing to the American people
    2) The device in question, while secure, is not nearly as secure as the devices that have come after it, or the ones that are being developed.

    So not only is Apple able to hack the phone in question (in a way that the FBI has detailed, including providing provisions so that the hack as requested will only work on this one particular phone), but public sentiment would default to being in their favor because it's a matter of grave national security, not just some suspected pot dealer.

    However, once their is a ruling in the book's showing that, upon receipt of a warrant from the FBI for data on an encrypted phone, Apple has developed software to unlock that phone, every law enforcement organization in the country is going to use that as precedent. No matter how good the encryption is on iPhones going forward, Apple will be forced to develop backdoor software so that government agencies can get access to it, because they have done it before. And once an encryption backdoor is developed for one person, it's only a matter of time before it gets out there and everyone that wants it can get it.

    Which is fine with law enforcement agencies. They don't want anyone's info to be encrypted, except their own. The only privacy that matters is their own.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,096
    I don't necessarily see it that way. And TBH surely a court should be able to consider every case on a case-by-case basis. So I wouldn't expect them to issue a warrant in the case of a suspected pot dealer but in the case of a definite terrorist (which is what we're talking about here) then they would. Hell after Boston they did random house searches of innocent people, here we're talking about a terrorist's iPhone.

    That said, I watched Deutschland 83 and things were much simpler back then, we banned the shipment of western electronics to the Soviet Union.
    Last edited by LHutton; February 25th, 2016 at 08:55 AM.

  4. #24
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    8,697
    Quote Originally Posted by LHutton View Post
    ISo I wouldn't expect them to issue a warrant in the case of a suspected pot dealer but in the case of a definite terrorist
    What about an indefinite terrorist? What about someone the FBI is SURE is a terrorist, they just need what's on the phone to prove it? What about someone the FBI is SURE is doing SOMETHING and they just need the phone to figure out what?

    That's for a judge to decide, but at some point is an avenue for abuse. And even if it isn't abused, you're telling someone making the toughest safe in the world that they have to leave a keyhole for the FBI to get in to, just in case. Guess what the hacking community will be putting out ransoms to crack.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,171
    Yeah - if the system exists to beat encryption, it will be leaked. Or sold. And then the whole thing is worthless.

  6. #26
    Junior Potato
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9,600
    It's… just too hard for the cops (not just FBI, but all levels) to do the job with the extensive laws they already have at their disposal.

    So they lobby like crazy to change the rules.

    It's like saying it's too hard to prove that string theory works so why don't we just change the way science works to allow some scientists to apply string theory to everything? How convenient!

    As far as I know it's pretty well proven that these people killed members of the public. That's murder. It's already illegal.

    Now they have to try and find proof of terrorism? Isn't that begging the question? Are they now embarrassed that the myriad surveillance and anti-terrorism laws that have been introduced in the west since 2001 haven't worked?

  7. #27
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    8,697
    They're trying to find proof that they were contacting and planning with a terrorist organization, so they can track and go after said terrorist organization.

    Now, considering these people had multiple other phones, all of which they burned while leaving this iPhone unharmed, it's unlikely that they would have left one phone intact with evidence against a co-conspirator while destroying the others, but it's possible, and the FBI is using that possibility.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Kchrpm View Post
    What about an indefinite terrorist? What about someone the FBI is SURE is a terrorist, they just need what's on the phone to prove it? What about someone the FBI is SURE is doing SOMETHING and they just need the phone to figure out what?

    That's for a judge to decide, but at some point is an avenue for abuse. And even if it isn't abused, you're telling someone making the toughest safe in the world that they have to leave a keyhole for the FBI to get in to, just in case. Guess what the hacking community will be putting out ransoms to crack.
    Surely it's not a problem if the hack stays with Apple employees who already know how to make the back door anyway. No extra vulnerability has been created and no exploit is with anyone who didn't already know. If the keyhole wasn't effectively already there, it simply wouldn't be possible to make one but the truth is, the people who made it know how to put it there, with or without this FBI request.

    I'm as reluctant as you to concede privacy, but then I don't use a mobile for that very reason. I don't like the idea of a precedent being set to allow hacking on the basis of suspicion, and this precedent should therefore only apply to proven terrorists and potentially murders and serious organised criminals too.
    Last edited by LHutton; February 27th, 2016 at 07:01 AM.

  9. #29
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    8,697
    Quote Originally Posted by LHutton View Post
    Surely it's not a problem if the hack stays with Apple employees who already know how to make the back door anyway.
    That's not how that works. If a back door is left, obvious or not, people will find it. If there is a weakness, someone will exploit it. That's how hacking works; and with people saving their credit cards on phones, and using them as their work phones, with access to sensitive information and emails, the interest in hacking phones is only going to get larger.
    Get that weak shit off my track

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,096
    Hang on, I'm not getting this right. The hack is on one phone only, or maybe 2 if they both had one. No back door is being left out on some cloud right? The data is then removed and sent to the FBI for examination. I'm not seeing how this back door becomes any more public than it is right now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •