Apple is shite

[Wage Slave]

Besides, the goverment has a new friend that'll do the job for free.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mca ... ree-2016-2

I am shocked. I always thought weed was fairly harmless but here is graphic evidence of the damage that can be done to a brain by long term use of high quality marijuana. Sad.

[Samurai_Jerk]

If the police catch a criminal and the dude refuses to give them access to his locked up phone, I'm pretty sure they'll handle it like a search warrant and he can end up going to jail over refusing to allow access to it. No need to be able to break into that shit at whim.

Two problems with what you said. In this case the one who knows the password is dead. In the US you are protected from being forced to give up your password by the Fifth Amendment in some cases.

Dead...in which case a case against them is pretty pointless. (and it can eventually be hacked if the right people are allowed access to it)

As to the 5th amendment, that is a really odd stance to take, especially on company phones...but I can't imagine that type of ruling happening everywhere and it doesn't really prevent authorities from hacking into your device either.

There could be intelligence on the phone implicating other people though I doubt it as these two seemed to be ISIS-inspired nuts rather than members of a terrorist cell or the like. Better to make sure though.

You're missing some important details. They could crack it with a computer generating random passwords and trying each one without too much time or trouble. The problem is iPhones will wipe themselves clean after too many unsuccessful attempts.

The 5th Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this case. You were talking in general about forcing people to give up their passwords so I was explaining what courts have decided so far. As I understand it authorities can only force you to give up your password or encryption key if they are looking for something specific they already know exists. They can't if they just want to see if there's anything incriminating on your device.

[Samurai_Jerk]

By the way, if you're wondering how they could know there's incriminating evidence on your computer if it's encrypted, here's a case.

On 17 December 2006, the laptop computer of defendant Sebastien D. Boucher (born in 1978)[2][3] was inspected when he crossed the border from Canada into the USA at Derby Line, Vermont. The laptop was powered-up when the border was crossed, which allowed its contents to be browsed. Images containing child pornography were allegedly seen by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) border agents who seized the laptop, questioned Boucher and then arrested him on a complaint charging him with transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1). The laptop was subsequently powered-down. When the laptop was switched on and booted on 29 December 2006, it was not possible to access its entire storage capability. This was because the laptop had been protected by PGP Disk encryption.[4] As a result, investigators working for the US government were unable to view the contents of drive "Z:", which allegedly contained the illegal content. A grand jury then subpoenaed the defendant to provide the password to the encryption key protecting the data.

Fucking Canadiens.

[matsuki]

I just turned on my phone and realized....don't the new iphones have fingerprint unlock as a feature? The OEM backdoor is a bad idea, no matter how you look at it, but fingerprint unlock on the phone is something that won't leave you exposed to hacks and works even if the person is dead. (unless their fingers get vaporized)

Yeah, I'm just saying that a cell phone is full of all kinds of data and if you're being investigated for something as serious as murder, I think specific evidence is a weird hurdle to have to jump through to get the phone unlocked. Before everything was digital, these would be on papers or other physical items at a residence, safe or whatever. Being digital shouldn't give your data/communication records more legal protection. That being said, what's to stop them from making a false claim to get it unlocked....and then using whatever else they find on the phone against you?

[Samurai_Jerk]

I guess the theory is that by making you say the password or give up the encryption key yourself, it's self incrimination rather than authorities breaking down your door or cracking your safe. However, the issue hasn't been definitely decided by the courts yet. Also, smartphones have been given special status by SCOTUS already.

The Supreme Court brought the constitutional right of personal privacy into the digital era Wednesday, ruling unanimously that police may not search a smartphone or similar device without a warrant from a judge.

The decision is the court’s most sweeping and surprising criminal law opinion in years, and it is likely to put a significant check on the government’s ability to routinely search other types of electronic devices, including laptops and tablets. Some parts of the opinion even cast doubt on the legality of the National Security Agency’s routine collection of millions of phone records.

“By recognizing that the digital revolution has transformed our expectations of privacy, today’s decision is itself revolutionary,” said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We have entered a new world. But our old values still apply and limit the government’s ability to rummage through intimate details of our private lives.”

Two years ago, in the court’s first direct ruling on new types of electronic search devices, the justices unanimously banned the FBI from attaching a GPS device to a car to track the daily travels of a suspected drug dealer. But the justices were divided among themselves and did not issue a single clear opinion.

On Wednesday, however, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. spoke for a unified court and said that because digital devices have transformed how people live, they must also transform the law on privacy.

“Modern cellphones are not just another technological device,” he said. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’”

“The term ‘cell phone’ is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers,” he continued. “They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers.”

Roberts said such devices can reveal “the sum of an individual’s private life [when] reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeled with dates, locations and descriptions.”

[Wage Slave]

His was a 5C I believe so it needs a PIN. I had problems with a 5C recently - The screen failed/got broken and the only way to recover the data for the owner was to replace the screen. Do Co Mo's insurance only covered a replacement phone so unless you paid an extortionate amount for their repair or could do it yourself, your data was lost. I noticed on ifixit that Apple have kindly added a security chip to the screen for the iphone 6, so a 3rd party replacement screen will cause the phone to brick. Nice. And a pure co-incidence that it all swells Apple's coffers I'm sure.

Just what data is a normal user carrying around with them that requires this level of protection?

[Samurai_Jerk]

I just remembered that we had an issue at my company with an employee who was fired recently and refused to tell us the password to his company iPhone which my boss wanted to check since he was in sales. Apple told us they had no way of accessing the phone.

[Coligny]

I just turned on my phone and realized....don't the new iphones have fingerprint unlock as a feature? The OEM backdoor is a bad idea, no matter how you look at it, but fingerprint unlock on the phone is something that won't leave you exposed to hacks and works even if the person is dead. (unless their fingers get vaporized)

ok... so even Pocahontas realized that biometric security is worth less than a cat wet turd...

[legion]

The whole point of encryption is it can't be cracked and last time I checked that wasn't illegal in the US.

No, the whole point of encryption is it can't be cracked by anyone over 14. Some kid is going to suss a way to set the access count back to one each time and then run the numbers. Count Zero.

Criminals use phones, sometimes the law will need to know what is on that phone, if Apple don't have the key they are dumber than dumb.

I think Cook is playing a PR game to distract the discussion from Apple's lack of foresight.

Your privacy is protected by law, not encryption.

[wagyl]

Your privacy is protected by law

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*breathe!!!!*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*breathe!!!!*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*cough* *splutter*

The law sets out penalties for those caught abusing your privacy if they leave enough evidence at the scene. This is after your privacy has been scattered to the four winds, and the damage is done.

This is a very, very different thing to protection.

[legion]

I just turned on my phone and realized....don't the new iphones have fingerprint unlock as a feature? The OEM backdoor is a bad idea, no matter how you look at it, but fingerprint unlock on the phone is something that won't leave you exposed to hacks and works even if the person is dead. (unless their fingers get vaporized)

Yeah, I'm just saying that a cell phone is full of all kinds of data and if you're being investigated for something as serious as murder, I think specific evidence is a weird hurdle to have to jump through to get the phone unlocked. Before everything was digital, these would be on papers or other physical items at a residence, safe or whatever. Being digital shouldn't give your data/communication records more legal protection. That being said, what's to stop them from making a false claim to get it unlocked....and then using whatever else they find on the phone against you?

You can change a password, you can't change your fingerprints. I've seen video of people hacking fingerprint scanners using prints of prints.

As I understand fingerprint tech it is not an image of your print but a set of numbers which represent the whirls on your finger. I wouldn't be too confident that some 14 year old isn't going to find a way to use the numbers, not the finger.

It does seem that Apple & their digital fanbois are claiming that a phone is more sacred than a dead tree notebook. The reason for this is they are greedy to own every aspect of people's lives, they want you to do your banking on their phone, so it needs fail safe security. They have backed themselves into a corner and are trying to blag their way out as champions of privacy.

[legion]

Your privacy is protected by law

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*breathe!!!!*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*breathe!!!!*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*cough* *splutter*

The law sets out penalties for those caught abusing your privacy if they leave enough evidence at the scene. This is after your privacy has been scattered to the four winds, and the damage is done.

This is a very, very different thing to protection.

Then surely you will fully support the FBI fulfilling their duty to use the process of law to track down and convict those that abuse your privacy.

I believe the FBI do a great deal of work apprehending fraudsters.

[wagyl]

One forensic scientist and reverse engineer's opinion about what is likely to be found on that iPhone: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5655

[legion]

Fuck you and that emotional illogical woman legion (Won't somebody think of the children!!!). The government is essentially trying to conscript Apple to do its bidding. Like Coligny said if Apple is lying, they're fucked. And they should be. However, if they really don't have a way to unlock the phone, they shouldn't be forced to try to come up with new technology to do so.

Again, this isn't about the right to privacy of this criminal. If that were so, Apple would have an easy out in this case. I'm pretty sure the county who owns the phone would have no problem with Apple unlocking it. This is about the government's dislike of encryption technology that they don't control.

I thought a macho man like you would admire the government for its manly stance on this.

Read back what you wrote there, are you using the term "illogical woman" as some kind of abuse? Lie back on the couch a little and I will help you with your anger issues.

You are alone, and lonely, you feel the world is against you, the feds are spying on you, the walls are closing in ........... you wish you were on a nature reserve with a large semi naked man with a big gun and an even bigger moustache.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sq-g-UXuMk

[wagyl]

Your privacy is protected by law

The law sets out penalties for those caught abusing your privacy if they leave enough evidence at the scene. This is after your privacy has been scattered to the four winds, and the damage is done.

This is a very, very different thing to protection.

Then surely you will fully support the FBI fulfilling their duty to use the process of law to track down and convict those that abuse your privacy.

I believe the FBI do a great deal of work apprehending fraudsters.

1. Surely not. I am not satisfied with people being convicted after my privacy has been violated. To be clear, I do not want to give them another means to violate it.

2. Can they start with tracking down and convicting the NSA?

[legion]

1. Surely not. I am not satisfied with people being convicted after my privacy has been violated. To be clear, I do not want to give them another means to violate it.

2. Can they start with tracking down and convicting the NSA?

So you would rather they pre-convicted, Minority Report style?

[legion]

One forensic scientist and reverse engineer's opinion about what is likely to be found on that iPhone: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5655

Problem with logical reasoning is it assumes you are reasoning about logical people. The guy murdered innocent unarmed civilians because the sky fairy told him to. Probably not the most level headed logical thinker.

[matsuki]

1. Surely not. I am not satisfied with people being convicted after my privacy has been violated. To be clear, I do not want to give them another means to violate it.

2. Can they start with tracking down and convicting the NSA?

So you would rather they pre-convicted, Minority Report style?

No, he's saying not to give them a gaping goatse sized backdoor to exploit in the first place. (though wags has already outsmarted them by not adopting a smartphone) Protect your own ass, by the time the law gets involved, it's already too late.

[wagyl]

One forensic scientist and reverse engineer's opinion about what is likely to be found on that iPhone: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5655

Problem with logical reasoning is it assumes you are reasoning about logical people. The guy murdered innocent unarmed civilians because the sky fairy told him to. Probably not the most level headed logical thinker.

If this is the case, then his phone will be full of illogical rambles, and entirely useless.

Much like this thread.

From the blog I linked to earlier, other reasons why this is a bad idea tl:dr -- any tool Apple develops to solve this issue will need to be released to the defence in any trial that results, so that they can have their experts verify that it operates correctly. Et voila! It is out in the open.

[legion]

One forensic scientist and reverse engineer's opinion about what is likely to be found on that iPhone: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5655

Problem with logical reasoning is it assumes you are reasoning about logical people. The guy murdered innocent unarmed civilians because the sky fairy told him to. Probably not the most level headed logical thinker.

If this is the case, then his phone will be full of illogical rambles, and entirely useless.

Much like this thread.

From the blog I linked to earlier, other reasons why this is a bad idea tl:dr -- any tool Apple develops to solve this issue will need to be released to the defence in any trial that results, so that they can have their experts verify that it operates correctly. Et voila! It is out in the open.

So Apple are in a corner, they didn't think through the implications of their rebranding as the champions of privacy. Perhaps the innocence of the Silicon Valley chosen few, entranced by the technical challenge of the uncrackable phone, they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

I'm sorry if you have re-read your position on this thread and found it illogical.

[wagyl]

Why are we blaming Apple? I blame your crack FBI for not even having Farook on their radar at all. If only they had been watching him in the first place, so many people would still be alive today. How can they sleep at night, with all that blood on their hands?

I also blame them for apparently turning off an iPhone that was operating and then being unable to turn it back on because it was protected by a simple password.

[wagyl]

they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.

[Mike Oxlong]

they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.

Can we ban cars while we are at it? At least for potential drivers with lukewarm and lower IQs?? Pretty please...

[Coligny]

they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.

Can we ban cars while we are at it? At least for potential drivers with lukewarm and lower IQs?? Pretty please...

You really want to eradicate the JDM overnight...

where do I sign to join your group ?

[Mike Oxlong]

I don't know how "unique" it is down here, but there really is something in the water.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2 ... e-pacific/

You might have read. USJ is bailing, and Ginowan Disney was always a pipe dream.

[legion]

they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.

please

that is really weak

[Coligny]

they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things.

We haven't banned kitchen knives, or matches, yet.

please

that is really weak

Holy shit, with the ts00nami of st00pid in this thread... Ya got balls here...

THE CONTRARIAN RESPONSE TO APPLE’S NEED FOR ENCRYPTION

There is a peculiar aspect of public discourse that doesn’t make any sense. In the absence of being able to say anything interesting, some people have just decided to add a contrary viewpoint. Being right, having a valid argument, or even having evidence to support assertions doesn’t matter; being contrary is far more interesting. Look at any comment thread on the Internet, and you’ll find the longest comment chain is the one refuting the parent article. Look up the ratings for a cable news channel. You’ll find the highest rated show is the one with the most bickering. When is the last time you saw something from the New York Times, Washington Post, or LA Times on Facebook or your favorite news aggregator? Chances are, it wasn’t news. It was an op-ed, most likely one that was espousing a view contrary to either public opinion or public policy.

Moar...
http://hackaday.com/2016/02/18/the-cont ... ncryption/

Your butthurt against apple is the textbook 90' era highschooler bullshit... Guess you got an atari for christmas in those days where all the cool kids had amigaz.

(And the S&M dude stuck to his Mac +)

[GargoyleTS]

Firstly, you do realize that Fook and wife destroyed their personal phones before doing the deed. That he did not destroy the work phone as well points to there being very little to nothing at all for them to find on it.

Secondly... anything they expect to find can be found other ways. Telecom records of phone calls placed, text messages sent, etc can be subpoenaed quite easily and with far less hassle. Email accounts? Likely already known by his company's IT department or in the cloud account for the device. Pictures, recordings, movies, etc taken with the phone... iCloud account. Apple can already (and likely already has) comply with demands for information from that account, especially given the company that owns the phone is already cooperating with investigators.

So... what does the DOJ really expect to find?

The contents of any text messages. This is not something the carriers in the US keep records of by default and once a phone receives them, they are deleted from the carrier systems. immediately as a cost-saving measure.

Uhm... that's really gonna be it. Anything else can be found other ways. Text message meta-data IS stored by carriers for around 30-90 days depending on the carrier. Call meta-data is kept even longer, sometimes years worth (you can thank online bill systems for that one, letting you go through entire years worth of phone bills and see exactly who you called, for how long, etc). Pictures would have been backed up most likely, though there is a slim chance he took a few with it and did not have that feature active as it IS a business device and there is a chance the IT unit shut that off remotely... but they could re-enable it remotely as well and even with the phone locked it should still start backing it all up (see all the stories about battery life and data usage by iPhones when not in active use).

All this to get the contents of some text messages is overkill. Its a witch hunt. The Spanish Inquisition. The FBI smells money (larger appropriations bills next year) if they can just somehow tie more domestic terrorists to this incident.

"they forgot that there are bad people in the world that use technology to enable bad things." no one has forgotten that. What you forget Legion, is that good people vastly outnumber bad people, and doing something to reduce their freedoms because some people want to do bad things is far more harmful. If privacy is so unimportant to the people in charge, why aren't they walking around naked when its nice out? Attraction is personal-bias, so you can't claim its cause no one wants to see fat/ugly/hairy/etc people naked. Obscenity is a social moral, I'm not talking fucking in public.

Being naked in public would fix a lot of problem. No worrying if that person jay-walking has a firearm or other weapon on them, police interactions become much less tense immediately! A lot of self-image problems are resolved when everyone can see they are not really much different from those around them. Violence against transsexuals declines because no one feels like they were trying to trick them into sex. Shoplifting becomes much harder and store prices decline as loss due to theft drops off. Personal stress levels decline as it becomes much easier to decide what to wear every day. And lets face it, tough-guy posturing is awfully ridiculous when everyone can see your nuts bouncing around, so violence in general declines.

If we want a truly open and privacy-free society... we MUST get rid of clothes!

[Wage Slave]

All very colourful and entertaining but you are arguing something entirely different to the issue at stake here. To take your analogy, what is being argued for is that people should have an absolute right to remain clothed regardless of just cause and automatically after death or after loss of capability.

In other words, no police officer or forensic scientist may conduct a strip search on anyone or remove clothing from anyone after death to investigate crime or possible crime.

That's clearly absurd, as would be similar protection for a person's documents, residence, bank accounts or anything else. What exactly is it about tech and tech companies that makes it and them above and beyond the law when it suits? They are all too keen to use the law to enforce their property and other rights, so why shouldn't they also be bound by the rest?

If Apple refuses to obey a court order, then the CEO needs to be brought to court and charged with contempt. If they feel that is damaging to their business then it is their fault because they have plenty enough lawyers to properly think through the full implications of creating and selling a technology that will create this kind of nonsense. And they were warned.

[Mike Oxlong]

Apple can comply with the FBI court order