I don't understand the FBI
It appears that, legally, they were forced to withdraw their legal case when an alternative appeared. They do not want to admit to a dead end because they intend to pursue the principle when they have another opportunity. Also, FWIW, they appear to have succeeded in hacking the phone.
Rub it in the face of Apple.
Now Apple wants the FBI to tell them how they did it. Um, no.
bramzzoinks said:
Rub it in the face of Apple.
Now Apple wants the FBI to tell them how they did it. Um, no.
1111
Dang
2222
Dang
3333
Dang
4444
Jackpot!
why does anyone believe this report today? maybe the FBI and their 3rd party hacker team broke into the phone and maybe they didn't. The fact that they say they did could be because they want us to believe they did.
or maybe that super duper encrypted smartphone wasnt so super duper after all.
I bet the FBI couldn't crack it, which is also why they can't tell Apple how they did it. It's all face-saving posturing.
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that an Israeli firm was able to hack into the phone. For What it's worth. Not sure if it's true
Hmmm, I wonder if that is why they gave immunity to the guy who set up Hillary's private email server? It all ties into Benghazi somehow, I just know it. Oh, and Whitewater and Vince Foster, too.
If they did figure out how to get in I can understand why they wouldn't tell Apple so that Apple won't be able to patch whatever weakness it was that they used.
FWIW I don't have a problem with the FBI getting into the phone for two reasons. 1) It was a work phone, and the company that owned the phone gave permission to get into the phone. Anyone who uses a supplied equipment/services understands that while you may use them for personal use, don't expect that use to be protected as private. So sending out that email or that text planning your kid's birthday party is fine, but think twice before responding to that Ashley Madison profile. 2) In addition to the company's permission, the FBI also had a valid search warant.
The phone in question is an iphone 5C. Since making that model, Apple has improved security. Later-made phones are harder to break into.
librarylady said:
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that an Israeli firm was able to hack into the phone. For What it's worth. Not sure if it's true
Seems to have been these guys: http://www.sun-denshi.co.jp/eng/company/group
I wonder how their non-disclosure agreement with the FBI is worded? Couldn't Apple just pay them to do it again and then plug the hole? If not, I'm sure they have competition willing to try.
If I were the FBI, I would make cracking smartphones and any other device a priority, and then I would pretend I didn't know how. Doesn't that make sense?
hoops said:
why does anyone believe this report today? maybe the FBI and their 3rd party hacker team broke into the phone and maybe they didn't. The fact that they say they did could be because they want us to believe they did.
or maybe that super duper encrypted smartphone wasnt so super duper after all.
^ This ^
lisat said:
If I were the FBI, I would make cracking smartphones and any other device a priority, and then I would pretend I didn't know how. Doesn't that make sense?
Doesn't really make sense because they will want to help other law enforcement agencies solve the same issues. They won't be able to keep this capacity (if they have it) to themselves when faced with agencies from all over the country clamoring for help.
RobB said:
librarylady said:
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that an Israeli firm was able to hack into the phone. For What it's worth. Not sure if it's true
Seems to have been these guys: http://www.sun-denshi.co.jp/eng/company/group
I wonder how their non-disclosure agreement with the FBI is worded? Couldn't Apple just pay them to do it again and then plug the hole? If not, I'm sure they have competition willing to try.
There is a typo in your link. There is a space at the end. The real address
hoops said:
why does anyone believe this report today? maybe the FBI and their 3rd party hacker team broke into the phone and maybe they didn't. The fact that they say they did could be because they want us to believe they did.
or maybe that super duper encrypted smartphone wasnt so super duper after all.
They did.
The encryption prevented retrieval of the phone info. Which most likely wasn't needed because calls and messaging can be gotten from the providers. So maybe there are pictures in the phone the FBI wants or the phonebook has unlikely entries that the FBI doesn't know about. Usually, when there's a phone book entry, the entry was used to make a call or for messaging which the phone provider would know about.
While the files were locked down, the system wasn't. Apple could update the operating system without having the user log in. Its a matter of installing a new system that would have allowed "unlimited" password retries.
What the FBI really wants is a precedent even though going to court and saying we "broke" this phone, so we no longer need a court order implies otherwise.
This is to make a public perception that they didn't want this precedent, they just wanted this phone. Next time they'll say the same, we only want access to a specific phone, hoping to lower the legal barrier and to get public opinion in their corner.
Their ultimate desire is to have some "switch" which will allow immediate access to any phone's data, like the "switch" used for tapping landlines. To tap a landline just takes a command from a computer terminal, the "switch." That software was built in at the behest of government.
mfpark said:
Hmmm, I wonder if that is why they gave immunity to the guy who set up Hillary's private email server? It all ties into Benghazi somehow, I just know it. Oh, and Whitewater and Vince Foster, too.
you forgot the lizard people.
drummerboy said:
mfpark said:
Hmmm, I wonder if that is why they gave immunity to the guy who set up Hillary's private email server? It all ties into Benghazi somehow, I just know it. Oh, and Whitewater and Vince Foster, too.
you forgot the lizard people.
After hearing about all the and knowing about some government leaks, I suspect her server may just have been the safest place.
There was a Washington Post article that explains how she got into this mess. If I read it right, one issue was that the NSA refused to supply a secure phone with secure email. The only thing they were willing to give was a secured terminal in her office which is not practical. You can't have the State Secretary not having email when she's out of the office, which could be weeks when traveling. When her office asked "why not? You do it for the president", they were blown off.
Other secretaries had the same issue. Colin Powell used private email and his email server was a public server (AOL), unlike Clinton's private server.
lisat said:
If I were the FBI, I would make cracking smartphones and any other device a priority, and then I would pretend I didn't know how. Doesn't that make sense?
That was my first thought - why tell? If bad guys think the FBI is stymied by Apple security, all the better.
Of course, the other side of that coin is the invasion of all the good guys'/gals' privacy.
BG9 said:
After hearing about all the and knowing about some government leaks, I suspect her server may just have been the safest place.
There was a Washington Post article that explains how she got into this mess. If I read it right, one issue was that the NSA refused to supply a secure phone with secure email. The only thing they were willing to give was a secured terminal in her office which is not practical. You can't have the State Secretary not having email when she's out of the office, which could be weeks when traveling. When her office asked "why not? You do it for the president." She was blown off.
Other secretaries had the same issue. Colin Powell used private email and his email server was a public server, unlike Clinton's private server, AOL.
I had not read this. Very interesting and plausible.
GL2 said:
lisat said:
If I were the FBI, I would make cracking smartphones and any other device a priority, and then I would pretend I didn't know how. Doesn't that make sense?
That was my first thought - why tell? If bad guys think the FBI is stymied by Apple security, all the better.
Of course, the other side of that coin is the invasion of all the good guys'/gals' privacy.
I think it's another case of "my hands are bigger than your hands".
I am quite sure Apple could have figured this out very quickly if they had wanted to. They didn't want to (and I agree with their stance).
conandrob240 said:
I am quite sure Apple could have figured this out very quickly if they had wanted to. They didn't want to (and I agree with their stance).
Why do you agree with the Corporation's stance?
Thanks for any explanation that provides me with a better understanding of your position.
TomR
Because you can't create a backdoor to aid law enforcement without opening that door up to much more sinister use. It's like the old build the atomic bomb but we'll only use it to protect ourselves. Yeah, we might but who else will now get their hands on it and what will they use it for?
Apple knew EXACTLY what to do, pretty much immediately (after maybe a 15 minute meeting with the top architects and techies). They just didn't want to - not that they give a sh** about our privacy, because they've turned over scads of phone data to the FBI way before this. But quite plausibly, they did not want to even come near the risk of creating a piece of software which could leak into the wild that would undermine confidence in their top moneymaker.
Anyway, Apple knew full well that the FBI could do this on their own.
it's all kabuki
The other complicating issue here is that the phone was for a dead criminal and the information could not be used to prosecute that case - which should be the impetus for collecting data about a crime.
It was just a data scavenger hunt - in case it might help prevent another hypothetical crime in the future. Weak argument for exposing all of us to government surveillance. AND, that includes non-U.S. Governments. The majority of Apple phones are sold outside the U.S.
Setting the precedent for unlocking the encryption would potentially have had worldwide consequences. So now the FBI can do it themselves, but the Chinese government can't insist Apple do it for them because Apple did it for the FBI.
Apple probably showed China how to hack into iphones a long time ago. How else could they even be in that market?
If I hadn't caught This Week Tonight Sunday, I wouldn't had a clue of all the real issues involved. As he did with net neutrality, Oliver explained an arcane issue with remarkable clarity and of course humor.
So the FBI and Apple are both wrong for different reasons. Yes Apple could easily develop a key to unlock those phones. No, there would be no way of either ensuring that key doesn't get out or that a floodgate of unlocking requests wouldn't follow. And since encryption apps are readily available, anyone can still keep their data indecipherable, rendering the unlocking worthless.
So the FBI's request was incredibly dangerous to everyone's security and privacy, demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of what they wete asking for, and Apple's self proclaimed brilliance made it appear such a request was well within their capabilities.
Totally worth watching the entire bit..
http://youtu.be/zsjZ2r9Ygzw
conandrob240 said:
I am quite sure Apple could have figured this out very quickly if they had wanted to. They didn't want to (and I agree with their stance).
If you're not an engineer type, you may not understand that this is a hard problem, hard enough to be worth NOT pursuing. See John Oliver's video on this topic. The goal, ostensibly, is to build a "lock" system that keeps anyone out regardless of how hard they try until someone has the secret master key which makes it easy. Even if you could make sure that only law enforcement has the key, and even if you trust them only to use it when truly warranted, if they have the key, the bad guys, i.e. cybercriminals and the like, will eventually have it. This is because the bad guys are as smart as the good guys. This is an inconvenient truth but we have to bet that it is true.
The government didn't comprehend this problem when it asked technologists to invent the Clipper Chip in the Clinton administration. A friend of mine works in the field. He cracked the Clipper Chip to show the flawed concept. When the government asked why there can't be a Clipper Chip that only allows good guys in, they used the argument that we've put a man on the moon, so surely we can solve this problem. His response, which is in the video is, well, just because we've put a man on the moon doesn't mean that we therefore can put a man on the sun. Sometimes problems are too hard, even when you ask your best engineers to solve them. And they are hard sometimes not because of technical reasons but because of human reasons.
First, they attempt to force Apple to provide code to help them access the San Bernadino murderer's phone. Then, while in the middle of appealing the judge's decision in that case, they announce that they have figured it out for themselves.
So, they lost in their attempt to force Apple to help them and they have revealed that they have other means. I don't know why they revealed that they have other means. Why not pretend that they had reached a dead end?