|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 19 2016 02:27 oneofthem wrote:
privacy hawks are making this harder than necessary. there are ways to make iphones unlock without thereby propagating said tools or methods. the means could itself be protected by encryption in some secure location.
strawmanning open access when it need not go so far is just a waste of time
Any backdoor in the OS itself is exploitable, its pretty impossible for it not to be.
Apple can do this with a 1 time program to only break this one phone.
Then the FBI/NSA/CIA will have another phone, and another, and another and....
Before long Apple has several people doing nothing but writing 1 use programs to break phones.
"Hey wouldn't it be easy if there was just a general backdoor we could use? We would need the physical phone so its all safe"
"Hey yeah that backdoor? Its kinda bad if we need the phone itself you know, we want to catch people before they commit crimes so we need to be able to remote breakin"
Oh hey look someone broke the Iphone backdoor and now everyone's data is on the streets, evil Apple let this happen!.
Intelligence organizations have a long history of breaking laws and gathering anything and everything they can get their hands on regardless of use. No I don't trust them to act responsibly with this technology for even a second.
|
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo.
On February 19 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:27 oneofthem wrote:
privacy hawks are making this harder than necessary. there are ways to make iphones unlock without thereby propagating said tools or methods. the means could itself be protected by encryption in some secure location.
strawmanning open access when it need not go so far is just a waste of time Any backdoor in the OS itself is exploitable, its pretty impossible for it not to be.
All systems are exploitable, even Apple's current system. Unless they create perfect encryption that can never be broken until the end of time. If so, gratz? But is seems like a weak argument, since the system will be bypassed at some point. At least this way they get a better idea of how.
|
On February 19 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo.
Do you accept that if they open this one phone they will be repeatedly asked to do so?
|
Intelligence organizations really cannot be trusted in this case. I see Diane Feinstein on tv demanding Apple comply with the court order. The same woman who had no problem throwing all Americans under the bus with respect to surveillance but when it was uncovered that the CIA did a little spying on Feinstein and her staff she went ballistic. Privacy for her but the rest are naked and vulnerable.
|
United States44289 Posts
On February 19 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo.
Did you completely miss my response where I said the entire area needs to be reviewed and a new set of rights and protocols created? The solution where you strip away more privacy and give more power to unaccountable extrajudicial shadow organisations is not ideal but nor is the status quo.
|
On February 19 2016 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo. Do you accept that if they open this one phone they will be repeatedly asked to do so?
Yes. As long as there is judicial oversight and it’s on public record that open for review after the case/investigation resolves, I have no problem with them doing it. I would rather this than mass data collection.
|
On February 19 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo.
Right now, the hole to penetrate security is so non-existent than Apple needs a full force engineering thrust to make it possible. If The FBI gets its way, the hole would be there, just insanely hard to crack. But time and time again, we have seen that as long as the hole is there, it will be exploited. Why do you think Apple made their devices such that this whole process is taking place? This is what is necessary. It is a more binary situation than you are conveying. I think you have too little faith in security researchers. Apple's method of security is not in a vacuum, there is a lot of evidence/history showing you either take this route or you aren't actually totally secure.
|
I don't even get why there is a reason the government should be able to access the phone. Some evidence is nice and all but I am completely fine with them not being able to access everything they want, even if some "bad guys" get away then.
|
On February 19 2016 02:46 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
I don't even get why there is a reason the government should be able to access the phone. Some evidence is nice and all but I am completely fine with them not being able to access everything they want, even if some "bad guys" get away then.
It's just scapegoating. "If only we had access to all data we can prevent terrorist attacks from happening!"
|
It is disingenuous to pretend that there aren't highly compelling motivations behind opening this single phone at issue, particularly given how unusual the San Bernardino shooting was. That is not to say that the arguments in favor of Apple do not hold a lot of weight (the "universality" of the crafted backdoor OS is definitely concerning), only that this is not nearly as easy a balancing test as many are suggesting.
|
Don't think anyone is arguing the contrary. The concern is that such a tool won't be limited to just this one phone and the chances that the tool would only be accessible to Apple and the FBI is almost zero.
|
United States44289 Posts
On February 19 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote:
It is disingenuous to pretend that there aren't highly compelling motivations behind opening this single phone at issue, particularly given how unusual the San Bernardino shooting was. That is not to say that the arguments in favor of Apple do not hold a lot of weight (the "universality" of the crafted backdoor OS is definitely concerning), only that this is not nearly as easy a balancing test as many are suggesting.
There is no such thing as opening this single phone. The phone cannot be opened without the creation of tools which do not currently exist which could be used to open other phones. The phone is secure or not secure. As long as the tools do not exist it is secure. Once they do it is not secure.
Arguing that this specific phone is all that is at stake is disingenuous.
|
On February 19 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo.
And my issue is that you are ignorant or poorly informed.
The entire point of encryption is to keep secure data secure, while still allowing it to be communicated. Different people will have different opinions on what kind of information they want secure, but the important thing is that there is no reality where "no encryption" can exist without destroying critical infrastructure.
But encryption, in reality, is not very secure. You can break old encryption really easily, solely because computers are faster and better. Networks can have security everywhere, but there only needs to be one failure point to access the entire system.
And a master key, or a single point of failure that is identical in every single system, is something that security experts explicitly avoid, and something that security audits will immediately flag you on, because it's exactly the kind of thing that hackers dream about. And not only is a company supposed to intentionally design a security flaw in their system, they are being asked to do it in a public forum so that everyone in the world knows that there is a hole in the system that will give them access to every iPhone (and likely every Apple product) in the world.
|
On February 19 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote:
It is disingenuous to pretend that there aren't highly compelling motivations behind opening this single phone at issue, particularly given how unusual the San Bernardino shooting was. That is not to say that the arguments in favor of Apple do not hold a lot of weight (the "universality" of the crafted backdoor OS is definitely concerning), only that this is not nearly as easy a balancing test as many are suggesting.
What highly compelling motivation are you talking about?
As far as I understand the San Bernardino shooting is an entirely self contained event. No indications anyone instructed the couple to commit the attack. What data could they even hope to find on the phone that would be useful after the fact?
|
On February 19 2016 02:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote:
It is disingenuous to pretend that there aren't highly compelling motivations behind opening this single phone at issue, particularly given how unusual the San Bernardino shooting was. That is not to say that the arguments in favor of Apple do not hold a lot of weight (the "universality" of the crafted backdoor OS is definitely concerning), only that this is not nearly as easy a balancing test as many are suggesting. There is no such thing as opening this single phone. The phone cannot be opened without the creation of tools which do not currently exist which could be used to open other phones. The phone is secure or not secure. As long as the tools do not exist it is secure. Once they do it is not secure. Arguing that this specific phone is all that is at stake is disingenuous.
Nahh, the specificity of the relief granted via court order and how said relief will affect other phones is hardly a settled matter; it is perfectly within the court's discretion to (attempt to*) create a remedy that will address the concerns you've raised as to the inevitability of the spread of the tools that would need to be crafted. Of course, this is where my tenuously trusting familiarity with the legal process and the general skepticism of those who have at least some understanding of the technology side necessarily come into conflict. Given the sort of scrutiny and attention this case will receive, it seems likely that a judge will find in favor of the FBI and then issue a court order that will appropriately narrow the scope of the relief granted, even if that means ordering Apple to do something like create tools and then destroy them. Naturally, there is a practically equal in chance possibility that a judge will agree with you and deny the FBI relief on the basis that whatever tools end up created pose simply too great a threat to the general security of iphones and other digital products. Nevertheless, if you think that the FBI won't be able to find incredibly well-vetted experts in encryption that will inevitably (and in good faith, I might add) argue that this door can be open and then shut, experts that will almost certainly match up pretty will Apple's, I've got an interest in Florida real estate to sell you.
On February 19 2016 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote:
It is disingenuous to pretend that there aren't highly compelling motivations behind opening this single phone at issue, particularly given how unusual the San Bernardino shooting was. That is not to say that the arguments in favor of Apple do not hold a lot of weight (the "universality" of the crafted backdoor OS is definitely concerning), only that this is not nearly as easy a balancing test as many are suggesting. What highly compelling motivation are you talking about? As far as I understand the San Bernardino shooting is an entirely self contained event. No indications anyone instructed the couple to commit the attack. What data could they even hope to find on the phone that would be useful after the fact?
The San Bernardino shooting stands out against pretty much every other major "terrorist" action in and around the continental United States; it's pretty unique in terms of the planning, embedness of the assailants (interesting mixture of home-grown and foreign origin), their competency (these weren't shoe bombers), etc. So yeah, as you said, this event does seem to be fairly self-contained, but the personal information of the assailants is still a gold mine for intelligence in terms of how they can better understand what goes into the mind of "terrorists" that end up pulling the trigger.
|
On February 19 2016 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It is one of my main problems with the argument about it. They claim there is no solution to the problem that doesn’t threaten everyone. And we people say they need to invent a solution to a complex problem, you are ignorant or poorly informed. It is the classic creation of a man made unsolvable problem, so the only solution is the status quo. And my issue is that you are ignorant or poorly informed. The entire point of encryption is to keep secure data secure, while still allowing it to be communicated. Different people will have different opinions on what kind of information they want secure, but the important thing is that there is no reality where "no encryption" can exist without destroying critical infrastructure. But encryption, in reality, is not very secure. You can break old encryption really easily, solely because computers are faster and better. Networks can have security everywhere, but there only needs to be one failure point to access the entire system. And a master key, or a single point of failure that is identical in every single system, is something that security experts explicitly avoid, and something that security audits will immediately flag you on, because it's exactly the kind of thing that hackers dream about. And not only is a company supposed to intentionally design a security flaw in their system, they are being asked to do it in a public forum so that everyone in the world knows that there is a hole in the system that will give them access to every iPhone (and likely every Apple product) in the world.
I understand that completely. I just don’t see the scantily and security of any encryption system as above the sovereignty of a nation and therefore immune to all demands for access. That the preservation of that security of that system, which you admit is finite, is above an order from the court. I believe Apple has the right to attempt measure to assure the security of their system for as long as possible, including hiding the process for breaking the encryption and any other means. But I do not believe ANY software system should be immune to the states request for access because a single point of failure has the potential compromise the whole system.
On February 19 2016 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote:
It is disingenuous to pretend that there aren't highly compelling motivations behind opening this single phone at issue, particularly given how unusual the San Bernardino shooting was. That is not to say that the arguments in favor of Apple do not hold a lot of weight (the "universality" of the crafted backdoor OS is definitely concerning), only that this is not nearly as easy a balancing test as many are suggesting. What highly compelling motivation are you talking about? As far as I understand the San Bernardino shooting is an entirely self contained event. No indications anyone instructed the couple to commit the attack. What data could they even hope to find on the phone that would be useful after the fact?
That is the root of the problem. We can't know the value of the data because no one can view it. How do you prove its value if it is unknown and cannot be known?
|
Extremely relevant article from wired in 2014 on this issue. I agree completely. The sense of entitlement of law officials to be able to ruffle through your stuff is quite ludicrous.
Now I sympathize with the FBI in this case and wish them all the luck in the world cracking that phone. But just as we don't forbid ppl from using safes, or locking their front door, should we try to block the computational equivalent of these technologies.
And no, a search warrant doesn't mean you have to open your safe. Just your front door.
Edit: forgot the link.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/golden-key/
|
On February 19 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:Extremely relevant article from wired in 2014 on this issue. I agree completely. The sense of entitlement of law officials to be able to ruffle through your stuff is quite ludicrous. Now I sympathize with the FBI in this case and wish them all the luck in the world cracking that phone. But just as we don't forbid ppl from using safes, or locking their front door, should we try to block the computational equivalent of these technologies.
And no, a search warrant doesn't mean you have to open your safe. Just your front door.Edit: forgot the link. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/golden-key/
That actually depends on what the Search Warrant says. If it specifically indicates a safe they know you own you're actually compelled to open it. Normally they just take the entire thing and open it themselves. Careful with statements like that. Search Warrants aren't limited to your house.
Which kind of brings us to this phone. Nothing you technically have is safe with a proper court order. If law enforcement can indicate proper probable cause nothing you own is out of bounds. Which is why I think the FBI will win this case... As much as I may disagree with them doing so.
The only way I see it going the other way is if Apple plays on the international issue in that it would basically give the FBI to break encryption on iPhones the court has no jurisdiction over.
|
On February 19 2016 03:43 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:Extremely relevant article from wired in 2014 on this issue. I agree completely. The sense of entitlement of law officials to be able to ruffle through your stuff is quite ludicrous. Now I sympathize with the FBI in this case and wish them all the luck in the world cracking that phone. But just as we don't forbid ppl from using safes, or locking their front door, should we try to block the computational equivalent of these technologies.
And no, a search warrant doesn't mean you have to open your safe. Just your front door.Edit: forgot the link. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/golden-key/ That actually depends on what the Search Warrant says. If it specifically indicates a safe they know you own you're actually compelled to open it. Normally they just take the entire thing and open it themselves. Careful with statements like that. Search Warrants aren't limited to your house. Which kind of brings us to this phone. Nothing you technically have is safe with a proper court order. If law enforcement can indicate proper probable cause nothing you own is out of bounds. Which is why I think the FBI will win this case... As much as I may disagree with them doing so.
Which is why Apple took this public, because either public opinion sways the FBI/Courts or they can point and say "we tried our best".
|
On February 19 2016 03:43 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:Extremely relevant article from wired in 2014 on this issue. I agree completely. The sense of entitlement of law officials to be able to ruffle through your stuff is quite ludicrous. Now I sympathize with the FBI in this case and wish them all the luck in the world cracking that phone. But just as we don't forbid ppl from using safes, or locking their front door, should we try to block the computational equivalent of these technologies.
And no, a search warrant doesn't mean you have to open your safe. Just your front door.Edit: forgot the link. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/golden-key/ That actually depends on what the Search Warrant says. If it specifically indicates a safe they know you own you're actually compelled to open it. Normally they just take the entire thing and open it themselves. Careful with statements like that. Search Warrants aren't limited to your house.
True, but they can't prove you didn't forget the code. And in this case the owner is dead, so can't be compelled to giving them the code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
