|
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 05:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote:I'd like to throw in that one of the heads of the Paris attacks was literally interviewed by ISIS self proclaimed 'lifestyle magazine' half a year before the attacks, so before the intelligence agencies try to hack phones they maybe should start browsing Facebook the u.s. at least is refraining from watching social media due to civil rights concerns.
Yeah right, intelligence agencies are so concerned about those, and they are so well supervised that they surely wouldn't do something mean like loot at peoples facebook pages. The NSA have proven that they care about peoples privacy way to much for that.
|
On February 19 2016 05:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? This isn't the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is over encryption. Privacy does not and should not make one immune to legal searches and seizures. But that's not the issue at all. Do I have a right to encrypt my data? Do I have the right to private communication?
Yes and yes.
And the third question is, can that right be taken away?
The answer is also yes.
|
But the US government does not control all manufacturers. Currently the US has a good grip on the OS market. I wonder how long it will stay like that if they demand backdoors into everything.
|
On February 19 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 05:09 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 05:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2016 04:58 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:45 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:40 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:33 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
OK. So the front door requires a special key that the user can configure. He sets his code to fjord$^_fhrid4568nrtbr÷==AT&TIEN
He memorized this key and doesn't tell anybody. He subsequently dies, leaving the front door locked forever.
Now what you're proposing is that somehow Apple magically has this key too? How?
EDIT: and just to be clear this, and only this is the front door. Amy other access mechanism is, by its very definition, a back door.
the front door would be a secured access option with the fbi or whoever holding the key. i am talking about designing the security process so as to avoid both unsecure backdoors and inability to access device in the process of investigation and so on. You know that the analogy is a house with two doors. One with your key and one with the FBI's key. Except that the FBI's key also opens everybody else's door in the entire world. It's a single point of failure as about 100 ppl here have pointed out, and by its very definition insecure. You seem to be throwing words around without knowing their technical definition in this context. uh it does not have to be a passcode key obviously. there can be device specific code that requires a secured algorithm to decrypt. it would not be a universal one point of failure, and this is just a technical challenge that should not define the tradeoff in question. Except that now your golden algorithm has taken the place of your golden key. I am literally repeating the wired article I posted not 1 page back. Please read a wiki page on information security or something... It is either device specific, or universally usable whenever the FBI wants to. In the latter, it is a single point of failure. And while at first that key/algorithm will be fairly safe with just the FBI having access, I give it a few months/year at most before it is reproduced, copied or stolen. you can't reverse engineer some encrypted locks to find the solver algorithm, so just properly secure the golden algorithm and we are okay. the overall landscape is that strength of encryption can get very high, so if your question is on the security of the government door then it should not be an unsolvable problem, except when there is so much dismissal for want of a solution. This is why the technologically inept should not comment on these things. "Just properly secure it" is not a solution, it's a wish. this is as technical as holding gold in a vault, since we are really talking about securing the method not a piece of passcode. learn to read. You fail to understand that there is no difference between the pass code and the method. Whether you use a key or a sequence of genetically modified monkeys that have to dance in a specific order, it is only the complexity that increases, not the underlying principles. And give enough incentive, that complexity can be overcome (usually because some FBI shmoe leaves his laptop in his car) the point is you can have physical security method on top of the encryption. the former would at least prevent access and provide knowledge of loss which can then be signal to do something about it before the sufficient time passes for the device to be rendered ineffective. this random contractor situation is pretty bad but we are talking about future plans. i do agree political risk is probably unacceptable at this moment but having a discovery proof space of operations is going to breed all sorts of illegal activities.
Physical security stops someone from accessing your machine. It doesn't stop someone from trying to find a method used on every single device.
Which is the problem with a single point of failure that's identical all devices. I just need to brute force my machine to get access to yours.
|
On February 19 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:52 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:39 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Just as an aside, the legal problem is not proving that device X sent the data. Its to prove the suspect was the one using device X at the time. And you prove that by saying they have sole access to the device or had the device at the time the criminal activity took place. But to do that, you need to prove that the device sent the data and was the one used. Its a hurdle in all internet based crime and digital evidence. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11027732/apple-iphone-encryption-fbi-san-bernardino-shootersOn a side, note, the Judge specifically ordered that Apple assist with bypassing the auto delete feature, which appears to be no small task. Also removing the limit on the number of password attempts. If they cannot currently do that, they need to write software that will allow them. So the order isn't for them to create a back door, but remove the defenses they put in place so the FBI can force the phone open. With those in place, every iphone is completely immune to being forced open. I don't see anything unreasonable about that order. Sorry but have you ever felt that maybe lawschool did not make you an expert in cryptography? Does american law have no form of: de.wikipedia.org? The gain of hacking that phone is insignificantly low, but it's detriments are unpredictably large and severe. There is no compelling argument to do it. And "fuck i have no clue how stuff works, i will force the apple guys to do my bidding" just doesn't cut it. First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you. Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? Dude wtf are you even talking about anymore? How does encryption prevent prosecution of a person for doing any of those things? And "a computer is not a safe"? What the fuck? What is a "safe"? ![[image loading]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/th/aplus/sentrysafe/B005P12C5A-2.jpg) He stated that privacy was more important than the ability to convict someone. And I pointed out that crimes are normally the result on one person harming another in some way, that we weight the rights of privacy to the right of the victim not to be harmed. That is why we have search warrants.
And you don't get access to a criminal's mind. There are ordinary ways of doing police work for the crimes you mentioned that don't involve knowing his every thought.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 19 2016 05:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2016 04:58 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:45 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:40 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:33 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
that is not what i think at all, try again. a front door works the same way but with proper safeguards that a 'back door' lacks. you might as well say the fact the owner can use the phone is a security flaw. OK. So the front door requires a special key that the user can configure. He sets his code to fjord$^_fhrid4568nrtbr÷==AT&TIEN He memorized this key and doesn't tell anybody. He subsequently dies, leaving the front door locked forever. Now what you're proposing is that somehow Apple magically has this key too? How? EDIT: and just to be clear this, and only this is the front door. Amy other access mechanism is, by its very definition, a back door. the front door would be a secured access option with the fbi or whoever holding the key. i am talking about designing the security process so as to avoid both unsecure backdoors and inability to access device in the process of investigation and so on. You know that the analogy is a house with two doors. One with your key and one with the FBI's key. Except that the FBI's key also opens everybody else's door in the entire world. It's a single point of failure as about 100 ppl here have pointed out, and by its very definition insecure. You seem to be throwing words around without knowing their technical definition in this context. uh it does not have to be a passcode key obviously. there can be device specific code that requires a secured algorithm to decrypt. it would not be a universal one point of failure, and this is just a technical challenge that should not define the tradeoff in question. Except that now your golden algorithm has taken the place of your golden key. I am literally repeating the wired article I posted not 1 page back. Please read a wiki page on information security or something... It is either device specific, or universally usable whenever the FBI wants to. In the latter, it is a single point of failure. And while at first that key/algorithm will be fairly safe with just the FBI having access, I give it a few months/year at most before it is reproduced, copied or stolen. you can't reverse engineer some encrypted locks to find the solver algorithm, so just properly secure the golden algorithm and we are okay. the overall landscape is that strength of encryption can get very high, so if your question is on the security of the government door then it should not be an unsolvable problem, except when there is so much dismissal for want of a solution. This is why the technologically inept should not comment on these things. "Just properly secure it" is not a solution, it's a wish. They should remove the auto delete feature, that is a little much. From reports, it takes a really long time to crack these phones by brute force, so that should be enough. Well, reality of this (assuming it's confirmed) is that being able to update the firmware and overwrite security settings is already a gigantic security hole. Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 05:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:58 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:45 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:40 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:33 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
that is not what i think at all, try again. a front door works the same way but with proper safeguards that a 'back door' lacks. you might as well say the fact the owner can use the phone is a security flaw. OK. So the front door requires a special key that the user can configure. He sets his code to fjord$^_fhrid4568nrtbr÷==AT&TIEN He memorized this key and doesn't tell anybody. He subsequently dies, leaving the front door locked forever. Now what you're proposing is that somehow Apple magically has this key too? How? EDIT: and just to be clear this, and only this is the front door. Amy other access mechanism is, by its very definition, a back door. the front door would be a secured access option with the fbi or whoever holding the key. i am talking about designing the security process so as to avoid both unsecure backdoors and inability to access device in the process of investigation and so on. You know that the analogy is a house with two doors. One with your key and one with the FBI's key. Except that the FBI's key also opens everybody else's door in the entire world. It's a single point of failure as about 100 ppl here have pointed out, and by its very definition insecure. You seem to be throwing words around without knowing their technical definition in this context. uh it does not have to be a passcode key obviously. there can be device specific code that requires a secured algorithm to decrypt. it would not be a universal one point of failure, and this is just a technical challenge that should not define the tradeoff in question. Except that now your golden algorithm has taken the place of your golden key. I am literally repeating the wired article I posted not 1 page back. Please read a wiki page on information security or something... It is either device specific, or universally usable whenever the FBI wants to. In the latter, it is a single point of failure. And while at first that key/algorithm will be fairly safe with just the FBI having access, I give it a few months/year at most before it is reproduced, copied or stolen. you can't reverse engineer some encrypted locks to find the solver algorithm, so just properly secure the golden algorithm and we are okay. the overall landscape is that strength of encryption can get very high, so if your question is on the security of the government door then it should not be an unsolvable problem, except when there is so much dismissal for want of a solution. Nothing is impenetrable. Security is about making things so hard to break into that it's prohibitively expensive to do so. The problem you are creating, however, is that this golden widget will be almost indescribably valuable to a lot of ppl, ranging from organized crime to foreign agencies. It also cannot be changed sufficiently often to not give these organizations a lot of time and data to Crack the system. Combine the two, and I give any such system between a few months and a year before it is blown wide open, and with it, all data on all smartphones... or at least all American ones. I give it about a week before Samsung and all Chinese brands drop Android and switch to Tizen or some other homebrew OS, and the rest of the world laughs at how stupid the US was to purposefully expose their entire population. And you thought the Ashley Madison hack was bad... it would certainly be subjected to attacks but the public exposure is to the individual devices, and not the FBI portion of the mechanism or the manufacturer portion. you can have encryption dependent on a code per device that apple holds, going through a decrypter the government holds, and all the device has is a non-communicative door. again the standard is not really impossible to crack. it just has to be nonfragile and be at least as secure as the regular security feature on the device. Obscurity is one of the strongest security measures you can have. Breaking your personal security is not really that hard, just time intensive and not worth the ROI. (which is really the FBI's issue. They could probably break the phone's encryption with enough time and resources, they just want Apple to make it easier and faster) Breaking everyone's security all at once, though, that's worth a lot.
you are describing bugs or nondirect attacks which can happen to any system. this risk is real but it is not unique to a government access option.
using a one time code system, you can have one randomly generated key per device and store the key in batches, without the identification info required to make use of them. i'm sure experts would have better ideas but this is just an example of a system that does not have a single crack.
|
On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:52 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:39 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 04:34 Simberto wrote:On February 19 2016 04:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Courts require all evidence be authenticated by a witness, confirming that the evidence is what the attorney claims it is. So in the case of an email, they would need a witness that could testify that the email was sent from that specific phone while the witness is under oath. And that witness is open to cross examination, where the other side can as if they are 100% sure. If they can never open the phone, I question how they would ever prove that it came from that specific phone and not someplace else. The same goes for twitter and all other forms of social media that allow for anonymous log in. IP addresses. If the phone sends data through the internet, it has a very specific address. Just as an aside, the legal problem is not proving that device X sent the data. Its to prove the suspect was the one using device X at the time. And you prove that by saying they have sole access to the device or had the device at the time the criminal activity took place. But to do that, you need to prove that the device sent the data and was the one used. Its a hurdle in all internet based crime and digital evidence. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11027732/apple-iphone-encryption-fbi-san-bernardino-shootersOn a side, note, the Judge specifically ordered that Apple assist with bypassing the auto delete feature, which appears to be no small task. Also removing the limit on the number of password attempts. If they cannot currently do that, they need to write software that will allow them. So the order isn't for them to create a back door, but remove the defenses they put in place so the FBI can force the phone open. With those in place, every iphone is completely immune to being forced open. I don't see anything unreasonable about that order. Sorry but have you ever felt that maybe lawschool did not make you an expert in cryptography? Does american law have no form of: de.wikipedia.org? The gain of hacking that phone is insignificantly low, but it's detriments are unpredictably large and severe. There is no compelling argument to do it. And "fuck i have no clue how stuff works, i will force the apple guys to do my bidding" just doesn't cut it. First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you. Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone?
That argument does not work because it is not specific. It can be used to argue anything.
"what if they are going to harm me or my family, can i abduct them to afghanistan and use enhanced interrogation techniques on them for a couple of months and on everyone whose name they tell me?"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 19 2016 05:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 05:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 05:09 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 05:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2016 04:58 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:53 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 oneofthem wrote:On February 19 2016 04:45 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2016 04:40 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]the front door would be a secured access option with the fbi or whoever holding the key. i am talking about designing the security process so as to avoid both unsecure backdoors and inability to access device in the process of investigation and so on.
You know that the analogy is a house with two doors. One with your key and one with the FBI's key. Except that the FBI's key also opens everybody else's door in the entire world. It's a single point of failure as about 100 ppl here have pointed out, and by its very definition insecure. You seem to be throwing words around without knowing their technical definition in this context. uh it does not have to be a passcode key obviously. there can be device specific code that requires a secured algorithm to decrypt. it would not be a universal one point of failure, and this is just a technical challenge that should not define the tradeoff in question. Except that now your golden algorithm has taken the place of your golden key. I am literally repeating the wired article I posted not 1 page back. Please read a wiki page on information security or something... It is either device specific, or universally usable whenever the FBI wants to. In the latter, it is a single point of failure. And while at first that key/algorithm will be fairly safe with just the FBI having access, I give it a few months/year at most before it is reproduced, copied or stolen. you can't reverse engineer some encrypted locks to find the solver algorithm, so just properly secure the golden algorithm and we are okay. the overall landscape is that strength of encryption can get very high, so if your question is on the security of the government door then it should not be an unsolvable problem, except when there is so much dismissal for want of a solution. This is why the technologically inept should not comment on these things. "Just properly secure it" is not a solution, it's a wish. this is as technical as holding gold in a vault, since we are really talking about securing the method not a piece of passcode. learn to read. You fail to understand that there is no difference between the pass code and the method. Whether you use a key or a sequence of genetically modified monkeys that have to dance in a specific order, it is only the complexity that increases, not the underlying principles. And give enough incentive, that complexity can be overcome (usually because some FBI shmoe leaves his laptop in his car) the point is you can have physical security method on top of the encryption. the former would at least prevent access and provide knowledge of loss which can then be signal to do something about it before the sufficient time passes for the device to be rendered ineffective. this random contractor situation is pretty bad but we are talking about future plans. i do agree political risk is probably unacceptable at this moment but having a discovery proof space of operations is going to breed all sorts of illegal activities. Physical security stops someone from accessing your machine. It doesn't stop someone from trying to find a method used on every single device. Which is the problem with a single point of failure that's identical all devices. I just need to brute force my machine to get access to yours.
what you are describing is a lock that is not installed correctly. that is not a unique feature of a government option.
|
On February 19 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:34 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? This isn't the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is over encryption. Privacy does not and should not make one immune to legal searches and seizures. But that's not the issue at all. Do I have a right to encrypt my data? Do I have the right to private communication? Yes and yes. And the third question is, can that right be taken away? The answer is also yes.
That doesn't make sense. If someone can retroactively go back and read your "private" communications, they were never truly private in the first place.
|
On February 19 2016 05:45 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:52 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:39 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 04:34 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
IP addresses. If the phone sends data through the internet, it has a very specific address.
Just as an aside, the legal problem is not proving that device X sent the data. Its to prove the suspect was the one using device X at the time. And you prove that by saying they have sole access to the device or had the device at the time the criminal activity took place. But to do that, you need to prove that the device sent the data and was the one used. Its a hurdle in all internet based crime and digital evidence. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11027732/apple-iphone-encryption-fbi-san-bernardino-shootersOn a side, note, the Judge specifically ordered that Apple assist with bypassing the auto delete feature, which appears to be no small task. Also removing the limit on the number of password attempts. If they cannot currently do that, they need to write software that will allow them. So the order isn't for them to create a back door, but remove the defenses they put in place so the FBI can force the phone open. With those in place, every iphone is completely immune to being forced open. I don't see anything unreasonable about that order. Sorry but have you ever felt that maybe lawschool did not make you an expert in cryptography? Does american law have no form of: de.wikipedia.org? The gain of hacking that phone is insignificantly low, but it's detriments are unpredictably large and severe. There is no compelling argument to do it. And "fuck i have no clue how stuff works, i will force the apple guys to do my bidding" just doesn't cut it. First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you. Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? That argument does not work because it is not specific. It can be used to argue anything. "what if they are going to harm me or my family, can i abduct them to afghanistan and use enhanced interrogation techniques on them for a couple of months and on everyone whose name they tell me?"
The argument doesn't work because it's about 50 posts removed from his starting point and has no relation to what he's even talking about anymore. If you think someone is going to harm you get a restraining order. If they are going to steal from you get a lock and a security camera. If they are taking photos of your children and stalking them get a restraining order. The rest of his computer and safe talk is just nonsense.
|
On February 19 2016 05:39 Simberto wrote:
But the US government does not control all manufacturers. Currently the US has a good grip on the OS market. I wonder how long it will stay like that if they demand backdoors into everything.
Iphone presents by far most problems for government (it pains to say this but its true). Google or Samsung can get access to content of their phones much easier once they get hold of physical device. I imagine its simliar for other manufacturers.
|
On February 19 2016 05:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:52 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 04:47 Plansix wrote:[quote] And you prove that by saying they have sole access to the device or had the device at the time the criminal activity took place. But to do that, you need to prove that the device sent the data and was the one used. Its a hurdle in all internet based crime and digital evidence. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11027732/apple-iphone-encryption-fbi-san-bernardino-shootersOn a side, note, the Judge specifically ordered that Apple assist with bypassing the auto delete feature, which appears to be no small task. Also removing the limit on the number of password attempts. If they cannot currently do that, they need to write software that will allow them. So the order isn't for them to create a back door, but remove the defenses they put in place so the FBI can force the phone open. With those in place, every iphone is completely immune to being forced open. I don't see anything unreasonable about that order. Sorry but have you ever felt that maybe lawschool did not make you an expert in cryptography? Does american law have no form of: de.wikipedia.org? The gain of hacking that phone is insignificantly low, but it's detriments are unpredictably large and severe. There is no compelling argument to do it. And "fuck i have no clue how stuff works, i will force the apple guys to do my bidding" just doesn't cut it. First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you. Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? Dude wtf are you even talking about anymore? How does encryption prevent prosecution of a person for doing any of those things? And "a computer is not a safe"? What the fuck? What is a "safe"? He stated that privacy was more important than the ability to convict someone. And I pointed out that crimes are normally the result on one person harming another in some way, that we weight the rights of privacy to the right of the victim not to be harmed. That is why we have search warrants. And you don't get access to a criminal's mind. There are ordinary ways of doing police work for the crimes you mentioned that don't involve knowing his every thought.
Yes, but a lot of those methods have been removed when it comes to physical evidence. There are no more phone records if people use call over wifi. Text message are not handled by 3rd party providers any more. I can’t access someone’s skype or discord log without access to their phone(if that is the only place they use those services). If they use some third party program to send messages that doesn’t’ record hardware that sent it, you need access to that hardware.
There is plenty of evidence you can’t get unless you have complete access to the phone. Currently, if the phone is locked, the police can never access it because it will delete itself. Even Apple can’t open it.
|
On February 19 2016 05:46 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:34 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? This isn't the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is over encryption. Privacy does not and should not make one immune to legal searches and seizures. But that's not the issue at all. Do I have a right to encrypt my data? Do I have the right to private communication? Yes and yes. And the third question is, can that right be taken away? The answer is also yes. That doesn't make sense. If someone can retroactively go back and read your "private" communications, they were never truly private in the first place.
Sure you can. If I say something to someone in private, the court can compel them to testify about it. They can’t say no, or they will be held in contempt.
|
On February 19 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:44 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:52 puerk wrote:[quote] Sorry but have you ever felt that maybe lawschool did not make you an expert in cryptography? Does american law have no form of: de.wikipedia.org? The gain of hacking that phone is insignificantly low, but it's detriments are unpredictably large and severe. There is no compelling argument to do it. And "fuck i have no clue how stuff works, i will force the apple guys to do my bidding" just doesn't cut it. First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you. Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? Dude wtf are you even talking about anymore? How does encryption prevent prosecution of a person for doing any of those things? And "a computer is not a safe"? What the fuck? What is a "safe"? He stated that privacy was more important than the ability to convict someone. And I pointed out that crimes are normally the result on one person harming another in some way, that we weight the rights of privacy to the right of the victim not to be harmed. That is why we have search warrants. And you don't get access to a criminal's mind. There are ordinary ways of doing police work for the crimes you mentioned that don't involve knowing his every thought. Yes, but a lot of those methods have been removed when it comes to physical evidence. There are no more phone records if people use call over wifi. Text message are not handled by 3rd party providers any more. I can’t access someone’s skype or discord log without access to their phone(if that is the only place they use those services). If they use some third party program to send messages that doesn’t’ record hardware that sent it, you need access to that hardware. There is plenty of evidence you can’t get unless you have complete access to the phone. Currently, if the phone is locked, the police can never access it because it will delete itself. Even Apple can’t open it.
I don't see the problem. If two people meet in a dusky room there's no evidence of that either.
|
On February 19 2016 05:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:46 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:34 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? This isn't the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is over encryption. Privacy does not and should not make one immune to legal searches and seizures. But that's not the issue at all. Do I have a right to encrypt my data? Do I have the right to private communication? Yes and yes. And the third question is, can that right be taken away? The answer is also yes. That doesn't make sense. If someone can retroactively go back and read your "private" communications, they were never truly private in the first place. Sure you can. If I say something to someone in private, the court can compel them to testify about it. They can’t say no, or they will be held in contempt.
so they can say no, they will be held in contempt, which will likely be a fine, they will still say no, pay the fine, court has to decide again if the info is really that important to put them in prison over it, maybe they do it, maybe they dont... but they have to reconsider on the escalations, is that true?
|
On February 19 2016 05:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:46 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:34 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? This isn't the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is over encryption. Privacy does not and should not make one immune to legal searches and seizures. But that's not the issue at all. Do I have a right to encrypt my data? Do I have the right to private communication? Yes and yes. And the third question is, can that right be taken away? The answer is also yes. That doesn't make sense. If someone can retroactively go back and read your "private" communications, they were never truly private in the first place. Sure you can. If I say something to someone in private, the court can compel them to testify about it. They can’t say no, or they will be held in contempt.
You said you were a paralegal. Don't tell me you haven't heard of "I don't recall."
|
The Federal Communications Commission has begun a process that could lead to TV viewers being able to own their cable TV set-top boxes.
That's probably a problem most subscribers didn't know they had, but a congressional study found that cable subscribers pay an average of $231 a year to rent their cable boxes.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler thinks it's fine if people decide they want to rent. But maybe, he told Variety, giving users a choice would make cable companies build a better box.
"Let's have the cable company say, 'You want to pay me for my interface, because it does all of these things nobody else does,' rather than, 'You must pay me,' " Wheeler said. "We're just trying to get to that basic American concept of competition."
The FCC today voted to propose formally an open standard for set-top boxes. Proponents say that could mean one box bringing you cable channels, premium TV channels and streaming TV.
Source
|
On February 19 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:44 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 04:52 puerk wrote:[quote] Sorry but have you ever felt that maybe lawschool did not make you an expert in cryptography? Does american law have no form of: de.wikipedia.org? The gain of hacking that phone is insignificantly low, but it's detriments are unpredictably large and severe. There is no compelling argument to do it. And "fuck i have no clue how stuff works, i will force the apple guys to do my bidding" just doesn't cut it. First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you. Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? Dude wtf are you even talking about anymore? How does encryption prevent prosecution of a person for doing any of those things? And "a computer is not a safe"? What the fuck? What is a "safe"? He stated that privacy was more important than the ability to convict someone. And I pointed out that crimes are normally the result on one person harming another in some way, that we weight the rights of privacy to the right of the victim not to be harmed. That is why we have search warrants. And you don't get access to a criminal's mind. There are ordinary ways of doing police work for the crimes you mentioned that don't involve knowing his every thought. Yes, but a lot of those methods have been removed when it comes to physical evidence. There are no more phone records if people use call over wifi. Text message are not handled by 3rd party providers any more. I can’t access someone’s skype or discord log without access to their phone(if that is the only place they use those services). If they use some third party program to send messages that doesn’t’ record hardware that sent it, you need access to that hardware. There is plenty of evidence you can’t get unless you have complete access to the phone. Currently, if the phone is locked, the police can never access it because it will delete itself. Even Apple can’t open it.
Of course you can. Skype is owned by Microsoft. WhatsApp by Facebook. In addition, the data still goes over a network controlled by telecom companies. Get a wiretap and you get access to all that data.
|
On February 19 2016 05:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:46 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:34 travis wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? This isn't the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is over encryption. Privacy does not and should not make one immune to legal searches and seizures. But that's not the issue at all. Do I have a right to encrypt my data? Do I have the right to private communication? Yes and yes. And the third question is, can that right be taken away? The answer is also yes. That doesn't make sense. If someone can retroactively go back and read your "private" communications, they were never truly private in the first place. Sure you can. If I say something to someone in private, the court can compel them to testify about it. They can’t say no, or they will be held in contempt.
Actually there are times where the witness doesn't have to testify and the information is considered privileged and private! And for the most part those are the times you would clearly think to yourself "oh hey this conversation is specifically private". As in like, talking to a spouse or priest or psychiatrist or lawyer or w/e else.
When you talk to other people in your every day life, there is an understanding that the information isn't absolutely private. This is different than talking to someone who's job is specifically to keep that information private.
It's like talking on the phone. I know that phone conversations are likely recorded and stored somewhere. So I know that even my most private calls are not truly private.
With strong encryption, it's different. I know that whatever is contained within is absolutely private. So the question is, should the government be able to go "oh... no no no sorry, *absolutely privacy* isn't allowed". And I don't think they should, that's ridiculous.
I don't want some shadowy fucking figure that I have no control over and don't even know who they are standing over me able to look at my shit. And that's exactly what it is. Anyone who trusts other people they don't know to not abuse powers is really naive.
|
On February 19 2016 06:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:44 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On February 19 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 19 2016 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 05:05 puerk wrote:On February 19 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
First of all, I am a paralegal. Second, don't be an asshole. That second one might be hard for you.
Its a piece of tech. Apple has created a system where it is marketing and selling communication devices that cannot be forced opened without destroying the evidence. They either comply or the FBI is going to push congress to make this form of encryption illegal without some way of opening it. Ok, sorry i will try. Please look at that legal concept, i hope google autotranslate makes it kinda understandable. Approprietness of means of law enforcement is an issue that we can talk about in a politics thread, giving advice on how encryption should get circumvented by people not knowing how said encryption works however is pointless. I agree with you that it might happen this way, and i am saying it is a bad outcome for society overall. Let me put it to you this way, you understand encryption. I understand how hard it is to get evidence entered into a court. Even physical evidence is challenging at times. We have had documents that are worthless because we couldn't provide a witness to confirm they were authentic. Same with photos, because no one could testify when they we needed to prove they were taken in a specific time frame. Emails are a nightmare if one side won't admit they sent it. If you can't access the phone to provide proof to the jury that the email/text/tweet was sent from that phone, it will likely be impossible to prove who send it. That is just a reality of the legal process for almost all evidence. And you think the solution is to throw everything out on the street instead? (since it is almost inevitable that it will be broken once introduced) Sometimes the privacy of everyone is more important then your ability to convict one man. What if that personal is going to harm me or my family? Or is harassing me? Plotting to steal from me? Taking photos of my children and stalking them when I am not around? That isn't a hard drive, its a computer that is connected to a network. Its not a safe. The key part is the majority of crimes harm another person. Does privacy extend so far that this man made system makes them immune a search if they own an Iphone? Dude wtf are you even talking about anymore? How does encryption prevent prosecution of a person for doing any of those things? And "a computer is not a safe"? What the fuck? What is a "safe"? He stated that privacy was more important than the ability to convict someone. And I pointed out that crimes are normally the result on one person harming another in some way, that we weight the rights of privacy to the right of the victim not to be harmed. That is why we have search warrants. And you don't get access to a criminal's mind. There are ordinary ways of doing police work for the crimes you mentioned that don't involve knowing his every thought. Yes, but a lot of those methods have been removed when it comes to physical evidence. There are no more phone records if people use call over wifi. Text message are not handled by 3rd party providers any more. I can’t access someone’s skype or discord log without access to their phone(if that is the only place they use those services). If they use some third party program to send messages that doesn’t’ record hardware that sent it, you need access to that hardware. There is plenty of evidence you can’t get unless you have complete access to the phone. Currently, if the phone is locked, the police can never access it because it will delete itself. Even Apple can’t open it. Of course you can. Skype is owned by Microsoft. WhatsApp by Facebook. In addition, the data still goes over a network controlled by telecom companies. Get a wiretap and you get access to all that data.
Assuming you know the login information and Microsoft tracks which devices is using the program. They might not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
