US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2967

On February 20 2016 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:


How many Trump supporters want to vote for Rubio? I think a big problem is that democrats are less likely to vote against someone than republicans.

On February 20 2016 04:35 LegalLord wrote:

I think that it has a lot to do with Hillary that many people don't want to vote for Hillary.

On February 20 2016 04:43 ticklishmusic wrote:


Why have you become more skeptical of supporting Hillary?

ut now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

On February 20 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
From what I was reading yesterday, the vibe from the tech industry was that supported encryption and making it as secure as possible. But a couple of articles pointed out that Apple moved very aggressively and created an encryption system that would guarantee the government would sue them. Specifically because the phone auto deletes if they attempt to open it and that can’t be turned off. The tech industry is not so keen on that because it could force regulation or legislation.

I’m mixed on it. I think encryption is very important. I don’t think I am comfortable with companies should build mass market devices that are so secure legislators might need to regulate them. Or that no one can open expect the user. Or at least, not on a phone that sells millions of units each year internationally.

Edit; Market Place from yesterday made a good point, that Apple planned to have this happen a long time ago. To not be the gate keeper for Iphones. It was a business decision to make their product more valuable. They knew this fight was coming and likely planned around it. And that the product might sell better internationally if it was see as so secure even the US government couldn’t get it.

On February 20 2016 06:29 IgnE wrote:


The position that privacy is fine sometimes, when it's not "mass marketed," is not well thought out. Either everyone deserves privacy or no one does. The middle situation where the masses are surveilled every second and privacy is reserved for the elect few is the worst possible one.

On February 20 2016 05:37 Acrofales wrote:
@clutz: lol. While I'm on Apple's side here, you're not exactly clued up on the tech. Of course you have to be able to write se cure software updates while the phone is locked. Otherwise any legitimate error that locks the user out (such as their recent update that bugged out a whole bunch of phones with broken home buttons), would mean the phone is bricked.

However, apple has seemingly plugged all the holes in their bootrom, so unless you are trusted apple software, you're not subverting the boot process and loading your own software (which is essentially what the FBI wants to do). They therefore need Apple and it's not a giant software project, but seemingly quite a reasonable request. It's the ramifications that it has that are appalling.

On February 20 2016 06:47 cLutZ wrote:

But that isn't the encryption option we are discussing. Your normal 4 digit pin doesn't create this situation, its an on- boot encryption no? The point is that the phone does get bricked of anything suspicious starts to happen.

I'm totally willing to be wrong about the tech (I don't have an iPhone to even try this program), but if its what you are talking about its basically worthless. More likely to erase your whole phone because a toddler grabs it than to protect you from the FBI.

On February 20 2016 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:

The phone erases when X pins attempts have been made. A completely standard way to prevent brute force attacks.

The FBI wants an OS update that will remove the limit on attempts, the need to physically enter a pin and a custom delay between attempts.
This is so they can hook it up to a super computer and brute force their way through the encryption by launching possible pins at it as fast as the processor can handle.

On February 20 2016 07:06 cLutZ wrote:

My question is whether it locks in this specific way every time you leave it on a desk for 10 seconds, or if its a boot level encryption. And if its the first, and it doesn't lock out updates when its on, its, line I said, not very useful. And the FBI should just spoof the Apple secure update signature. Or just pay a firm to do that, then the court can eventually fine Apple if they really are in possession of such a program.

On February 20 2016 07:06 cLutZ wrote:

My question is whether it locks in this specific way every time you leave it on a desk for 10 seconds, or if its a boot level encryption. And if its the first, and it doesn't lock out updates when its on, its, line I said, not very useful. And the FBI should just spoof the Apple secure update signature. Or just pay a firm to do that, then the court can eventually fine Apple if they really are in possession of such a program.

The Justice Department filed a motion Friday to compel Apple to assist investigators in accessing data on the Apple iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters in the 2015 attack, which left 14 people dead. The phone is owned by Farook's former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health.The department has agreed to allow investigators to search the device.

"Apple's current refusal to comply with the court's order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy," the motion said.

Speaking at a rally in South Carolina, the Republican presidential candidate said Apple should help the US government in gathering information from a device owned by one of the killers involved in the San Bernardino shootings.

However, moments after demanding the boycott - Trump, or possibly an aide - began writing messages on Twitter... using the social media site's iPhone app.

Despite this faux pas, his spokeswoman insisted the businessman does not use an iPhone.

But a short time later, Trump admitted he did own an iPhone - and vowed to rely on Samsung until Apple decides to co-operate.

On February 20 2016 07:19 Acrofales wrote:


It locks that way every time (well, there's a couple of different keys, and they get wiped in different situations; the actual description of what and how is quite technical, but is basically described here: http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios-encryption.

It doesn't lock out updates, but your idea of spoofing Apple's signature is kinda impossible. They'd have to hack whatever secure server Apple keeps their key on to be able to sign their own software with it. I'm sure the FBI can find some black hat hacker willing and capable of doing just that, but it'd be highly illegal.

On February 20 2016 07:21 Simberto wrote:
Related question for people who know more about this kind of thing then i do, because this has been bugging me.

So, i do have a question here: Shouldn't there be some way for the FBI to simply completely copy everything that is on that phone, encryption or not, and thus be able to try as often as they want anyways? The data must be saved on some sort of storage device, so couldn't you just take that storage out of the phone, and 1 : 1 copy it over?

I assume there must be some sort of protection in the style of "If the storage has no electricity, it deletes itself. If you open the phone, it deletes itself, etc.. But people who are able to defuse bombs should be able to figure out something along those lines? Drill some holes at the right place, cut the right wires, things like that. And they don't have to try it on that phone either, simply practice on an identical phone until you are sure you get it right all the time. And as soon as you are able to replicate the whole storage of the phone, you should be able to brute force it no matter what it thinks about that.

Obviously it doesn't work like that, or we wouldn't have this situation. Is it simply that the FBI does not want to risk losing the phone by fucking up such an attempt? Or is there something else in place that prevents this kind of action?

On February 20 2016 07:29 cLutZ wrote:


After reading this: http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/
It appears I overestimated Apple and they do basically have remote admin powers over ask the phones (and respectfully disagree with thier "expert" on whether it should have been anticipated. ).

That said, my solution is feasible in the sense that they legally have a very strong claim to subpoena the Sig. Like an order of magnitude stronger than the claim to have Apple do all the legwork for them.