| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 20 2016 10:10 Hexe wrote: Why cant the government just give the phone to apple and apple grabs the data off this one phone? whos owners are dead and they killed 13 people? Apple can't open it without building software to do so. No one can. They did this intentionally. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 20 2016 10:45 Plansix wrote: Apple can't open it without building software to do so. No one can. They did this intentionally. More like this is security by definition. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 20 2016 11:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: More like this is security by definition. As said previous, the right to privacy on a phone is sacrosanct. Unlimited security is not either. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 20 2016 11:28 Plansix wrote: As said previous, the right to privacy on a phone is sacrosanct. Unlimited security is not either. I like how you keep saying privacy and ignore everything I say about encryption being ubiquitous and necessary. "I'm a criminal and the FBI can't convict me because Apple aided me" is not a common occurrence. "I lost my phone and all my personal and financial data is safe because Apple has good security" is. Also to be noted is that 1) the FBI could probably still brute force this phone anyway, because Apple's security isn't actually airtight, especially for a group that actually has resources, and 2) there would be an auto-sync backup of this data that they could brute force, if the password hadn't been remotely reset while in government hands (the FBI is blaming the San Bernadino Health Department). So the question isn't even if Apple needs to weaken an unbreakable lock. It's if they should be forced to weaken their locks to save the FBI time, or if they should be forced to compromise their own work because the government screwed up. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18366 Posts
a) Unimplementable. The technology to encrypt something securely (until the invention of quantum computers) has been around since the 70s. So even if you break the inherent security Apple builds in there is nothing stopping people from using their own homebrew solution. b) Insecure. And I really really really urge you people thinking that this is currently possible to open up a book on cryptography and just read the first chapter. The first chapter talks about general principals. No need to know the details of how all the algorithms or the math works. Just the general principals and a bit about the attack vectors. All the solutions proposed (speaking once again, in general, not for this phone in particular) require some sort of method for accessing any data on any phone without knowing the encryption key. That is called an exploit and as the name implies, breaks the entire system. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I will try to write an analogy that non-techies might understand: imagine someone invents a revolutionary new safe. But instead of using titanium and glass plates, it uses a couple of sheets of cardboard and some silvertape. The genius is in how it is put together, but the plans are completely known and freely available on the internet. Anybody is able to create a key of arbitrary complexity and build this safe using readily available materials and following the instructions. Now Banana comes along and figures they can use this technology in their new iHouse product. They make some modifications, but basically create prefab houses using that same technology (replacing the cardboard with aluminium because it looks more stylish). It's a huge success and half of America lives in one of these impenetrable houses. The FBI is pissed because search warrants are now useless. So they tell the government and the government forces Banana to build FBI backdoors into all their iHouses. However, everybody has complete freedom to do whatever they want (it might be illegal, but it's impossible to check up on) inside their iHouse. They stick all their valuables in a simple cardboard safe. The FBI waltzes in through their backdoor, but instead of being stumped by the fancy aluminium outside safe, they are now stumped by the simple cardboard safe, using the technology that was freely available all along. Not only that, but burglars figure out how to open the FBI backdoor, and are now free to plunder the home of anybody who doesn't use the cardboard technology. And no, I am not exaggerating. In fact, it is probably easier to encrypt your data than to build anything of cardboard. And bad guys WILL get access to whatever universal back door you invent to give the FBI access. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18366 Posts
On February 20 2016 11:44 WolfintheSheep wrote: I like how you keep saying privacy and ignore everything I say about encryption being ubiquitous and necessary. "I'm a criminal and the FBI can't convict me because Apple aided me" is not a common occurrence. "I lost my phone and all my personal and financial data is safe because Apple has good security" is. Also to be noted is that 1) the FBI could probably still brute force this phone anyway, because Apple's security isn't actually airtight, especially for a group that actually has resources, and 2) there would be an auto-sync backup of this data that they could brute force, if the password hadn't been remotely reset while in government hands (the FBI is blaming the San Bernadino Health Department). So the question isn't even if Apple needs to weaken an unbreakable lock. It's if they should be forced to weaken their locks to save the FBI time, or if they should be forced to compromise their own work because the government screwed up. Well, to be fair, this also means that even though these guys look like they were somewhat more tech savvy than previous terrorist "masterminds", they really weren't. Just wait till the millenials start getting their hands on bombs. They actually have something of an idea of what can be put on Facebook and the iCloud and what should be locked away somewhere safe that nobody can get at. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 20 2016 12:05 Acrofales wrote: Well, to be fair, this also means that even though these guys look like they were somewhat more tech savvy than previous terrorist "masterminds", they really weren't. Just wait till the millenials start getting their hands on bombs. They actually have something of an idea of what can be put on Facebook and the iCloud and what should be locked away somewhere safe that nobody can get at. The most tech savvy thing that they actually did was destroy the other phones. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On February 20 2016 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Stuff like that bothers me as being so disingenuous. Wealthy people pay so much of the taxes because they have so much of the money. Look at the 40's through the 70's when we saw some of the highest tax rates for the wealthy and the share of taxes they paid through that... Propaganda has got people looking at this bass-ackwards. This is about a city. Bloomberg is saying having many wealthy people is good for the city because of the money it brings in. The money in turn helps fund the city's complex infrastructure (among the cleanest tap water in the country, best libraries, one of the largest transit systems in the country, large and sophisticated police force, etc.) and many programs that help the poor and middle class. That's what we expect from the government. There's nothing wrong with what Bloomberg said. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On February 20 2016 12:22 Deathstar wrote: This is about a city. Bloomberg is saying having many wealthy people is good for the city because of the money it brings in. The money in turn helps fund the city's complex infrastructure (among the cleanest tap water in the country, best libraries, one of the largest transit systems in the country, large and sophisticated police force, etc.) and many programs that help the poor and middle class. That's what we expect from the government. There's nothing wrong with what Bloomberg said. It would really be awesome if someone can compile a list of percentages of where the tax goes. Too many bullshit investments lead to a decrease in people's living standard. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 20 2016 12:22 Deathstar wrote: This is about a city. Bloomberg is saying having many wealthy people is good for the city because of the money it brings in. The money in turn helps fund the city's complex infrastructure (among the cleanest tap water in the country, best libraries, one of the largest transit systems in the country, large and sophisticated police force, etc.) and many programs that help the poor and middle class. That's what we expect from the government. There's nothing wrong with what Bloomberg said. And if you don't fix the negative effects of the capital inflow you also end up with segregation and those guys: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-francisco-tech-open-letter-i-dont-want-to-see-homeless-riff-raff | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24135 Posts
On February 20 2016 12:22 Deathstar wrote: This is about a city. Bloomberg is saying having many wealthy people is good for the city because of the money it brings in. The money in turn helps fund the city's complex infrastructure (among the cleanest tap water in the country, best libraries, one of the largest transit systems in the country, large and sophisticated police force, etc.) and many programs that help the poor and middle class. That's what we expect from the government. There's nothing wrong with what Bloomberg said. Maybe it is, I haven't read the context. The same line or some variation is well established as a way of arguing we shouldn't tax wealthy people more, and for that, it is total propaganda. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On February 20 2016 12:29 Nyxisto wrote: And if you don't fix the negative effects of the capital inflow you also end up with segregation and those guys: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-francisco-tech-open-letter-i-dont-want-to-see-homeless-riff-raff Many, if not all, of the homeless are in some form either a drug addict, are mentally ill or deficient. They will always exist. But I do think there should be a form of public decency or public safety law that will get rid of the homeless (relocation program). They piss and shit in public. They harass people. There has to be some law in place that deals with the homeless. NYC's situation is bad because the city provides shelters. There are over 40k homeless people now. It's a terrible situation. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On February 20 2016 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Maybe it is, I haven't read the context. The same line or some variation is well established as a way of arguing we shouldn't tax wealthy people more, and for that, it is total propaganda. I see where you're coming from. This isn't advocating trickle down or anything. Bloomberg is just saying that the city benefits from the influx of wealthy people. He was fiscally Keynesian and a moderate. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Which doesn't surprise me. I have a hard time believing that if the FBI really wanted to get into a phone that they would have no means to do so. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22460 Posts
On February 20 2016 16:43 LegalLord wrote: Talked to those I know who work in data security. They say that if what the FBI wanted was to combat terrorism, then they could get access to the phone in question without much issue. The consensus seems to be that their goal is more about control and general access than about the contents of that one phone. Which doesn't surprise me. I have a hard time believing that if the FBI really wanted to get into a phone that they would have no means to do so. I don't even see how this particular phone is very interesting. The couple had no outside interaction so they are not going to find accomplices with data on the phone, there is no mystery 3e suspect they hope to find. This is just about sticking it to Apple so they can get into any phone they want whenever they want it. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On February 20 2016 20:06 Gorsameth wrote: I don't even see how this particular phone is very interesting. The couple had no outside interaction so they are not going to find accomplices with data on the phone, there is no mystery 3e suspect they hope to find. This is just about sticking it to Apple so they can get into any phone they want whenever they want it. This phone was chosen specifically because of "TERRORISMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM". They're hoping to sway public opinion because of the scary looming threat of terrorism. This isn't the first time this has come up and they've never gotten any public support because its cases of drugs generally. The public is like fuck that, you're not getting your back door over some weed bust, go to hell. But now they've got a perfect case to try and sway people. Just like with 9/11 people are willing to allow things they'd never allow normally because of the fear of the boogeyman. This is 100% the government trying to get their foot in the door and nothing more. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On February 20 2016 21:15 oneofthem wrote: saying the phone doesnt seem like aa valuable source is simply beyond hilarious. Explain this. The two senior Apple executives said the company had worked hard to help investigators and tried multiple avenues including sending engineers with FBI agents to a WiFi network that would recognize the phone and begin an automatic backup if that had been enabled. They criticized government officials who reset the Apple identification associated with the phone, which closed off the possibility of recovering information from it through that automatic cloud backup. San Bernardino County reset the password on the iCloud account at the request of the FBI, said county spokesman David Wert. The government first disclosed the identification change in a footnote to its filing Friday. The Apple executives said that the reset occurred before Apple was consulted. The Justice Department declined to comment on that contention. You can certainly continue lying to yourself, trying to convince you that farooks phone totally will destroy ISIS when unlocked and shit, but the question you'd need to ask yourself is why the FBI ordered to pretty much destroy the single possible solution that would've gotten them the data without hacking the encryption. One can NOT be that blind without being a flatout idiot, sorry. Trying to justify that is not just "simply beyond hilarious". It's actually simply beyond idiotic. edit 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? Well. That door was intentionally closed by the FBI, so no, it's not a possibility anymore. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
