Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Mcafee offers to hack the San Bernadino phone for free. Of course, the FBI nor NSA need Apple to give them a back door. They can crack the phone on their own, they just don't want you to know this so they can get the precedent on record. http://www.techinsider.io/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-the-san-bernardino-iphone-for-free-so-apple-doesnt-need-to-place-a-back-door-on-its-product-2016-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Why doesn't the FBI just go on youtube and watch the how-to guide on cracking an iphone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Mcafee offers to hack the San Bernadino phone for free. Of course, the FBI nor NSA need Apple to give them a back door. They can crack the phone on their own, they just don't want you to know this so they can get the precedent on record. http://www.techinsider.io/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-the-san-bernardino-iphone-for-free-so-apple-doesnt-need-to-place-a-back-door-on-its-product-2016-2 I'm going to preface this post by saying I have no idea what the !@#$ I'm talking about but here goes. 1. If the police have a search warrant they can access someone's phone and/or computer right? 2. The owner of the phone is dead however can they still get a search warrant for someone who is dead? Someone edumicate me on what I'm missing on this case. Edited February 20, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Mcafee offers to hack the San Bernadino phone for free. Of course, the FBI nor NSA need Apple to give them a back door. They can crack the phone on their own, they just don't want you to know this so they can get the precedent on record. http://www.techinsider.io/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-the-san-bernardino-iphone-for-free-so-apple-doesnt-need-to-place-a-back-door-on-its-product-2016-2 On a side note, wondering why you haven't linked this gem? A newly declassified report by the National Security Agency’s inspector general suggests that the government is receiving far less data from Americans’ international Internet communications than privacy advocates have long suspected. The report indicates that when the N.S.A. conducts Internet surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act, companies that operate the Internet are probably turning over just emails to, from or about the N.S.A.’s foreign targets — not all the data crossing their switches, as the critics had presumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I don't buy for a second that they (Apple) doesn't already have a way in that they could use. The technology is absolutely available and there is no valid reason to believe they never created a backdoor into their own products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 I going to preface this post by saying I have no idea what the !@#$ I'm talking about but here goes. 1. If the police have a search warrant they can access someone's phone and/or computer right? 2. The owner of the phone is dead however can they still get a search warrant for someone who is dead? Someone edumicate me on what I'm missing on this case. Yes to both which is why the Feds making a big issue over this is theater. It isn't about hacking this one iPhone. It's about getting a backdoor put into every phone. Not that they need that either. They don't. But if it's on the books and has a precedent they don't have to bull **** about it anymore. I don't buy for a second that they (Apple) doesn't already have a way in that they could use. The technology is absolutely available and there is no valid reason to believe they never created a backdoor into their own products. Of course not. Tech companies have been working in lockstep with the federal government since the beginning. The Internet was a DoD project after all. It's theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Why doesn't the FBI just go on youtube and watch the how-to guide on cracking an iphone? Because it's illegal, which is why they want to make it legal. For them, not for you I don't buy for a second that they (Apple) doesn't already have a way in that they could use. The technology is absolutely available and there is no valid reason to believe they never created a backdoor into their own products. Of course the technology is there. That's what Law Enforcement is sueing for access to. They don't want access to a single dead terrorists phone. Apple could just unlock it for them and be done with it. They want the ability to unlock the phones of anybody they want, whenever they want, without having to ask or notify anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 The only Apple products I've ever owned are iphones, and I've never bothered to use password protection on mine. Are all Apple products (laptops, etc) password protected like the iphone is? I'm asking because the FBI is apparently claiming to want to see stored data held within the phone. They can easily get the complete call history (both incoming and outgoing) from the user's telecom service provider, so that's not what they're looking for. I can understand their wanting that information - in fact, I'm sure they already have it - but they have to be looking for something else stored in the notes function, or some other such application. If all Apple products have this same protection, then they may want access because maybe the San Bernadino shooters had their phone(s) linked to their Macbooks via i-Cloud. Anyone here familiar enough with Apple products to clarify any of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I don't buy for a second that they (Apple) doesn't already have a way in that they could use. The technology is absolutely available and there is no valid reason to believe they never created a backdoor into their own products. There are probably people on the street that do it every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The governments argument is based on a 227 year old law called the All Writs Act. It came shortly after the formation of the nation, basically, to fill in where no laws yet existed. That said, good for Apple, at least for now, standing it's ground. New York City today said they have 157 such phones they want access to if the feds win this case. So all this bull **** talk about "only this phone" is just that, bull ****.. If Apple concedes, and either creates the backdoor, or gives it up, it sets a precedent, and opens a huge can of worms as numerous other LE will demand the same, based on this one case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The only Apple products I've ever owned are iphones, and I've never bothered to use password protection on mine. Are all Apple products (laptops, etc) password protected like the iphone is? I'm asking because the FBI is apparently claiming to want to see stored data held within the phone. They can easily get the complete call history (both incoming and outgoing) from the user's telecom service provider, so that's not what they're looking for. I can understand their wanting that information - in fact, I'm sure they already have it - but they have to be looking for something else stored in the notes function, or some other such application. If all Apple products have this same protection, then they may want access because maybe the San Bernadino shooters had their phone(s) linked to their Macbooks via i-Cloud. Anyone here familiar enough with Apple products to clarify any of this? You can and should set a password on a phone on your own. And that brings up very bad mobile management by the county. I can't believe that the county doesn't have a mechanism for overriding a password its employees use to lock the phone. If this is a county issued phone, the county should have had protections in place to access the device and it wouldn't even need to reach Apple. The terrorist backed up the account on iCloud up to about a month before the shooting. All that info is available. FBI wants the info on the phone after he stopped the iCloud backups, which is only on the phone. Having said that, Apple & Google are really playing a dangerous game because they're inviting much stricter regulation with regard to built-in encryption. There's already a hearing scheduled for March and you know legislation is one the way and it won't be pretty. One thing I learned in my life is that things don't turn well for an industry that sticks a finger in DC's eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Having said that, Apple & Google are really playing a dangerous game because they're inviting much stricter regulation with regard to built-in encryption. There's already a hearing scheduled for March and you know legislation is one the way and it won't be pretty. One thing I learned in my life is that things don't turn well for an industry that sticks a finger in DC's eye. Doubly so, given that if such legislation were to pass, you know the government would still hold them responsible for any security breaches through the back door the government mandates. The ultimate result would be much tighter regulation on ALL information security. You can't force Apple to weaken iOS security without also dictating what they can and can't sell in the App Store w/r/t third-party security apps. Which, by extension, requires limitations on what private citizens can and cannot do with respect to data security. Ultimately, you end up extrapolating that to making illegal any data security that can't be bypassed by court order. That might sound silly...but it wasn't too long ago that emailing to another country an encryption program with greater than a 40-bit key was legally considered illegal arms exporting and could get you 5 years in prison. And part of the problem is simply that the law, in this case, has virtually no clue what it's doing. The courts probably see this as roughly equivalent to getting a warrant for information locked in a safe, being unable to open that safe, and getting a court order for the safe manufacturer to open that safe. Apple sees this as analogous to getting a warrant for information locked in a safe, and then demanding that the safe manufacturer retroactively rebuild every single instance of that particular safe so they can't be locked. Apple's analogy is much closer to the truth, but the courts aren't equipped to understand and handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) I really don't understand why this is controversial. Happy to acknowledge that my understand is perhaps deficient in this matter. But frankly it very much looks to me that Apple is simply motivated by a desire to protect a valuable product suite and brand. To me this seems to be mostly about money, specifically corporate profit. Apple should have a programme to deincrypte its security software and it should be available whenever a judge is properly of the view that the issuance of a warrant is justified based on applicable law. Warrants are not always available and there is a minimum threshold standard that needs to be met. If the tests are not sufficiently refined to safeguard rights to privacy they can be modified by legislation. But the key to the car trunk example is it seems to me fundamentally valid. That Apple is being asked to do something is irrelevant since they are the one's who have engineered the fact that the information is otherwise inaccessible. If there is info on the phones in question that if not produced resulted in the deaths of innocent persons I would not hesitate to expose the Apple CEO to onerous criminal sanctions. Edited February 20, 2016 by starrymessenger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 A government organization forcing a private company to do its bidding? bull **** I agree fully with Apple. If the NSA really wanted to get into this phone, they would have done it already. This about setting a precedent so they can force any company to hack into private citizens stuff for "security purposes". But the conservative Trump wants people to boycott Apple over this? Nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 A government organization forcing a private company to do its bidding? bull **** I agree fully with Apple. If the NSA really wanted to get into this phone, they would have done it already. This about setting a precedent so they can force any company to hack into private citizens stuff for "security purposes". But the conservative Trump wants people to boycott Apple over this? Nonsense This shows he's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 This shows reinforces that he's not. Can the 932nd example of him not being a conservative really be the one that "shows" he's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I really don't understand why this is controversial. Happy to acknowledge that my understand is perhaps deficient in this matter. But frankly it very much looks to me that Apple is simply motivated by a desire to protect a valuable product suite and brand. To me this seems to be mostly about money, specifically corporate profit. Apple should have a programme to deincrypte its security software and it should be available whenever a judge is properly of the view that the issuance of a warrant is justified based on applicable law. Warrants are not always available and there is a minimum threshold standard that needs to be met. If the tests are not sufficiently refined to safeguard rights to privacy they can be modified by legislation. But the key to the car trunk example is it seems to me fundamentally valid. That Apple is being asked to do something is irrelevant since they are the one's who have engineered the fact that the information is otherwise inaccessible. If there is info on the phones in question that if not produced resulted in the deaths of innocent persons I would not hesitate to expose the Apple CEO to onerous criminal sanctions. That is why you don't understand why this is controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 That is why you don't understand why this is controversial.Well at least I'm doing my best. So ok its a master key to every trunk of that model made by the manufacturer. Does that mean that the master key should not exist or that it necessarily cannot be safely custodied if it does exist?If the controversy has to do with the nature of the information that could be subject to discovery, I don't see why it should be given greater protection simply because it is personal if there are reasonable grounds for thinking that it might be materially connected to terrorist or criminal activity. Warrants are not, and should not be that easy to get. In a case like the one in San Bernardino, its not too difficult to see why the JD wants to undo the encryption. And its probably not too hard either to imagine a fact situation where Apple might be exposed to civil and criminal sanctions for having aided or abetted terrorism if they willfully refused to cooperate with the authorities and an event occurred that clearly could have otherwise been prevented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Another factor in this: the reason they're suing to get Apple to unlock the phone is because someone (one of the shooter's co-workers) changed the password two days after the attack. So the government can't sync the phone to the iCloud and get the data that way, as they usually would. So rather than do the investigative work of identifying who changed the password (and charging him with obstruction, and getting the new password)...they'd rather claim Apple is being obstructionist, and make a legal case out of that. Yeah, this isn't about San Bernadino. They're just using it as an excuse to break commercial encryption standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts