3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 And if that lead pans out into criminal charges, they wouldn't want to have those charges thrown out because of a dumbass chain of evidence violation. It's probably mostly keeping the option open, since they don't know what they'll find; and institutional practice that they simply don't know how to violate. Well, they could ask the IRS for tips on how to do it.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 26, 2016 Author Posted February 26, 2016 Can't Apple just "open" this one phone and hand it to the FBI? Yes, and more to the point, so can the FBI. The FBI nor NSA need Apple to open this phone, that's the theater part. This is about getting a precedent on the books, out in the open, so they can be more up front about the constitutional violations they're continually committing under the guise of "fighting terrorism". It's not about terrorism. If it were, a simple warrant would suffice. There's no one arguing the FBI shouldn't be able to look on the suspect's phone, they (allegedly) committed terrible acts of violence and if their phone has information on it pertinent to the investigation I think every person would agree they should be "given" access to it. And as I said they're playing a very dangerous long game. This would not have been an issue in prior OS and both Apple & Google have introduced greater encryption into subsequent OS releases and there's talk that the next versions will be even more secure. That's all fine & dandy, but the law looks at these efforts as deliberate attempts to circumvent security. The techs shouldn't then be surprised at the legislation that will follow. That's what Apple SHOULD be doing. I'm no fan of Apple, their work practices are appalling and frankly they build ****ty products that implode every 2 years, just in time to make people buy some more. That bias aside, the federal government has no constitutional right to our phone records, metadata, or anything else on our phones or in inboxes. Zero. Zilch. None. Banning encryption (which is laughable anyway considering the federal government already has the means to defeat even the best encryption and has been doing so for a long time) like banning guns would only impact law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to stop criminals, foreign actors, or terrorists. This isn't about fighting terrorists. It's about obliterating the 4th amendment for every American. This is the entire point of the debate.
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Yes, and more to the point, so can the FBI. The FBI nor NSA need Apple to open this phone Actually, while they probably can, it would take them quite a bit of time. It's quicker and easier to sue Apple...even if it takes months. (Not that the rest of your observations are wrong, though.)
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 Actually, while they probably can, it would take them quite a bit of time. It's quicker and easier to sue Apple...even if it takes months. (Not that the rest of your observations are wrong, though.) WTF! Figures... Nothing like a monkey (gov't) phucking a football! The gov't way! As we say... "Close enough for gov't work" Should we expect anything less, then the same crappy try! Holy Moly! I am no Apple FanBoy by any means... BUT I hope Apple wins! You think the gov't is working on that phone in the meantime... Just in case they lose... (Yeah, I know that is actually kinda dumb and could screw things up?) But... Hey, it would be nice to see an effort if they come out of this thing losing!
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 When was she sec of state? Technology has actually improved a lot in those few years. Apple's new systems are much more encrypted now
3rdnlng Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 When was she sec of state? Technology has actually improved a lot in those few years. Apple's new systems are much more encrypted now What don't you get? She broke the law by conducting federal business on her private server.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 When was she sec of state? Technology has actually improved a lot in those few years. Apple's new systems are much more encrypted now Shhh... Don't question technology and how one builds a meme...
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 When was she sec of state? Technology has actually improved a lot in those few years. Apple's new systems are much more encrypted now It was three years ago, you dumb ****.
B-Man Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) It was three years ago, you dumb ****. You are correct. But the larger point is....................it doesn't matter if it was 50 years ago......................that is a 'squirrel' by gator and seconded by EiI The point of the "meme" picture was to illustrate that Secretary of State Clinton made a conscious decision to use a much less safe server. to benefit Herself. but you knew that. . Edited February 27, 2016 by B-Man
/dev/null Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 When was she sec of state? Technology has actually improved a lot in those few years. Apple's new systems are much more encrypted now Shhh... Don't question technology and how one builds a meme... And you almost deserve one for enabling the Asshat. Look, on the topic of Midwestern waterways and far eastern fish you are far and away the TSW's leading expert. But on the topic of technology, encryption, and yes even memes, there are those among us who are far more knowledgeable than you.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 It was three years ago, you dumb ****. And was she on an iPhone or using an Apple iOS @ the very least. Did it have a 10 password wipe out feature. Oh wait, they were already wiped... LoL... And you almost deserve one for enabling the Asshat. Look, on the topic of Midwestern waterways and far eastern fish you are far and away the TSW's leading expert. But on the topic of technology, encryption, and yes even memes, there are those among us who are far more knowledgeable than you. You might be right... Did Hillary have an iPhone 5c in question? The iPhone 5c was released on 9/20/2013. It is Wiki: "As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.[12] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to her from Sidney Blumenthal, obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[13][14][15] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[13][14][15] Blumenthal did not have a security clearance when he received material from Secretary Clinton that has since been characterized as classified by the State Department.[16][17]"
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 Question for the experts... The 5c is the bargain basement iPhone... It doesn't have a finger scanner right? Does that make it harder to access? So the thing here is to get the cheapo phones? Be harder to hack? Seems the 5c is at the center of the gov't ire? Is that true... Why compromise the whole iOS and just let the phones phase out. Gee... Thanks for telling everybody that the 5c is the phone to get. No? Apple sells hardware, right... Their business model is more hinged on selling that hardware. How does this problem with breaking into the 5c related to PC's, email servers, etc..???
Deranged Rhino Posted February 27, 2016 Author Posted February 27, 2016 Question for the experts... The 5c is the bargain basement iPhone... It doesn't have a finger scanner right? Does that make it harder to access? So the thing here is to get the cheapo phones? Be harder to hack? Seems the 5c is at the center of the gov't ire? Is that true... Why compromise the whole iOS and just let the phones phase out. Gee... Thanks for telling everybody that the 5c is the phone to get. No?Apple sells hardware, right... Their business model is more hinged on selling that hardware. How does this problem with breaking into the 5c related to PC's, email servers, etc..??? No you're missing the point. It's not about the single phone or even the type of phone. The FBI can get into the phone without Apple if they want. It's about the legal precedent and the continued assault on the fourth amendment under the guise of fighting terror. But it's not about fighting terror. It's about destroying privacy for all Americans. . : beer:
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 And was she on an iPhone or using an Apple iOS @ the very least. Did it have a 10 password wipe out feature. Oh wait, they were already wiped... LoL... I hope she wasn't using an iPhone as an email server. Which misses the point that neither is as secure as SIPRNet. All of which misses the point that the much bigger problem is her attempts to dodge Congressional oversight.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 No you're missing the point. It's not about the single phone or even the type of phone. The FBI can get into the phone without Apple if they want. It's about the legal precedent and the continued assault on the fourth amendment under the guise of fighting terror. But it's not about fighting terror. It's about destroying privacy for all Americans. : beer: I totally understand that they can get into the one phone and don't have to alter iOS. I am pro-Apple here. Lot of news on this is hinting they can use a brute force entry. How do they get past the 10 password thing? I hope she wasn't using an iPhone as an email server. Which misses the point that neither is as secure as SIPRNet. All of which misses the point that the much bigger problem is her attempts to dodge Congressional oversight. This 5c from what I gather is quite the little beast. They can't brute force into it because it may be wiped clean. How else do they get into this specific piece of hardware?
GG Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 Yes, and more to the point, so can the FBI. The FBI nor NSA need Apple to open this phone, that's the theater part. This is about getting a precedent on the books, out in the open, so they can be more up front about the constitutional violations they're continually committing under the guise of "fighting terrorism". It's not about terrorism. If it were, a simple warrant would suffice. There's no one arguing the FBI shouldn't be able to look on the suspect's phone, they (allegedly) committed terrible acts of violence and if their phone has information on it pertinent to the investigation I think every person would agree they should be "given" access to it. That's what Apple SHOULD be doing. I'm no fan of Apple, their work practices are appalling and frankly they build ****ty products that implode every 2 years, just in time to make people buy some more. That bias aside, the federal government has no constitutional right to our phone records, metadata, or anything else on our phones or in inboxes. Zero. Zilch. None. Banning encryption (which is laughable anyway considering the federal government already has the means to defeat even the best encryption and has been doing so for a long time) like banning guns would only impact law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to stop criminals, foreign actors, or terrorists. This isn't about fighting terrorists. It's about obliterating the 4th amendment for every American. This is the entire point of the debate. What are you talking about? The feds absolutely have a right to your "personal" property in a criminal investigation, which this happens to be. Apple is in a tougher spot now because they're being asked to do something that the law hasn't contemplated before. But as I said, they're not helping themselves by intentionally designing something that can't be seen by law enforcement. That won't work out well for them, because the lawmakers will look at them as accessories to a crime.
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 This 5c from what I gather is quite the little beast. They can't brute force into it because it may be wiped clean. How else do they get into this specific piece of hardware? They can actually only brute-force it. Their problem is that Apple designed it specifically to resist a brute-force attack. And it's not the phone that's the problem, it's the OS. iOS 9 encrypts all the phone data. iOS 8, only locked access to it, but kept it unencrypted. So it used to be that the FBI would simply go to Apple with a phone and say "get the data," and Apple would load custom firmware onto the phone that bypassed the passcode and gave access to the data. The difference between that, and this request, is that the FBI was merely asking Apple to recover the data. This time around, they're asking Apple to actively disable their security and give it to the FBI. The FBI doesn't want Apple to "unlock" the phone. They want Apple to give them the keys so they can unlock it (specifically, they want Apple to provide them firmware that cripples the brute-force protections, and give the firmware to the FBI so they can crack the encryption.)
Azalin Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 The More I read about this issue, the less I understand what the FBI is looking for that can't be obtained from the metadata collected by the NSA.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 28, 2016 Author Posted February 28, 2016 What are you talking about? The feds absolutely have a right to your "personal" property in a criminal investigation, which this happens to be. Apple is in a tougher spot now because they're being asked to do something that the law hasn't contemplated before. But as I said, they're not helping themselves by intentionally designing something that can't be seen by law enforcement. That won't work out well for them, because the lawmakers will look at them as accessories to a crime. No one is saying the FBI doesn't have a right (with a warrant of course, which they have) to search the contents of the suspects' phones. They (allegedly) committed a crime, if there's information on their phone that could lead or aid in the investigation then the FBI should have access to it. I'm saying the FBI, nor any element of the Federal or State government, has a right to my, or any law abiding citizens', phone records/emails/metadata/et. al. without a warrant. Michael Hayden has recently been making the media rounds and siding with Apple. On Maher last night (yah, I know) he pointed out that as head of NSA when he knew someone had put a door into an encryption system it made his job easier. His response whenever that happened was "thank you lord and there's a lot of security services around the world that think the same way". End to end encryption makes us all safer in his mind. It's hard to see it any other way if you care at all about protecting privacy. I'm not saying everything is black and white either, but in this case it is. They have the phone, they have a warrant, and they have the means to view the contents of it using their own abilities. But they don't want to get into the phone. Not really. They want the precedent. That's why it's !@#$ed up. Regardless of where you stand politically, it's an blatant power grab by the federal government if you look at it without being blinded by the "war on terror" hysteria it's been intentionally camouflaged in.
Recommended Posts