Funnily enough one of the changes in iOS9.3 is the introduction of two-factor authentication for Apple IDs.

Another step towards tighter security?

The FBI paod them $15,000 (retainer only perhaps) which wouod suggest it wasn’t that hard to do.

Or it was a nominal sum for the bragging/influence/plausible deniability.

Well, it appears the FBI had the means to access an iPhone under these circumstances since 2013, but it costs quite a lot of money, so the devious bastards thought they could go through the courts to set a precedent which would let them do it for free:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemorgan/2016/03/30/john-mcafee-fbi-knew-all-along-they-could-unlock-an-iphone-with-cellebrites-ufed-touch/#4dc110742608

Funnily enough one of the changes in iOS9.3 is the introduction of two-factor authentication for Apple IDs.

Another step towards tighter security?

First thing to accept is that the data on the device can be accessed by people if they really want to. How much you protect your data should be relative to the damage it can do. So things like not storing your creepy sex pics on your phone or cloud is a clever idea.
Remote wipe/kill/brick tech is great but these days things like phones when collected in evidence go into something like this
http://www.teeltech.com/mobile-device-forensics-equipment/disklabs-faraday-bags/
So all your remote attempts won’t work.

I’m not overly worried about the Feds accessing my phone Mike.
My unusual taste in grot may be repulsive to many, but I’m fairly sure it’s legal.

In terms of my personal security I’m more worried about how easy it for someone to find/steal my phone and use it to access personal information, my email, my work email, pics of my kids, social media and other online accounts.

WhatsApp turns on end-to-end encryption by default:
http://www.wired.com/2016/04/forget-apple-vs-fbi-whatsapp-just-switched-encryption-billion-people/

@Graham can you opt out ?

I gave the app a 1-star review today due to the encryption

Why would you want to?

I understand that you believe state surveillance is a good thing, but assuming you are not actually a terrorist or someone that the state particularly wants to monitor then surely opting-out doesn’t really help you or the state?

To make a (petty) point.

Time for a change the law. This is zero about liberty and freedom the internet companies do not want the liability of 1) being sued by someone for releasing their conversations 2) being held liable for not reporting something serious. They also want the marketing benefit of “the feds can’t see this”

Time for a change the law.

You actually want to make end to end encryption illegal? How on earth would that law work? When Cameron stated this aim before the idea was widely ripped apart.

I really don’t understand the mind set behind those in favour of mass surveillance and no privacy from everyone, even the government. A few terrorists and criminals should not be used to justify something which effects absolutely everyone.

If you ban end-to-end encryption then you effectively ban online shopping, banking and remote working. That makes it kinda tricky to legislate.

MacRumors Link

Draft legislation to end “un-crackable” encryption. I doubt this will pass as Obama too concerned about his legacy but this will be passed eventually. No one is above the law and tech companies don’t care about privacy – if they cannot read the content they can’t be held legally responsible and they don’t have to spend money moderating it

Well the headline description of “‘Absurd,’ ‘Dangerous,’ and Technically Inept” sums that up nicely!

Do you really want it to be the law that you cannot have a properly secured Internet connection to your bank, or shops, or work?

You might as well suggest a law that requires that at least one downstairs window is unlocked at all times to ensure police are not obstructed when conducting raids.

tech companies don’t care about privacy – if they cannot read the content they can’t be held legally responsible and they don’t have to spend money moderating it

And the problem here is? I thought you’d be all in favour of companies doing what ever they need to do to make a comfortable profit? 😉

Well the headline description of “‘Absurd,’ ‘Dangerous,’ and Technically Inept” sums that up nicely!

Do you really want it to be the law that you cannot have a properly secured Internet connection to your bank, or shops, or work?

You might as well suggest a law that requires that at least one downstairs window is unlocked at all times to ensure police are not obstructed when conducting raids.

Spot on. If a backdoor is there you can be damn sure that people will find it, and exploit it. It’s bad enough with flaws and bugs that weren’t designed in, but nothing can be kept secret and secure enough that it would make this a good idea.

A few terrorists and criminals should not be used to justify something which effects absolutely everyone.

Because that’s exactly what they want. It would be a big fat win for the terrorists.

Just to resurrect this. The Register has a good example of why exploits and secrecy don’t work.

Interesting, nice find.

Relevant to this discussion I suppose is the notion some have voiced that it’s ok for the [insert government shadow organisation here] to have tools to, say, have a back door into iPhones because only they have access to it and it’ll never fall into the hands of the Bad Guys. This is a damning argument against that.

😀

@king below is the solution to your spam / ridiculous security suggestion