ISIS are making Bottom Brackets?

bikebouy – Member

But the facts remain, the FBI want this phone only.

1, that seems incredibly unlikely. And 2, it’s a proof of concept, even if they only want this one today, once they know it can be done they’ll want to do it again, twas ever thus.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

Yes but as the ISIS BB thread proves, what are you actually going to do with all the data from 6billion mobile phones?

Past evidence is, they use it to completely bury themselves in irrelevant data, making it harder to actually detect real threats than it would be if they had less access. US info policy has often been about scooping up noise because “more is better”.

Anyway, what is pointed out though in this article is the length of the “PIN”. By the talk of PIN I assumed it would be similar 4 to 6 digit kind of thing but apparently it can go beyond that and if they’ve set something long and complex enough yes it would take millions of years

I understood they “just” wanted to crack the normal 4 digit PIN. There are two issues – left as standard the phone will brick itself after 10 invalid passwords and there is an ever increasing timeout after each invalid password. These need “fixing” to make a brute force attack viable.

Have they tried 1234?

If I read the article in deadkennys link it was actually a US government agency owned phone…

So the US government (through the FBI) are trying to get apple to unlock a phone they own (through San Bernardino County Department of Public Health)..

They need a better internal IT policy…

Yeah I know, and clearly I’m no expert nor ever reported to be.. But still think it can’t be THAT hard.
I bet the FBI know, possibly just calling out Apple to admit it can be done, once thats out they’ll lean on them for access to all..

But if they’re part of an investigation into a crime, I still see no problem with it.

Why do some think thats wrong?

I’d rather my data was practically secure (from anything short of brute force cracking by supercomputer for example) which would stop anything between a wife knowing a husband is having an affair, through hobbyist hacking to industrial espionage. But still allow the police access to the 0.01% of users with the same phones who use them for nefarious uses.

THIS

that seems incredibly unlikely. And 2, it’s a proof of concept, even if they only want this one today, once they know it can be done they’ll want to do it again, twas ever thus.

AGreed but i dont have a problem as long as the reasons are legitimate.

Its a balance between us having privacy and us being able to investigate crime/protect folk. I dont think a yes they can access anything no they can never access anything is a healthy option as there may be legitimate reasons to access a phone

Imagine a young person groomed and missing and we cannot access the info on there phone to help track them /catch the perpetrator. Again I would prefer we could access it but trusting our govt with blanket access is a position very few myself included will support.

AGreed but i dont have a problem as long as the reasons are legitimate.

Which is fine in principle. In practice, governments the world over, including gentle democratic ones have shown that they can’t be trusted when we give a little on civil liberties not to take too much.

For **** sake, we now have to rely on Apple, Google, etc etc to protect aspects of our civil liberties. That’s all kinds of **** up.

For **** sake, we now have to rely on Apple, Google, etc etc to protect aspects of our civil liberties. That’s all kinds of **** up.

Well put

I’d rather my data was practically secure (from anything short of brute force cracking by supercomputer for example) which would stop anything between a wife knowing a husband is having an affair, through hobbyist hacking to industrial espionage. But still allow the police access to the 0.01% of users with the same phones who use them for nefarious uses.

But you aren’t given this choice, either for yourself or for a Chinese/Iranian/Saudi/UK dissident. Your phone (and theirs) is secure or it ain’t and can be accessed by the police/Mafia/teenagers in smelly bedrooms.

The idea that they only want this phone unlocked is naive.
In a world full of threats a memember of another government department will give a scenario of doom which will require unlocking just one more phone.

The FBI’s request for this phone is imho totally legitimate. If they wanted a peodophile’s or a drug dealers phone that would be legitimate too. The Guardian article today already pointed out that the terrorist was a government employee with a company iPhone and so they already have all the backup data as a result of prior court requests. They are just missing a few weeks worth of info. Hence Apple’s refusal is all the more pointless and stupid from a civil liberties perspective. It really is all about their profit motive (I see this is another rare example of where JY and I agree)

EDIT: just to reiterate this was not his personal phone, it was his employers property and I gauranty the terms of use would have included a clause to say all info on the phone remained the property of the employer. Apple’s refusal is nothing to do with civil liberties

You can’t just copy the phone memory and then guess pin numbers as the encryption is a combination of hardware (special chip technology) and software.

As per my earlier post Postprious conveninetly “forgot” his pin so Police could ‘t access his messages. Apple refused to crack his iPhone (older model and crackabke) despite RSA court requests. There is a precident case somewhere where a suspect was forced to give up a finger print copy to unlock their touch-id phone but you cannot force someone to give up a pin.

Can someone who is marking the civil liberties argument explain to me why unlocking an iphone is different to having a search warrant and turning your house upside down including breaking open any safe found on the property ?

Perfectly legitimate request. Police should be able to gather evidence. Don’t support criminals, murders etc walking free. I feel sometimes people forget the victims. Maybe if it was one of their children, parents or friends was the victim they’d consider supporting legitimate gathering of evidence.

Just give the damp thing to Sherlock. He worked out Lauren Pulver’s code easily enough.

Big up to Apple for standing firm. Let’s hope they continue to do so.

Just give the damp thing to Sherlock.

Probably best, Apple won’t touch it if it’s water damaged.

Can someone who is marking the civil liberties argument explain to me why unlocking an iphone is different to having a search warrant and turning your house upside down including breaking open any safe found on the property ?

Smart phones are communication devices; email, MMS, SMS, IM and all manner of other traces of past communications are on there. A house is just a box containing stuff.

Police should be able to gather evidence.

Without limits? If they ransack a street looking for a knife? If they insist that everyone empty their houses and leave their possessions on the street while they look, and hope that thieves don’t take advantage?

Smart phones are communication devices; email, MMS, SMS, IM and all manner of other traces of past communications are on there. A house is just a box containing stuff

A box containing all manner of other traces of past communications including smart phones and devices with mms , SAMs and IM hence why people get search warrants for them.

Isn’t the problem that it requires Apple to admit that they can introduce new firmware into a locked phone via it’s USB/recharging cable.

I don’t have an issue with the FBI requesting information to help them with their investigations, but at the same time, you can’t un-make technology and the idea that the FBI won’t ask for the same again is an obvious risk. I’d imagine a Judge is the US will soon be presiding over the FBI’s right to see informations vs Apple’s share price dropping faster than Josh Bender.

The thought that Apple, Google etc. care about civil liberties and not their profits is hilarious. Your personal data is what they are using to make vast amounts of money.

The thought that Apple, Google etc. care about civil liberties and not their profits is hilarious.

I don’t them anyone’s had that thought have they ?

I don’t them anyone’s had that thought have they ?

I think my last post could be construed as such, but I’d have hoped the tone might have suggested that I think it’s hilarious that Apple are standing in the way of the FBI getting into our phones. Notwithstanding, it might be possible that Apple (just reading Tim Cook’s letter) care about the security of their device (which would impact their share price) share price and our privacy from the state. It just happens that they’re both the same thing this week. You never know…

DrJ
It takes a warrant. Guess we don’t get too many street ransackings. Absurd suggestion.

I think the full quote answers that one for you

Perfectly legitimate request. Police should be able to gather evidence.

I see this is another rare example of where JY and I agree)

I have realised the only way in life, to be correct, is to agree with you.

It takes a warrant. Guess we don’t get too many street ransackings. Absurd suggestion

No. What is actually absurd is the idea that police have a right to do anything they want, and that the demand to develop technology to crack any phone is in any way analogous to searching a single house.

I think the full quote answers that one for you

Hardly. Any limits on police power?

Can someone who is marking the civil liberties argument explain to me why unlocking an iphone is different to having a search warrant and turning your house upside down

Because once the genie is out of the bottle it’s a free-for-all. A better analogy would be: a search warrant that demanded a key be created that could open anyone’s front door globally, and at that an easily replicable key that could potentially enter the public domain if there’s a security breach (and by the way, we’re proposing reducing security here). Oh, and you can’t change your locks, once it’s out there you’re screwed.

Seriously, this is the asinine “if you’ve nothing to hide” argument all over again. If you subscribe to this school of thought let me know and I’ll pop a webcam in your bedroom.

Extract from FT’s Leader, pretty unambiguous and the FT is pretty liberal.

The FBI’s case is strong. Indeed, it could hardly be stronger. It has not mounted a vague fishing expedition. It wants to investigate an act of terrorism carried out by US citizens, on US citizens, on US soil.
Mr Cook’s firm initial response to the court order has won support from other tech companies, such as Google and WhatsApp, and applause from privacy campaigners, including Mr Snowden himself. He tweeted that it was “the most important tech case in a decade”. But Apple’s chief executive has overplayed his hand. He should back down and, subject to specific safeguards, enable FBI access to this device.
There is a broader point. Mr Cook may say he is acting to protect the privacy of all iPhone users. But Apple and other US technology companies sometimes give the impression that they float above national jurisdictions, notably in tax and other regulatory matters. The San Bernardino case should concentrate minds. Apple, and others, need to realise that, however powerful they are, and however popular their products, they do not live in a moral universe of their own creation

Isn’t the problem that it requires Apple to admit that they can introduce new firmware into a locked phone via it’s USB/recharging cable.

You know, that’s what I’ve been thinking this entire thread. Apple should absolutely be able to recover bricked phones over Lightning, but there needs to be a mechanism where encrypted data is inaccessible when upgraded in this manner. You can readily flash a PIN-locked Android device, but what happens with encrypted data I don’t know (from memory Android supports full-drive encryption but I know nothing about how it works).

Using the IOS’s md5 hash (as well as the hardware ID and passcode) to generate the private key, maybe? An OTA update could use the unlocked phone to generate a new key on the unlocked data whereas a Lightning update wouldn’t have the unlocked data to work with.

I think, anyway. I must be wrong or Apple would’ve thought of this; on the offchance that I’m right then I’m staking my patent claim now.

Didn’t the couple who carried out the massacre love an otherwise “normal” existence? I’m sure all their contacts on the phone, all the people they’d messaged, all the owners of houses and businesses they’d visited (once all the location data has been lifted) who have nothing to hide also have nothing to fear once the FBI get their dirty paws on what’s on that phone.

Extract from FT’s Leader, pretty unambiguous and the FT is pretty liberal.

“The FBI’s case is strong. Indeed, it could hardly be stronger.” – opinion.

“But Apple’s chief executive has overplayed his hand. He should back down and, subject to specific safeguards, enable FBI access to this device.” – opinion.

“Apple and other US technology companies sometimes give the impression that they float above national jurisdictions, notably in tax and other regulatory matters.” – irrelevant whataboutery.

That’s a puff piece, that is.

Can someone who is marking the civil liberties argument explain to me why unlocking an iphone is different to having a search warrant and turning your house upside down including breaking open any safe found on the property ?

When law enforcement have a search warrant they have the responsibility to enact the warrant and access the property, they don’t go to Barrat saying you built the house now we want to alter it so we can get in.

It’s not Apples responsibility to do the work of law enforcement likewise Apple is not responsible for how their products are used.

The FBI are right to make the request, Apple are also right in saying no.

@Cougar, you can only get access to the key with a warrant issued by a court and Apple keep the key. Also until Sep 2014 Apple could access a locked phone, was the world prior to 2014 therefore one devoid of personal privacy and freedom ?

@mefty, yes well put by the FT

I have realised the only way in life, to be correct, is to agree with you.

Strictly speaking its not the only way, there are other options 😀

The FBI’s case is strong. Indeed, it could hardly be stronger. It has not mounted a vague fishing expedition. It wants to investigate an act of terrorism carried out by US citizens, on US citizens, on US soil.

Which of course is bollocks. San Bernardino has given the FBI and other investigatory authorities the perfect excuse to bring this battle, which has been rumbling along (both privately and publicly) for a few years now, right into the public eye. Because, well, because terrorism. They know that this is one emotive issue where they might get the American public on side. It couldn’t be more cynical. Do we hear the same calls for hacking the phones of those who carry out school massacres – to see what websites they’ve visited, who they’ve been messaging to discuss their plans and who might copy them again?

the FT is pretty liberal.

Depends on who’s describing them as so. I guess it’s liberal to some people.

opinion

Of course, Leaders are the paper’s opinions by definition, it is frightening you don’t know such terms.

Of course, Leaders are the paper’s opinions by definition, it is frightening you don’t know such terms

So why quote it like it has some sort of authority?

Some people are really easily frightened. I mean, I’m scared of moths but this puts that into perspective.

So why quote it like it has some sort of authority?

It is siding with the FBI, this is notable because it is is generally written by bright people from a socially liberal viewpoint, who you would ordinarily expect to lean towards the civil liberties argument.

Well whoever wrote it was having a generally being a bit thick moment. The FBI/NSA/CIA/ABC/XYZ have been looking for a back door to Apples encryption since iOS8 (2014 IIRC). So implying that their case is purely centred on this incident is either being stupid or disingenuous to what he or she believes are gullible readers.