Word. Have you ever been called for jury duty? It's kinda scary because I'm looking around and thinking "This is not a jury of my peers..." If I were ever in any real trouble, I'd probably roll the dice with a bench trial, if permitted.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FBI Looking Into 'Legal and Technical Options' for Entering Another Terrorist's iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Word. Have you ever been called for jury duty? It's kinda scary because I'm looking around and thinking "This is not a jury of my peers..." If I were ever in any real trouble, I'd probably roll the dice with a bench trial, if permitted.
Your comment makes me realize that while we can agree on the topic in general, the way you phrased it is a gross oversimplification of real life consequences. A few terrorists can kill millions of people, so yeah, it might be important to find and investigate a few of them. How the FBI and other intelligence agencies go about it is what they need to figure out. Their priorities are right, the methods need improvement.
My god... Does the FBI just think "I got an idea, lets go after Apple again....."
These investigations are popin up all over the place, and the FBI have not learnt anything...
While its a new investigation, they can learn from what that did of the iPhone 5c.... why the need to go back to Apple when the FBI already know what they did before .... They also now know its a waste of time because Apple will not give in... why would they...... Play by the rules, yes..... even if u know it won't do any good...
Can't the FBI just "say" Apple said no ? The FBI seem have their own quirks of doing stuff anyway..
These investigations are popin up all over the place, and the FBI have not learnt anything...
While its a new investigation, they can learn from what that did of the iPhone 5c.... why the need to go back to Apple when the FBI already know what they did before .... They also now know its a waste of time because Apple will not give in... why would they...... Play by the rules, yes..... even if u know it won't do any good...
Can't the FBI just "say" Apple said no ? The FBI seem have their own quirks of doing stuff anyway..
Well, Apple has published quite a lot about the exact measures it takes to protect the security of its users. At a level that makes sense to someone with some knowledge about cryptography and its uses in securing hardware. So there are two possibilities:
One is that what Apple has published is the truth. Which means Apple has never been trying to implement "selective security", and implementing it retroactively is somewhere between damned hard and impossible. What Apple has actually done in the past is trying to make this actually impossible for any hackers, state actors, or Apple itself.
The other is that Apple is a complete liar as far as security is concerned. Which I think could have absolutely nasty consequences for Apple, which doesn't make one penny cash for Apple, and which has nothing but possible disadvantages for Apple.
[doublepost=1475960330][/doublepost]
4,000 a year dying by "texting and driving"? I'd like to see a citation for that.
Who was stopping the FBI from searching his phone? It's not like Apple took the guy's phone and kept it locked away at headquarters and refused to turn it over. It wasn't enough that the FBI had free reign to have at it and chip away at that phone's security measures. They were trying to bully Apple into doing their job for them.
Since when did appealing a court oder become wrong because that's all Apple did. Apple went to court and asked the government to prove its case. Apple asked the government to prove why it should be compelled to do the government's job for them.
If people can break into the phone, then Apple should be spending its time trying to make it harder to break in rather than build in special weaknesses hoping the only the good guys will use them and the bad guys won't find out.
When has Apple created a special software update designed to disengage security measures at the FBI's request? Apple handed over information that it had in its possession. For example, iCloud data on Apple's servers is data that is in Apple's possession, so if law enforcement asked for that data, Apple would have to hand it over and it always has. Prior to the release of iOS 8, Apple had encryption keys in its possession, so it was capable of gaining access to locally stored data on people's phones. With iOS 8, Apple stopped storing keys so it is not able to gain access to locally stored data.
You seem to be operating under the wrong noting that the sole purpose of security is to safeguard our precious civil liberties. This is why the FBI has gotten away with framing this is as a security vs. privacy debate when it's far from reality. We store some very sensitive information on our telecommunications devices, such as credit card information, banking information, health records, etc. The Internet of Things is under way, where we will be able to control our homes with our smartphones. Encryption is vital to ensuring that bad actors can't gain access to these systems.
The whole point of encryption is to ensure that only those with the right key can gain access to the encrypted information. Deliberately building a special way in fundamentally weakens encryption.
Why are they liars? Just because they publish complete what they do you could argue (by publishing it makes it eailser for hackers since the information is already known, and by publishing, Apple has confidence that they are as secure as they say they are) otherwise they would have not published in the first place..
That's my thinking..
Regardless of published or not, hackers will get in one way or another.... After all its hackers who sell exploits found to other companies.... If they weren't smart at this, why would they even do it ?
Its only a disadvantage to Apple because the FBI just can't go to Apple just like any company and grab what they want, but on the other hand, it keeps those users who use their phone safer and protected,
And that's where you are wrong. If the iPhone security is properly designed and implemented then Apple _cannot_ unlock an iPhone.
We only know that because Apple say they cannot....
Security alone may means most cannot do it, but hackers can do it....... Therefor it IS do-able with the expertise..
You can clone a NAND chip to get past the reset count to unlock a an iphone for example...
Not anyone can do this, but as i said, if u are in the business, you can for sure....
I think Apple would mean, Normal average users who use the phone cannot do this, which is actually true. Which is the majority.
Security alone may means most cannot do it, but hackers can do it....... Therefor it IS do-able with the expertise..
You can clone a NAND chip to get past the reset count to unlock a an iphone for example...
Not anyone can do this, but as i said, if u are in the business, you can for sure....
I think Apple would mean, Normal average users who use the phone cannot do this, which is actually true. Which is the majority.
Last edited:
You quoted me and removed half of the text, totally destroying the context. Thanks for that.
Apart from that, you don't seem to understand what's going on at all. Fact: Apple tells its customers that they keep their customers phones secure. Customers buy iPhones among other reasons because of that security. If Apple wasn't telling the truth, the **** would be hitting the fan. Fact: Apple would have no advantages but only disadvantages from having insecure phones - because secure phones mean Apple doesn't have to do badly paid work for the FBI. Fact: For these reasons, it is most likely that Apple is telling the truth, and that nobody including Apple can break into newer iPhones.
I'm sorry but you are wrong I 100% gaurantee you if apple want to unlock an iPhone they can despite what Tim may say.
I learned early on in computers there is ALWAYS a 'work around'.
Maybe not a 'work around' right now so I'm not calling Tim a liar, but absolutly there is will be or is one that would be available on request.
Last edited:
[doublepost=1475974072][/doublepost]
What makes the FBI think think he was a terrorist? Lots of people committing acts of "workplace violence" (like the Fort Hood shooter) seem to be fond of shouting Allahu Akbar while attacking unarmed Americans. Besides, the mall slasher is already dead so AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE what is on his phone?
There is something called internet where you can search for things yourself:
"Texting While Driving Causes:
1. 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council
2. 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study
3. 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts
4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents"
http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats
Why is the public dumb enough to fall for the FBI's claim that they cannot hack into consumer smartphones?? They've been able to get into any phone they ever wanted to for quite some time now...
I have to give them props though, these "woe is us for not being able to hack into iPhones" press releases sure have fooled a lot of Americans into a false sense of privacy. Meanwhile, the FBI is having a field day monitoring people through their microphones, webcams, texts, and phone calls.
Keep on thinking the FBI "needs" Apple to unlock their phones...
I have to give them props though, these "woe is us for not being able to hack into iPhones" press releases sure have fooled a lot of Americans into a false sense of privacy. Meanwhile, the FBI is having a field day monitoring people through their microphones, webcams, texts, and phone calls.
Keep on thinking the FBI "needs" Apple to unlock their phones...
I agree, Apple has made privacy one of their main business strategies. They have too much to loose by not being truthful in what they say about protecting your data.
The intelligence community have full control over the communications infrastructure and can tap information at several nodes along the way between two end points (e.g. iPhones). I.e. all the meta-data, what node connects to another, and all meta-information related to such connections.
Apple is securing the end-points and the information exchanged within the control of their systems, e.g. iMessage and FaceTime by encrypting it with end-point generated keys.
I'd say what we see is the government's frustration that they cannot have unlimited and easy access to every person's private information.
What likely will happen is that the criminal racket running Washington as well as their minions in Europe will outlaw encryption that they don't have the keys for. "Politicians" (criminals) are already pushing hard for this.
They try to sell their idea by stating that unless the people are completely stripped of any rights to privacy they cannot be "protected" by the system of domination and control.
Unfortunately it's the system of domination and control the people needs protection from, they are the ones creating the terrorists.
There is wide spread ignorance of cause and effect in this regard. Terrorism is created to strip you of your rights as a human being, you are not stripped of your rights as a human being to combat terrorism. This most people don't understand.
Help those terrorists.
Who must be very rich to keep affording iPhones, but the ROI is high if Tim wants to help them. I'm sure the terrorists will thank him for his straight approach too.
[doublepost=1476017341][/doublepost]
Proof?
And as nobody's bitched when any store keeps a log of your purchases or returns, or banks, and the MSM has reported on some of those, I won't deny my response is based in part by supposition and extrapolation...
Here's one bit of proof:
http://articles.courant.com/2012-04...n-fraud-return-or-exchange-fraudulent-returns
If companies doing this have a valid reason to do so, maybe tracking people attached to known terrorist groups is just a teensiest tiniest bit more important? Otherwise, why not tell everyone where you live? What, you don't want to do that Whyever not? (/rhetoricalquestion)
And the last I'd checked, 1 > 0. Bet I can find more, but I'll be a lazy millennial x-boomer. Your turn.
[doublepost=1476017938][/doublepost]
...
IF
Hell, Apple couldn't get jailbreaking eradicated so they hired the bloke who first made it possible. Since then... jailbreaking is still easy and fun to do. So you do not know, nobody in this thread knows or can even begin to know (and one or two of us here have at least rudimentary but actual programming knowledge or more), if Apple _cannot_ unlock an iPhone.
Besides, Timmy likes his comrades and since 1997 he can always move there to enjoy their countries' superior freedoms though I doubt he'll like being taxed over there (anything more than 0 is bad for them but great for you and me you see, and what he brings in makes 45% hard to get around and even the US is capped at an evil 39.6% for individuals - source: ch us. The corporate rate is lower, however. And whether or not China's loopholes are as gargantuan as the US's is yet another facet, but back to the topic - Tim has no qualms helping China and his supporters don't seem to care about the double standard):
http://qz.com/618371/apple-is-openl...-in-china-it-takes-a-very-different-approach/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/if-apple-can-help-china-it-can-help-us-us-doj/
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/...-precedent-in-current-privacy-debate-20160221
(oops, that's when Jobs was in charge. At least Jobs for all his "quirks" loathed child molesters enough to help unlock a phone to prevent the molester from terrorizing and ****ing up more children's lives...)
Even though this is PRSI, there is a hyperbole alert around here with a smattering of false equivalencies, shifting of blame etc.Help those terrorists.
Who must be very rich to keep affording iPhones, but the ROI is high if Tim wants to help them. I'm sure the terrorists will thank him for his straight approach too.
[doublepost=1476017341][/doublepost]
Proof?
And as nobody's bitched when any store keeps a log of your purchases or returns, or banks, and the MSM has reported on some of those, I won't deny my response is based in part by supposition and extrapolation...
Here's one bit of proof:
http://articles.courant.com/2012-04...n-fraud-return-or-exchange-fraudulent-returns
If companies doing this have a valid reason to do so, maybe tracking people attached to known terrorist groups is just a teensiest tiniest bit more important? Otherwise, why not tell everyone where you live? What, you don't want to do that Whyever not? (/rhetoricalquestion)
And the last I'd checked, 1 > 0. Bet I can find more, but I'll be a lazy millennial x-boomer. Your turn.
[doublepost=1476017938][/doublepost]
...
IF
Hell, Apple couldn't get jailbreaking eradicated so they hired the bloke who first made it possible. Since then... jailbreaking is still easy and fun to do. So you do not know, nobody in this thread knows or can even begin to know (and one or two of us here have at least rudimentary but actual programming knowledge or more), if Apple _cannot_ unlock an iPhone.
Besides, Timmy likes his comrades and since 1997 he can always move there to enjoy their countries' superior freedoms though I doubt he'll like being taxed over there (anything more than 0 is bad for them but great for you and me you see, and what he brings in makes 45% hard to get around and even the US is capped at an evil 39.6% for individuals - source: ch us. The corporate rate is lower, however. And whether or not China's loopholes are as gargantuan as the US's is yet another facet, but back to the topic - Tim has no qualms helping China and his supporters don't seem to care about the double standard):
http://qz.com/618371/apple-is-openl...-in-china-it-takes-a-very-different-approach/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/if-apple-can-help-china-it-can-help-us-us-doj/
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/...-precedent-in-current-privacy-debate-20160221
(oops, that's when Jobs was in charge. At least Jobs for all his "quirks" loathed child molesters enough to help unlock a phone to prevent the molester from terrorizing and ****ing up more children's lives...)
However, I didn't realize drivers licenses were being asked for when returning items at BB. Probably never shop there again, even though I rarely return items, excepting those that are clearly defective. (unless I decide I want an exchange)
Sure, we remember the PATRIOT act... the legislation hundreds of pages long that was passed without anyone actually reading and digesting what all was in it first!
The reason you know "a bunch of people will jump up and talk about civil liberties" is because YES, a lot of American citizens are rightfully upset at the way our individual freedoms are getting trampled on by authoritarians in government who disregard all of them. (Look at Donald Trump's comments during the last Presidential debate. He advocates the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policy!)
I'm sorry, but if you can't successfully prosecute a violent criminal without accessing whatever MAY possibly be saved on their smartphone? You haven't really put together your case very well. Law enforcement agencies are being lazy here. They're essentially saying, "Hey... It'd be great if we could crack this thing open and see if it contains any evidence we could use!" Except NO, it's designed so you can't crack it open -- because it's supposed to ensure the user's privacy. Smartphone data contents don't exist in some kind of vacuum though. If, say, the suspect put something on his/her calendar in there? So what... You don't need to see that. You should be investigating where they were and what they actually said or did on that date.
And if it's some sort of case that involves email or part of an IM chat with someone else? Well - you can subpoena the service provider and try to get a copy of it. If the IM or email was encrypted though? Again, tough luck. That's just a dead end for you and you need to move along. Maybe try investigating the person who was on the other end of those conversations?
I mean, how did they EVER prosecute people in the past, when all of their communications were done in person or on untraceable payphone calls?
I read the technical document that was recently published by the team of researchers who claimed they figured out how to physically remove the chip in the iPhone and reset the number of times it thought someone attempted to guess the pass-code. That process was pretty darn complicated and required a lot of very careful, surgical-style, parts removal and soldering. It's not the kind of process very many people could do successfully, and not one those who could would be willing to do very often without a large payment for it and probably a disclaimer that they *could* potentially destroy the evidence while trying to recover the data.
The reason you know "a bunch of people will jump up and talk about civil liberties" is because YES, a lot of American citizens are rightfully upset at the way our individual freedoms are getting trampled on by authoritarians in government who disregard all of them. (Look at Donald Trump's comments during the last Presidential debate. He advocates the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policy!)
I'm sorry, but if you can't successfully prosecute a violent criminal without accessing whatever MAY possibly be saved on their smartphone? You haven't really put together your case very well. Law enforcement agencies are being lazy here. They're essentially saying, "Hey... It'd be great if we could crack this thing open and see if it contains any evidence we could use!" Except NO, it's designed so you can't crack it open -- because it's supposed to ensure the user's privacy. Smartphone data contents don't exist in some kind of vacuum though. If, say, the suspect put something on his/her calendar in there? So what... You don't need to see that. You should be investigating where they were and what they actually said or did on that date.
And if it's some sort of case that involves email or part of an IM chat with someone else? Well - you can subpoena the service provider and try to get a copy of it. If the IM or email was encrypted though? Again, tough luck. That's just a dead end for you and you need to move along. Maybe try investigating the person who was on the other end of those conversations?
I mean, how did they EVER prosecute people in the past, when all of their communications were done in person or on untraceable payphone calls?
[doublepost=1476058112][/doublepost]It's not so much the fact that they CAN get in other ways, but the fact they're trying to push this false narrative so they can have a much EASIER and CHEAPER way to do it, on demand.
I read the technical document that was recently published by the team of researchers who claimed they figured out how to physically remove the chip in the iPhone and reset the number of times it thought someone attempted to guess the pass-code. That process was pretty darn complicated and required a lot of very careful, surgical-style, parts removal and soldering. It's not the kind of process very many people could do successfully, and not one those who could would be willing to do very often without a large payment for it and probably a disclaimer that they *could* potentially destroy the evidence while trying to recover the data.
Might as well access all the phones in Washington then too. I'm more afraid of them than overseas terrorists.
[doublepost=1476106856][/doublepost]
what if they had a samsung phone
That's what you call a suicide bomber.
Time for another accidental release of "malfunctioning" software that Apple fixes the next day. LIKE LAST TIME. Nuff said?
Well when I worked on classified systems they did not allow connections between the classified networks and the internet or anything else for that matter. The problem is having an unlock key. The third party has to store the key. Once it exists at a third party, it is findable by anyone and able to be released completely outside of your control. That is not any form of privacy.
It's not, and you are displaying your ignorance by making that claim.
Every US state has slightly different laws, and different wording. But, in general: deadly force is only justifiable under the law in response to an unlawful use of, or threat of deadly force.
Depending on the state, deadly force includes both possibility of both death and serious bodily injury.
Your error is not in your citation of statistics. Your error is the assumption that the US is anything like the UK. We have been diverging for over 2 centuries.
Just as I wrote earlier, I don't give a damn about how the UK police deal with nutcases.
Try to explain that to the next policeman that shoots to stop someone before they kill or seriously injure an[other] innocent bystander.
Yeah ok man. The US has to do it like that, it has no choice. The rest of the western world doesn't matter in your opinion because US policing is perfectly justified in killing people.
I get it.