Weird, it's almost like agreeing with laws against the theft of IP doesn't mean you agree with the legal system on everything else.
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.
'GrayKey' iPhone Unlocking Box No Longer Works After iOS 12 Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Weird, it's almost like agreeing with laws against the theft of IP doesn't mean you agree with the legal system on everything else.
Or get accused of something, the problem people seem to completely miss. Or record thoughts and opinions that aren't friendly to the state. Or any other reason privacy and due process are a thing.
Do you think that if there is a wildly used exploit, only the good guys will know it? Probably the bad guys knew it for quite some time. You don’t need to break any law to have your privacy compromised.
Who decides what's illegal?
The current U.S. Presidential Administration thinks you are criminal if you want to leave squalor to start a better life for your family (a.k.a. immigrant caravan). The prior U.S. Presidential Administration thought you were a criminal if wanted to own a firearm to protect your family. The U.S. Presidential Administration before that thought you were a criminal if you had brown skin.
Oh, and just for good measure, the Johnson Administration (you know, the Great Society Administration) thought you had to be a Communist if you opposed the war in Vietnam.
Less humorously, an example might be if there is a question as to whether the phone belongs to you. If you give he correct passcode, that’s equivalent to saying “This is my phone,” and thus you would be incriminating yourself by providing the code.
You really think you need to do anything illegal to be illegally searched?
"It was believed that this would prevent the GrayKey device from working, but after details on USB Restricted Mode were released, forensic experts said that it had already been defeated."
I'd like to think Apple is trying to provide us a negative..
They get so worked up with protecting "us" end users from iPhone, they blow it by release "how it works" to the public..
I don't care what people think.. if you release info, they have not always have the tools at that point, but it 'weakens' what they just did..
Not physically, but if i tell you something,,, you now know something you did not know before.. Therefore you can you that info to your advantage better than knowing "nothing at all"
To me, that's still weakening...
So ya,
Not surprising here. This is why i refuse to reveal anything about my own security
I'd like to think Apple is trying to provide us a negative..
They get so worked up with protecting "us" end users from iPhone, they blow it by release "how it works" to the public..
I don't care what people think.. if you release info, they have not always have the tools at that point, but it 'weakens' what they just did..
Not physically, but if i tell you something,,, you now know something you did not know before.. Therefore you can you that info to your advantage better than knowing "nothing at all"
To me, that's still weakening...
So ya,
Not surprising here. This is why i refuse to reveal anything about my own security
Ah, but it's not a waste if you're the one selling or buying it.
...only if you're the one stuck paying for it.
It might save more money in investigation costs. I'm not an expert on police work.
I'm not sure if it would be any use in touchId as they can still man handle you into touching your phone, this was originally done for mugging instances I think?
Any one would have switch the phone "off" first completely.. Your falling back to a "secure system"like FaceID (easier because all you gotta do is look at the device) vs Touch ID.. (may not be compelling in U.S, but it is here in Australia.)
Better be safe than sorry, At least you need a password when you power on.. in "all cases" and to me, that one fact proves better security to me, as that's 'something you know' not something you have that can be forced upon later
But with 99.99% of people reading this falling into the latter category, it seems like an odd distinction to make. It's like pointing out that successfully robbing a bank isn't a ****** thing to do if you're looking at it from the perspective of the thief's family that benefits from the loot.
Waste? Taxpayers are the ones putting those in office and those in charge. So whatever those people are spending, it's under the assumptions that the taxpayers are okay with it. If not, why are those people still in office? Taxpayers should start taking accountability on who they voted for.
If you are government, you can do as you please. That’s why people vote, to decide which group of people will abuse them for those 4 years. Simple and effective
Watch on YouTube HONEST GOVERNMENT ADs. It is done in funny style but with the actual facts
Good for Apple - I for one won't loose any sleep because my phone is more secure: Only the paranoid survive.
The right to privacy always become a 'protected right' and is always fearlessly defended until an issue directly affects them personally.
I believe there should be privacy but not at all costs because there are bad people in this world who have intentions to do harm to others and they will use inbuilt security on electronic devices to prevent the authorities from finding out what they have been doing.
People who are so quick to say security is good, authorities are bad need to sit back, take a really good look at their life and those involved in that life and say to themselves 'if anyone in my life was involved in a situation where a locked device contained information that could either save their lives or contain evidence that would help convict a perpetrator who destroyed a life of someone very close to you, would you not want the manufacturer of that device to do everything in their power to unlock the security feature or would you be happy to accept the manufacturers response of 'there is nothing we can do' because they are protecting the security and privacy of the device's owner'.?
I believe there should be privacy but not at all costs because there are bad people in this world who have intentions to do harm to others and they will use inbuilt security on electronic devices to prevent the authorities from finding out what they have been doing.
People who are so quick to say security is good, authorities are bad need to sit back, take a really good look at their life and those involved in that life and say to themselves 'if anyone in my life was involved in a situation where a locked device contained information that could either save their lives or contain evidence that would help convict a perpetrator who destroyed a life of someone very close to you, would you not want the manufacturer of that device to do everything in their power to unlock the security feature or would you be happy to accept the manufacturers response of 'there is nothing we can do' because they are protecting the security and privacy of the device's owner'.?
Yeah me 2 cause a friend is in jail and they r unable 2 unlock his iphone X because thiz lol. Glad they will never find any info that points 2 other brothers. This is good news dud #right2privacy
Last edited:
Now, though, Apple has put up what may be an insurmountable wall. Multiple sources familiar with the GrayKey tech tell Forbes the device can no longer break the passcodes of any iPhone running iOS 12 or above. On those devices, GrayKey can only do what’s called a “partial extraction,” sources from the forensic community said. That means police using the tool can only draw out unencrypted files and some metadata, such as file sizes and folder structures.