Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Let's see.

How many of those can you say bye-bye to without privacy?

I suppose checking the weather applies.

I did not say one word about doing away with privacy or security, so you are replying to points you've made up- or (mistakenly) read into- what I did write... which was- in short- a remedy to this problem that completely thwarts the bad guys is not storing anything you consider super secret on a mobile device so easily lost or stolen.

The personal equivalent of state secrets being stored on mobile devices are not necessary to get rich & full use out of them. For example, something as relatively sensitive as a soc. sec. number is NOT required for probably any of those top 10 things you listed, nor probably the next 20 or 30 below them.

Why do we need to put words in other people's mouths to then offer up counterpoint? Was what was actually written not interesting enough to be able to reply with something more fitting... or just ignore because there was nothing there worth a reply?
[doublepost=1521255457][/doublepost]
Boy are you so wrong! You don't seem to know anything about what you talk about!!!!!!!1

It is not a case of not storing anything on our phones we don't want getting into the wrong hands It is a case of protecting our very lives. I mean think for a second, (hard I know)we all have so much on our phones these days. From banking to sensitive emails, from health info to more. so we have to protect that info. Now i know that you will still claim that we could all just only use our phones for texting and calling. But then firstly, why have such powerful phones hat are only used for calling/texting ? I bet if all the world's phone companies suddenly stopped making smart phones and made dumb phones instead you would be first to moan. Now I bet you will say "Oh yes but what about games/apps?" well those apps could not do anything other than be games because remember we have to get rid of anything that could be of benefit to hackers(which is just about everything). So we are only really left with games and most of those all let you buy in game currency. So you therefore can not buy any because that requires storing a credit card on file and that could then be used by the hacker to gain financially.
PLus I and others should not have to radically change our lives just to please either you or to stop the hackers. There are other ays you know, like having strong security and strong security practices.
That is much better because at the end of the day what you fail to grasp is that security is a state of mind and should not be a chore(which your idea would be...a chore that is).
if you make it a chore then you will fail to adequately protect yourself.

Ummm no, our lives are generally not at stake here. If you are storing something on your phone that puts your "very life" in jeopardy, you should rethink how you use your phone.

We "all have so much on our phones" because we CHOOSE to store so much on them. We don't have to do that, it's a choice. Before smart phones, we could have chosen to carry all the cash we had around in money bags hanging around our necks but the vast majority of us were smart enough to recognize that as probably a bad idea and opt to store our cash somewhere more secure. Our personal documents like tax forms, etc probably were not carried around in our pockets either. Once again, we made choices about what really needed to be with us at any given time and what could be stored somewhere more secure. Storing all that on a mobile device that goes everywhere with us now is merely a choice too. If we have 20, 30, 50 or a 100 huge secrets on our phones that would cost us dearly if some hacker could get at them, do we actually need those 20, 30, 50 or 100 always available to us at all times wherever we go? Or could we dump the vast majority of that to some more secure device, leave home without them and have zero impact on our day-to-day experiences?

I made no such suggestion about using smart phones for only talk & text. My comments were about choosing not to store lots of sensitive information we would not want to get out if the bad guys gained control of our phones. That's substantially different than twisting that into me saying stop using smart phones for anything more than bare basics.

I made no suggestion about going to dumb phones, or using smart phones for only game playing either. A phone is not smart or dumb based upon how many of our most important secrets are stored on them. That's just something else they are able to store if we CHOOSE to store such information on them.

I made no suggestion whatsoever about EVERYONE having to "radically change <their> lives just to please <me>". What I did offer was that anyone could make a CHOICE to thwart the hackers by opting NOT to store their most valuable information on a mobile device they can lose or get taken from them. You somehow read that I'm suggesting some all-ecompassing mandate on everyone while I'm pointing out that simple common sense CHOICES by anyone interested can be made to solve this problem without waiting on Apple or anyone else to try to completely secure these kinds of devices (which will probably NEVER happen).

I made no suggestion that Apple and others stop striving to have "strong security and strong security practices." What I did offer was that choices could be made that doesn't have us relying on Apple to solve this kind of problem for us... because they can't... as any hole a software update may fill will be followed by another hole.

To "security is a state of mind", I completely agree. There is some false sense of security that some corporation somewhere is going to completely protect us from the exploits of the bad guys or there is the actual security we can feel by knowing that we're not really storing anything we consider personal state secrets on our mobile devices. Both of those are states of mind... one built on naive hope at best, the other built on certainty. Choose for yourself which state of mind you most prefer.

To "if you make it a chore, you will fail to adequately protect yourself," I'll somewhat buy that. However, I'll counter that if you rely on blind faith in some corporation- any corporation- to protect you from all security exploits, you are failing to protect yourself at least as poorly. This is not the first time mobile devices have been hacked and it won't be the last. Proceed with caution... or proceed with certainty. The difference between the two can be as simple as making a personal choice here... or not.
 
Last edited:
It’s obvious Apple has agreements with governments for backdoor access and governments in return have been prepared to overlook their tax arrangements — neither of which are in the best interest of consumers. Equally obvious that there always has and always will be backdoors to unlock an iPhone.

Apple could make the iPhone near impenetrable if they wanted to. It shouldn’t be that hard. But they don’t want that. They want a sufficient level of security (or apparent security) to keep most people happy while allowing those who want or need access (including themselves) a way in.

Passcode entry should only ever be via the touch screen and it should never be possible to run software on a locked phone. A locked phone should be capable of receiving power only. These are pretty simple things they could implement fairly securely but have obviously chosen not to.

When companies tell you they care about privacy and security don’t believe them. If they did they’d at least ship devices with the maximum possibly security and privacy settings enabled by default, but they don’t.

I'm guessing your level of expertise on this topic is hovering near "zero" - this comment is a copy-paste of the typical "You know the car companies could make a 100 mpg car if they wanted to" often repeated by people who can barely turn a screwdriver.
 
If the password is a pattern that is easy to remember, or a phrase that is simple to remember, entering such passcode would not be a serious issue. I use a phrase for over 2 years for my Deivce passcode and it is long but also simple to remember. My Mac has an even longer passcode (23 characters).
It’s not safe to use password from something you can remember easy. You can memorise random generated password if you enter it often, it’s not big deal.
 
Does this device also bypass the 'erase data after 10 failed attempts' feature? (sorry if this was already posted)
 
So you'd rather they advertised their products with a nice shiny backdoor that's just ripe for every hacker and scammer in the world to go after?

No, I'd rather they comply with law enforcement officials. Not make a public statement about how they REFUSE to comply. That's just bonkers.
[doublepost=1521299638][/doublepost]
Or, you know, law enforcement could use traditional investigative techniques. Very few crimes are purely electronic.

I think they need to use whatever techniques they can. They have it rough enough without having a company so proudly refusing them their ability to uphold the law.
 
No, I'd rather they comply with law enforcement officials. Not make a public statement about how they REFUSE to comply. That's just bonkers.
[doublepost=1521299638][/doublepost]

I think they need to use whatever techniques they can. They have it rough enough without having a company so proudly refusing them their ability to uphold the law.

You do realize that law enforcement and the judicial branch are two different things, yes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DesterWallaboo
Ah, yes, the "something to hide" fallacy.

Apple, please do what you can to protect us from this.

What is on my phone is my business and not yours to use to take my identity. Police / Law enforcement is not likely to be doing that, only criminals. Nothing I have is illegal, so the OP is correct - nothing to hide because nothing would incriminate me in any legal matter.
 
I have it set to erase after 5. So they’d better guess wisely.
Cute.
[doublepost=1521318379][/doublepost]
How is this legal? This is not just phone owners jailbreaking their own phones.

This is a commercial entity, playing with Apple's IP for profit. Why doesn't Apple sue these guys?

Go ahead sue a law enforcement protected/supported Company, that must be the smartest thing to do...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mariusignorello
Police / Law enforcement is not likely to be doing that, only criminals.

All seven officers were charged in a racketeering indictment. Gondo was charged in the separate drug case with five defendants who are not police officers.

Rosenstein accused the officers of participating in "a pernicious conspiracy scheme" that "tarnishes the reputation of all police officers."

"These defendants were allegedly involved in stopping people who had not committed crimes, and not only seizing money but pocketing it," he said. "These are really robberies by people wearing police uniforms."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...baltimore-police-indicted-20170301-story.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooloud10
Well they wouldn't need it for mine as I dont even used a passcode, but yeah I don't care. Its my property and if I lose it, then oh well, I should have kept up with it better.

Wow, that's some mind boggling logic. You don't care if a criminal gets his hands on your unlocked iOS device?

FWIW, in ten years I had never lost one of my iOS devices and considered myself very competent at keeping them secure, almost to the point of being cocky about it. Of course, a few weeks ago I forgot my iPad on a plane. It only has a 6-digit passcode but I'm extremely happy that I had the feature activated.

I think it's kinda like leaving your unlocked car outside your house with the keys inside. You can say you're willing to chance it and just chalk up the loss if something happens, but you'd feel pretty stupid if a drunk got inside and crashed it into your house while you're sleeping.
[doublepost=1521336172][/doublepost]
What is on my phone is my business and not yours to use to take my identity. Police / Law enforcement is not likely to be doing that, only criminals. Nothing I have is illegal, so the OP is correct - nothing to hide because nothing would incriminate me in any legal matter.

How many articles about dirty cops do you need to see before revising your position?

Anyway, you and a lot of other people need to think about the difference between secrecy and privacy. Law enforcement has zero rights to the data on my phone.
 
Well that's true in the same way as "if I destroy my phone no one can hack it, but the minute I use Apple services (Apple wants that right?) I'm screwed"

Apple has been working to provide some of the same levels of protection to specific cloud services, but of course it is a work in progress.

Currently, iMessage in-and-of itself should provide a high level of security. However, backups need to be encrypted to protect those messages. If you're currently backing up to iCloud that will negate the privacy of those messages in terms of law enforcement. Messages in the Cloud in the coming iOS updates should provide some level of protection against Apple accessing your messages server-side, but your protection is of course limited by the device with the weakest security with access to your messages. This includes the recipients of your messages.
 
Last edited:
We do not have unlimited rights. This post an example, only those of certain status get to respond. Even our First Amendment rights are not unlimited. The problem with technology, moves faster then laws and regulations can adapt. There needs to be some clearly defined boundaries for any access requests, but access at some level needs to be there.

Sure, we don't have unlimited rights but the burden of proof should fall on the state to prove that those limitations serve a purpose and that the state won't abuse them. The FBI abused its powers with COINTELPRO. This program was meant to target organizations deemed "subversive."

Today, we have replaced the word "subversive" with the phrase "threat to national security." The devil is all in the details. Who decides what is termed a "threat to national security?" What is "national security?" It is far too easy for someone in power to play fast and loose with the wording.
 
Sure, we don't have unlimited rights but the burden of proof should fall on the state to prove that those limitations serve a purpose and that the state won't abuse them. The FBI abused its powers with COINTELPRO. This program was meant to target organizations deemed "subversive."

Today, we have replaced the word "subversive" with the phrase "threat to national security." The devil is all in the details. Who decides what is termed a "threat to national security?" What is "national security?" It is far too easy for someone in power to play fast and loose with the wording.

Agree abuses can occur. However, our system of courts are there to determine what is or is not, Not individuals. Our system, not perfect but the best so far. The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the fast and loose wording. Maybe not always agree but as of today the systems works as designed.
 
Last edited:
So, when you have wet hands or dry cracked fingertips (TouchId) or FaceID refuses to open your iPhone you have input that difficult password each and every time, 6 digit should be good to go.

No...so that it takes the thing longer in order to crack your complex alphanumeric one.
 
I think they need to use whatever techniques they can. They have it rough enough without having a company so proudly refusing them their ability to uphold the law.

There's no need for hyperbole. No one is refusing them their ability to uphold the law. Law enforcement has always had barriers to accessing suspects' communications. In the past there was no record kept of past communications so law enforcement could only investigate on a go forward basis. People could - and still can - communicate face to face in private without law enforcement having access to their conversation. If an encrypted text message log has returned us to that then so be it. They still have access to all traditional (pre-smart phone era) investigative techniques PLUS they effectively have a 24/7 tracking device on all of us via cell tower records PLUS for any traditional SMS and phone call data they have all the phone company records of those meta data regardless of how well encrypted our devices are.

Crimes continue to be investigate and solved. Sure there are some barriers that technology has created but there are also lots of new avenues it has opened. Personally I feel strong encryption has many more benefits to everyone's daily lives than weakening it would provide to a minority of criminal activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
No, I'd rather they comply with law enforcement officials. Not make a public statement about how they REFUSE to comply. That's just bonkers.
It's a catch 22, if Apple engineer a process by which they can get into the phone through a backdoor then hackers will very quickly work out how to exploit it. You can't design something like that that can only be used by a certain population of people.
 
Does this device also bypass the 'erase data after 10 failed attempts' feature? (sorry if this was already posted)

The hax is that it bypasses the "x-attempts-shut down". It gives them the ability to brute force. If you use 6-8 digits instead of 4 they will have to be very interested in what you have to waste time on it. If you use >10-12 digits it's not likely it's possible at this time.

Adding alpha-numeric to that will decrease their chances substantially.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.