President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

[Larry-K]

Kabuki Security Theater:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...could-crack-the-san-bernadino-shooters-phone/

If the NSA can't do it, there's always the other secret US Govt Agency, that doesn't have a name (at least, that I know of).

 

[KPandian1]

I am surprised that at this late stage most people do not understand what the DOJ and its agencies at the federal (FBI) and state levels want from Apple!

To unlock this iPhone, they could've handed it over to Apple with one follower to maintain chain of custody for legal purposes. Instead, they specifically want Apple to create an iOS that can hack ALL iPhones. They are unabashed about this request!

Believe it or not, the top law-jockeys from several of these agencies said it several times over at different times just on Charlie Rose, PBS starting February 20 2016! The goals of the requests were elaborated in detail by steps and intentions by some. These interviews are available online - anyone can verify!

They also said the same thing in several other interviews and proclamations to different news agencies!

They are NOT interested in the iPhone that belongs to the county - they want Apple's propriety OS free and clear for them to use whenever, and want us to trust ALL their employees honest enough to NEVER sell it to anyone!

 

[dk001]

Serious question:...

So "access to dead terrorists employee phone = access to any iPhone" is just wrong. Each situation where the FBI or other law enforcement wants to search is evaluated on its own merits and must go through all the safeguards and constitutional checks I outlined above. There is no guarantee that just because one iPhone is searched in one particular case that another one can be searched as well.

So, to your technological point, just because the software is developed to disable the passcode lock doesn't mean that it can or will be used willy-nilly on the whim of some cop. There are plenty of pretty strong legal and constitutional safeguards in place that must be met first before any search can happen.

I think you still miss the point; once this is allowed, the precedent set (and admitted by the FBI under oath as a likely conclusion), where are the "limiters" on how it is used? And where? Never mind the international aspect. This was something that came out during the arguments in NYC and there was no realistic answer even proposed.
Not a subject for judicial decisions. Legislative? Yes. Then let the judicial process address challenges to it's scope and use.

 

[KPandian1]

if searching one house meant that every ... house in the nation was susceptible to ... search and seizure by anyone with the proper connections and tools?

And the whole world!

The law jockeys maybe do realize how perfectly they fit into the "1984" scenario - they are our Kings/Rulers, and anything they say goes! If not, we all die at the hands of terrorists. That is their only message!

They want the tools to go anywhere - and the judicial precedent from this one iPhone to forever have that power!

 

[steve333]

No. I am not the one willing to sacrifice everyones freedom to try an quell my fears. I am standing up for peoples right to free speech, people rights no to be unreasonably searched, peoples right to freedom of association.

Hitler, Mussolini , Pol pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, McCarthy, all "leaders" who had no respect for individual rights and were paranoid that someone was out to get them. The USA is not immune, especially when you give them the means and the power to abuse peoples rights. In WW2, millions of people risked and sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms and rights of others. You are willing to sacrifice the freedoms on millions to quell your fear and paranoia.

Watch out for those vending machines, in the last 50 years they have killed far more americans than terrorists have.

perhaps you would be more comfortable in North Korea where those freedoms are already gone.... but there have been no terrorist attacks.

You're not sacrificing jack squat.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in Iraq where an inept security apparatus can't keep the people safe.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

If you are a sys admin, how is it you don't know about digital signitures and electronic signing keys? Iphones are designed by Apple to only allow software to be installed only if it has been digitally signed by Apple.

If the details of how the backdoor was made are revealed in an open court, that info is useless because the FBI or bad guys still won't have a copy of the signing keys.

Read the google advice I gave to someone above. this is what the NSA did with diffie hellman (DH) and VPN tunneling. They reconstruct a key basically.


Current key and signature technology relies on the fact its good enough. 128 bit encryption is not unbreakable for example. Its currently is just improbable. Years from now, some new blood to the algorithm/math pool, moores's law, quantum computing, etc....this may not be so certain.

If you look at the evolution of encryption algorithms you see 2 trends. Either they increase the size (RSA was not always 128 bit capable) or they combine with other methods. DH has done the latter to stay viable. NSA keyed on pure DH. DH is commonly mixed with other methods like elliptical curve. All these methods do just push the cracking odd more into improbability.

And these pushes are hardware controlled. Commercially viable algorithms have to run fast. hardware determines that when you have done all you reasonably can do to optimize your algorithm and code. Don't want the bottleneck in the system. Clients wants data out the door fast you can't have the infrastructure taking its sweet ass time encrypting.
For example it is probably possible we could get RSA up to 1024 bits to satisfy even the most paranoid persons needs. Why isn't this done? It probably with current tech would peg cpu in seconds flat. especially under load. 128 good enough, and even a potato gets it out the door quick.


edit:may have mixed up RSA with ssl....morning coffee didn't hit yet


the cracking chance is still there. The greater the prize...the more likely someone will grind that out to get it.



The court concern is the side aspects to break the phone open will be given. In programming/IT/science you can get many ideas on how to do something from the most unexpected resources. On stacked overflow many assignments I have gotten help not one line of code given. Try this method, look at the problem this way, even RTFM when actually guided where in the manual to read has done wonders.

 

[ttss6]

that's one way .... but if people think one device can carry all my personal info for convenience, it's no wonder we get scared when the government comes in and wants to "weaken" encryption.

You'll be in good company, the terrorists, paedophiles and the like will be doing the same thing

It's not so much I have any personal info on my iPhone that I would be bothered if someone saw, which can't be said for pedophiles or terrorists, it's the principle that I can have the ease of mind knowing that I have no one peeking in on my personal life. So much of our life now is public, so it's reassuring knowing there's something that can be trusted with keeping certain things private.

 

[sir1963nz]

You're not sacrificing jack squat.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in Iraq where an inept security apparatus can't keep the people safe.

If the US had suffered the same as Iraq, the US would be no different.
The New Orleans response proves that. "Also, one-third of New Orleans police officers deserted the city in the days before the storm, many of them escaping in their department-owned patrol cars"

US infrastructure is slowly falling apart through lack of maintenance , lack of upgrades/replacement
US imprisonment rate/100,000 people is the highest in the world
US gun crime is WAY higher than other civilised countries
US is the 16th least corrupt country in the world
US is 49th in the world for Freedom of the press.
US is 35th in the world of education, its below the OECD average !
US is 31st in Health
US is 13th in social mobility
US is 20th in personal freedom/liberty

etc etc etc.

To be blunt, the US is NOT doing that well
And the Murder rate puts the US 98th , so they US is doing a pretty bad job of keeping its citizens safe.
As for school shootings, the US is well and truly ahead of the rest of the world in the number of shootings.

 

[Larry-K]

If the US had suffered the same as Iraq, the US would be no different.
The New Orleans response proves that. "Also, one-third of New Orleans police officers deserted the city in the days before the storm, many of them escaping in their department-owned patrol cars"

US infrastructure is slowly falling apart through lack of maintenance , lack of upgrades/replacement
US imprisonment rate/100,000 people is the highest in the world
US gun crime is WAY higher than other civilised countries
US is the 16th least corrupt country in the world
US is 49th in the world for Freedom of the press.
US is 35th in the world of education, its below the OECD average !
US is 31st in Health
US is 13th in social mobility
US is 20th in personal freedom/liberty

etc etc etc.

To be blunt, the US is NOT doing that well
And the Murder rate puts the US 98th , so they US is doing a pretty bad job of keeping its citizens safe.
As for school shootings, the US is well and truly ahead of the rest of the world in the number of shootings.

Don't worry.

When Trump makes America Great Again, we'll all get big foam fingers that say "We're Number 1", problems solved.
[doublepost=1458088020][/doublepost]

You're not sacrificing jack squat.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in Iraq where an inept security apparatus can't keep the people safe.

In all fairness, we did kind of wreck their Security Apparatus.

 

[sir1963nz]

Don't worry.

When Trump makes America Great Again, we'll all get big foam fingers that say "We're Number 1", problems solved.
[doublepost=1458088020][/doublepost]In all fairness, we did kind of wreck their Security Apparatus.

Destroyed their economy, destroyed their infrastructure, destroyed their health system, etc etc etc

 

[Larry-K]

Destroyed their economy, destroyed their infrastructure, destroyed their health system, etc etc etc

Well, yeah, but you'll have to take that up with the brain surgeons who thought it was a good idea.

Come to think of it, now that we've had Ben Carson on display, I'll guess I'll have to rephrase that to "Rocket Scientists".

 

[duffman9000]

Serious question: Leaving aside whether this surveillance is legal or not, can you point to any examples of where the information gathered during the surveillance was used by the government in an nefarious or abusive way against citizens of the US?

Are you trying to argue that if no one was hurt by these practices then the government's actions are acceptable? The ends do not justify the means and ignorance of the law is no excuse. This causes a gradual erosion of our existing rights.

These programs have been going on for a long time, overseen by the Congress, judges, and law enforcement, and I have not heard of any abuse. My position is that until I do hear about abuse of this data (which I'm sure will be splashed across all the headlines), I'm comfortable with the government doing this. The surveillance is against those who wish to do us harm, not ordinary citizens.

National Security Letters were not subject to judicial review. Full stop.

According to the findings by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, the FBI tried to work around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees clandestine spying in the United States, after it twice rejected an FBI request in 2006 to obtain certain records. The court had concluded "the 'facts' were too thin" and the "request implicated the target's First Amendment rights," the report said.

But the FBI went ahead and got the records anyway by using a national security letter. The FBI's general counsel, Valerie E. Caproni, told investigators it was appropriate to issue the letters in such cases because she disagreed with the court's conclusions.

End run around the 1st and 4th amendment. What is more shocking is that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has rejected less than 0.03% (circa 2013) of requests and they rejected the FBI in this case. Caproni disagreed with the court's conclusions thus it was okay to use a NSL which does not require judicial review. How convenient.

If you haven't heard of abuse of stingrays and NSLs then I suggest you get educated.
I forgot to add that agencies are supposed to self-report their abuse of NSLs. Reminds of a fox is guarding the chickens joke.

 

[steve333]

Don't worry.

When Trump makes America Great Again, we'll all get big foam fingers that say "We're Number 1", problems solved.
[doublepost=1458088020][/doublepost]In all fairness, we did kind of wreck their Security Apparatus.

True

 

[laurim]

Maybe because Radical Islamic extremism is a legit threat?? Good lord! Liberals just will not pay attention about Islamic terrorism after everything that has been done so far. No wonder liberalism is dying and Nationalism is rising. Michael Savage was right I guess, Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Well, you sure flew off the handle there, sweetie. Way to knee jerk. But I'm used to the righties doing that and immediately politicizing everything so I'll let it pass because you have a mental disorder.

Maher doesn't talk about just radical islamic extremism. I agree that radical ANY religion is a threat. Maher contends that Islam in general is a threat, which is why so many people on his shows disagree with him when he says it. He paints a wide brush because a small but not insignificant fraction of Islam still commits crimes against women and other things. But Maher is really being too extreme on his part because he is so against ALL religion. And that's coming from an atheist myself. I agree that there are far too many Islamists that need to evolve to the 21st century and need to be strongly incentivized to stop the things they do but it's not helpful to be so generic (and irritatingly superior) about it like Maher is. He needs to temper his own rhetoric and put forward constructive ideas rather than just ranting about it.
[doublepost=1458180951][/doublepost]

Actually he is worst ever, and worse that Carter. Plays golf goes on expensive vacations with Moochie and has ruined the country in 7 years. You must live off the welfare teat.

wow, I think I just watched an hour of Fox News in just 3 sentences. BTW- I make a high 5-figure income with basically a part-time job, thank you. "Ruined the country". What country do YOU live in because that's not the USA I live in. Obama made my world infinitely better than it was during Bush.

 

[You are the One]

I guess this guy didn't have an iPhone. Or if he did, how on earth did they get to him?

Cop who investigates child abuse is himself charged with child sex offences.

 

[kdarling]

Benjamin Franklin once said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

(Not picking on you in particular, but just using your post as a convenient entry point.)

A lot of people (including myself in the past) and newspapers etc have brought up this Franklin quote. I give you props for actually quoting it correctly as it was written in 1755.

However, that quote means almost the opposite of what most people think. It is not about giving up personal freedom whatsoever, but is instead about providing for the common defense via laws.

-- THE BACKGROUND OF FRANKLIN'S LIBERTY VS SAFETY QUOTE:

At the time, the Colonies were having to defend their western borders from Indian attacks, by either purchasing their friendship, or by providing defensive weapons to the widely scattered frontier settlers.

Now, the Penn family was the powerful caretaker of most of Pennsylvannia, so when the Assembly tried passing laws to tax the family to help provide for the western defenses, the Penn family got the Governor to veto the law every time. However, the family said they were willing to donate a little money in return for never being taxed by the colony's lawmakers.

So what Franklin was saying, was that if the Assembly gave up their ability ("essential liberty") to pass laws and accepted the Penn family's proposal ("to purchase a little safety"), then the Assembly and the People who elected them deserved neither.

--

Ironically, if applied to the iPhone situation, it means that a rightfully elected government should not allow a powerful family (Apple) to dictate what they can or cannot be asked to do in order to help with the common defense. Otherwise, both the rule of law and everyone's safety is put at jeopardy.

 

[AdonisSMU]

(Not picking on you in particular, but just using your post as a convenient entry point.)

A lot of people (including myself in the past) and newspapers etc have brought up this Franklin quote. I give you props for actually quoting it correctly as it was written in 1755.

However, that quote means almost the opposite of what most people think. It is not about giving up personal freedom whatsoever, but is instead about providing for the common defense.

-- THE BACKGROUND OF FRANKLIN'S LIBERTY VS SAFETY QUOTE:

At the time, the Colonies were having to defend their western borders from Indian attacks, by either purchasing their friendship, or by providing defensive weapons to the widely scattered frontier settlers.

Now, the Penn family was the powerful caretaker of most of Pennsylvannia, so when the Assembly tried passing laws to tax the family to help provide for the western defenses, the Penn family got the Governor to veto the law every time. However, the family said they were willing to donate a little money in return for never being taxed by the colony's lawmakers.

So what Franklin was saying, was that if the Assembly gave up their ability ("essential liberty") to pass laws and accepted the Penn family's proposal ("to purchase a little safety"), then the Assembly and the People who elected them deserved neither.

--

Ironically, if applied to the iPhone situation, it means that a rightfully elected government should not allow a powerful family (Apple) to dictate what they can or cannot be asked to do in order to help with the common defense. Otherwise, both the rule of law and everyone's safety is put at jeopardy.

Actually I think your logic is wrong here. The FBI wasn't elected by the people in the way the Assembly was. The FBI is a bunch of appointed people. The FBI didn't have to run for office or face the people of the US.

Additionally, sometimes the things you say can be used against you later.

 

[kdarling]

Actually I think your logic is wrong here. The FBI wasn't elected by the people in the way the Assembly was. The FBI is a bunch of appointed people. The FBI didn't have to run for office or face the people of the US.

Good point.

Unless we accept that the law the FBI's lawyers are trying to use is applicable, since the law was passed by elected reps.

If not, then Congress needs to make it all clear.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Good point.

Unless we accept that the law the FBI's lawyers are trying to use is applicable, since the law was passed by elected reps.

If not, then Congress needs to make it all clear.

How come the NSA thinks this security breach is actually more harmful than helpful? I think it's interesting that the NSA isn't openly supporting what is going on here to the point of sitting Senators reversing their position on the issue.

 

[mdridwan47]

Well, you sure flew off the handle there, sweetie. Way to knee jerk. But I'm used to the righties doing that and immediately politicizing everything so I'll let it pass because you have a mental disorder.

Maher doesn't talk about just radical islamic extremism. I agree that radical ANY religion is a threat. Maher contends that Islam in general is a threat, which is why so many people on his shows disagree with him when he says it. He paints a wide brush because a small but not insignificant fraction of Islam still commits crimes against women and other things. But Maher is really being too extreme on his part because he is so against ALL religion. And that's coming from an atheist myself. I agree that there are far too many Islamists that need to evolve to the 21st century and need to be strongly incentivized to stop the things they do but it's not helpful to be so generic (and irritatingly superior) about it like Maher is. He needs to temper his own rhetoric and put forward constructive ideas rather than just ranting about it.

Oh wow! Mr. Liberal a.k.a. Mr. Islamic theologian coming to teach us all about Islam! Wow! Did you ever bothered to read the religious scriptures of Islam? Didn't think so. I would say nice try but this wasn't even that. Just some incoherent typical liberal response. I'm not a "rightie" by the way, I'm a liberal. Just not a regressive one. Have fun in your thick unicorn filled liberal bubble. You people are the reason why Trump is winning and needs to win.

 

[kdarling]

How come the NSA things this security breach is actually more harmful than helpful? I think it's interesting that the NSA isn't openly supporting what is going on here to the point of sitting Senators reversing their position on the issue.

First off, there's a lot of inter-agency rivalry and political stuff that goes on. Plus, there's rarely any universal agreement on anything, even within agencies.

Secondly, NSA is not necessarily against the breach itself. They're against publicly forcing Apple to do it.

Remember, the ability of NSA (and their counterparts worldwide) to do their job is built on the precept of covert surveillance. That means that their foreign targets should not know that they can be read.

So NSA is unhappy because if foreigners mistrust American technology, then they'll use something else that NSA might not have any handle at all on. To NSA, the FBI is run by publicity seeking intelligence source bunglers.

 

[Mtmspa]

Well, you sure flew off the handle there, sweetie. Way to knee jerk. But I'm used to the righties doing that and immediately politicizing everything so I'll let it pass because you have a mental disorder.

Maher doesn't talk about just radical islamic extremism. I agree that radical ANY religion is a threat. Maher contends that Islam in general is a threat, which is why so many people on his shows disagree with him when he says it. He paints a wide brush because a small but not insignificant fraction of Islam still commits crimes against women and other things. But Maher is really being too extreme on his part because he is so against ALL religion. And that's coming from an atheist myself. I agree that there are far too many Islamists that need to evolve to the 21st century and need to be strongly incentivized to stop the things they do but it's not helpful to be so generic (and irritatingly superior) about it like Maher is. He needs to temper his own rhetoric and put forward constructive ideas rather than just ranting about it.
[doublepost=1458180951][/doublepost]

wow, I think I just watched an hour of Fox News in just 3 sentences. BTW- I make a high 5-figure income with basically a part-time job, thank you. "Ruined the country". What country do YOU live in because that's not the USA I live in. Obama made my world infinitely better than it was during Bush.

Well, I make 6 figures and my healthcare went up by $900 a freaking month since the Odumbocare. So much for getting $2500 lower premium. The guy is a liar and yes, he cares more about golf than being president. He bows to the Saudis and spent the first year bad mouthing America - the country that Mooch also hates.

 

[AdonisSMU]

First off, there's a lot of inter-agency rivalry and political stuff that goes on. Plus, there's rarely any universal agreement on anything, even within agencies.

Secondly, NSA is not necessarily against the breach itself. They're against publicly forcing Apple to do it.

Remember, the ability of NSA (and their counterparts worldwide) to do their job is built on the precept of covert surveillance. That means that their foreign targets should not know that they can be read.

So NSA is unhappy because if foreigners mistrust American technology, then they'll use something else that NSA might not have any handle at all on. To NSA, the FBI is run by publicity seeking intelligence source bunglers.

Again interagency nonsense might describe the NSA not publicly supporting the FBI. It doesn't explain Senators saying they spoke with intelligence officials who convinced them that it was risking the safety & security of millions of Americans. Why do you think that is?

 

[kdarling]

Again interagency nonsense might describe the NSA not publicly supporting the FBI. It doesn't explain Senators saying they spoke with intelligence officials who convinced them that it was risking the safety & security of millions of Americans. Why do you think that is?

It's in my last paragraph: the intelligence community doesn't want the FBI scaring foreigners to switch to non-American platforms. Which is fraught with all sorts of possible meanings that I'm not going into.

--

As far as Americans go, I'm not worried about American intelligence agencies. They're at least normally on our side. There are more worrisome agencies, some of whom we constantly see probing American infrastructure. (People will stop worrying about anyone looking at their email after their power and internet is taken out for a few weeks. Priorities, people, priorities.)

For example, the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese have some real advantages, I think, because much of the world's electronics are built there. I would not be surprised if Chinese intelligence has secretly co-opted some of various phone makers' parts suppliers, and every phone made there has already has been compromised in some way.

Then there's the chip makers. The reason why it's considered unreasonable to try to brute force crack iOS file encryption with a supercomputer by simply copying the file data outside, is because the passcode has to be tangled with the internal device UID, which is supposedly unknown... except at the moment it is burned in during manufacturing.

Apple says that they don't keep a copy of the UIDs that're burned into each device. That doesn't mean that no one keeps them during manufacturing, officially or not.

In fact, if I were a government, that's the first place that I'd try for info gathering. Knowing the UIDs for every iPhone made would be an intel coup of the highest order. It drops device cracking times from billions of years to possibly hours, and removes the need for a special iOS version altogether. Which makes it a highly probable target.

 

[You are the One]

So NSA is unhappy because if foreigners mistrust American technology, then they'll use something else that NSA might not have any handle at all on. To NSA, the FBI is run by publicity seeking intelligence source bunglers.

This is probably true and very scary. I associate this to silicon level backdoors introduced already in the manufacturing of processors and other hardware.