DOJ Says iPhone Is So Secure They Can't Crack It 454
zacharye writes "In the five years since Apple launched the iPhone, the popular device has gone from a malicious hacker's dream to law enforcement's worst nightmare. As recounted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review blog, a Justice Department official recently took the stage at the DFRWS computer forensics conference in Washington, D.C. and told attendees that the beefed up security in iOS is now so good that it has become a nightmare for law enforcement."
sounds like a challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
(also article is a little too breathlessly enamored of apple: PR astroturf?)
And if you believe that... (Score:5, Insightful)
...I've got some "moon" rocks I'd like to sell you.
Honestly, this seems like a way to trick dumb criminals into thinking their information is secure just because they use an iPhone. If this were truly the case, and the DOJ does really have problems in dealing with iOS devices, I'd expect them to remain tight lipped about it.
Re:I don't believe it (Score:2, Insightful)
There are companies selling suites of forensics tools that blow thur any iphone security in a heart beat.
Not to mention that every hacker can get into a stolen phone with any number of widely published tricks.
Re:Completely false (Score:5, Insightful)
TWO WORDS (Score:5, Insightful)
iCloud Supoena.
So, the "remote control" is uncrackable? iCloud and Siri and "location awareness" with GSM, WiFi and GPS make the security of the actual device nearly an orthoganal proposition to any enforceable protection for the user or data.
When this is so clearly a form of misdirection, I can't help but wonder the purpose of a DOJ statement like his being made public. Which perception and behaviour are they trying to influence, and by whom?
mod TFS (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA and TFS should be modded +5 Funny.
One suspects that there are back doors all over the iPhone, in addition to the various apps that have access to remarkable amounts of stored material and regularly send it home (or elsewhere). Otherwise its alleged impenetrability would hardly be promoted by law enforcement. It's like Brer Rabbit pleading "please don't throw me in the briar patch".
Re:Government Computer Skillz (Score:5, Insightful)
I was at this conference, the running joke was "If it's encrypted, forget about it!" Everyone knows this. FDE and utilities like TrueCrypt will always prevent data recovery, save for the human factor of giving up the password.
Also at the conference was the strong difference between American and British/Australian law. In the U.S., the 5th Amendment prevents someone from being required to turn over their password. The Brits and Aussies do not have this problem, as the 5th amendment doesn't exist for them.
Re:Oblig xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitting people with wrenches is forbidden by the Bill of Rights.
Your point being....?
Didn't stop them from hitting Padilla or Manning with metaphorical wrenches. A couple more direct examples: reporters [wikipedia.org] jailed (or threatened [nytimes.com] with jail) for not revealing their sources.
Re:I don't believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't have a passcode enabled on the device then there's not much point in encrypting it, is there?
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:5, Insightful)
When this is so clearly a form of misdirection, I can't help but wonder the purpose of a DOJ statement like his being made public
Setup for a false flag operation:
- DOJ publicly claims Device X is secure from their snooping
- Suckers fall for the ploy and migrate to Device X, assuming it's safe from prying gov't eyes
- DOJ forces Device X's manufacturer, via NSL or similar devious means, to turn over user information.
- Device X's user has no idea what's going on, thanks to draconian EULA and ToS, until jackbooted thugs kick in the door.
It's quite brilliant, really. Or, would be, if not so obvious.
Re:mod TFS (Score:5, Insightful)
OT, but since song of the south was *banned* by disney, you could only get a copy if you went to where pirates hang out.
it was a great classic movie but disney capitulated to pressure (their own, in fact!) and banned the film.
uncle remus is not fit for modern audiences. it 'offends their sensibilities'. or something like that.
oh, btw, FUCK DISNEY.
Wrong, american audiences are offended. The rest of world is not offended by this B-series film.
And frankly speaking, if Song of the South is banned, then they should also ban Gone with the Wind and the Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Stupid country, unable to cope rationally with your past.
Re:Oblig xkcd (Score:3, Insightful)
"What is he punishing you for?"
Sadly the answer to that is so bloody obvious that it strains disbelief that Scalia wouldn't know it before he asked the question.
Quite simply, he's punishing you for not telling him what he wants to hear. That's all torture is good for anyway. If you torture someone long enough, they'll eventually figure out what you want to hear and start singing that tune like a canary. Note: What you want to hear has little, if anything, to do with the truth (except, perhaps, by coincidence).
Political Correctness Censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen!
In the US, this is another example of political correctness gone overboard.
What the old saying about people not learning from mistakes in the past are bound to repeat them in the future?
Then again...look at Germany, banning most anything Nazi connected....I believe similar type bans happen in other EU countries too?
But seriously....this is a part of US history, and should not be suppressed. I remember seeing old Bugs Bunny cartoons...people got blown up into 'blackface'....if they even show these episodes on tv, these parts are usually edited...
Why? This is part of history, and people should know what attitudes were publicly held and presented to see how much we've changed over the years.
Re:Government Computer Skillz (Score:5, Insightful)
(Well, technically, they'd have to turn you over to the military and have them shoot you...)
This is unlikely to happen in very many cases, however, even though it's legal.
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:5, Insightful)
Except what you're describing is not a false flag operation.
False flag (also known as black flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.
This may be a disinformation campaign but unless the DOJ is posing as someone else, it's not a false flag.
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, Apple has the ability to decrypt the data, and all the government needs is a court order to force them to do so. At the same time government officials are deploring their ability to access the data. Three possibilities that I see:
1. The government is attempting to deceive people into storing data where government officials can access it with a court order.
2. Some government officials do not have a problem admitting that they would love to access personal data without a court order, i.e. without probable cause.
3. Some government officials do not mind to supplement their income by advertising for Apple.
I frankly would have no problem with 1), would not be surprised by 3) but suspect the answer is 2)
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot possibility #4...
An Apple fanboy writes an article praising the iphone using out of context quotes from the CEO of Paraben (not the DoJ) saying there have been cases where Paraben couldn't defeat iPhone encryption and a a DoJ official talking about hard drives (not the iPhone) saying that "if you pull the power on a drive that is whole-disk encrypted you have lost any chance of recovering that data" (which isn't true, btw). Then a second fanboy reads said article and translates it to "iPhone is the DOJ's worst nightmare" and submits it to Slashdot where samzenpus demonstrates the usual lack of even the barest hint off fact-checking and gives us a headline like this one.
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:1, Insightful)
Anything the government of the USofA says, is probably (98% certainty) a lie, anything it (seems) to be doing is probably (70% certainty) a smoke screen/diversion for somthing quite different!
What happened to "closing Gitmo" or "America doesn't torture" or along a different tack "the public option" or even more to the point "occupy"?
And why not Google (FEMA Camp coffins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zSDdm-SHI [youtube.com]) or (750 million rounds of DHS Ammo http://www.infowars.com/dhs-to-purchase-another-750-million-rounds-of-ammo/ [infowars.com]) and to paraphrase the milk commercial "Got nightmares"?
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, bummer. One more reason not to move stuff over to iCloud (besides the use case issues).
Mind you, it's the same reason to not move your data anywhere.
Re:TWO WORDS (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how those things are relevant. The article talks about device security, not cloud security. Lest everyone forget, the same subpoena can get the same data from Google, Microsoft, RIM, etc.
If you decide to not use the cloud and the police get your device, it's currently more secure on Apple's phone. Must every article turn into a religious war?