iPhone Encryption Hampers Investigation of Texas Shooter, Says FBI (chron.com) 240
"FBI officials said Tuesday they have been stymied in their efforts to unlock the cellphone of the man who shot and killed at least 26 people at a church here on Sunday," reports the Houston Chronicle. Slashdot reader Anon E. Muss writes:
The police obtained a search warrant for the phone, but so far they've been unable to unlock it. The phone has been sent to the FBI, in the hope that they can break in... If it is secure, and the FBI can't open it, expect all hell to break loose. The usual idiots (e.g. politicians) will soon be ranting hysterically about the evil tech industry, and how they're refusing to help law enforcement.
FBI special agent Christopher Combs complained to the Chronicle that "law enforcement increasingly cannot get in to these phones."
A law professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology argues there's other sources of information besides a phone, and police officers might recognize this with better training. As just one example, Apple says the FBI could've simply just used the dead shooter's fingerprint to open his iPhone. But after 48 hours, the iPhone's fingerprint ID stops working.
FBI special agent Christopher Combs complained to the Chronicle that "law enforcement increasingly cannot get in to these phones."
A law professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology argues there's other sources of information besides a phone, and police officers might recognize this with better training. As just one example, Apple says the FBI could've simply just used the dead shooter's fingerprint to open his iPhone. But after 48 hours, the iPhone's fingerprint ID stops working.
Obvious question next (Score:1)
Does Face ID work with corpses? Do you have to have eyes open?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"How about a service running on the phone that keeps up with when the phone is unlocked? If it hasn't been unlocked within a certain amount of time, say one month or one year or whatever, it assumes the owner no longer uses the phone and it automatically unlocks. All the authorities would have to do is keep it charged until then."
No criminal worth his salt would buy one, I'm no criminal and I wouldn't even buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
How can we have the device accurately and securely track time over such long periods?
How about the use of a Secondary Unlock PIN with a hardware counter?
To be used, the 2nd Unlock PIN has to be entered 30 times successfully, BUT after the PIN is entered once, you have to wait a minimum of 24 hours before entering it the next time.
The secondary PIN can be something kept on record either by the manufacturer or by the service provider.
Re: (Score:2)
ummmmmmm
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it could function like the government, wait 10-20 years or more. Declassify documents when it is safe.
Just have it wait for copyright to expire on all stored documents. According to the US Supreme Court, any finite but unbounded time is limited so that should be soon enough, right?
Re: (Score:2)
...they don't seem too concerned about getting details about the Vegas shooting at all so fuck them.
Finally, a rational statement disclosing how INTENT by the FBI is never trustworthy
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it's an ANTI-government agent (hint: Republican)
Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they whole reason FBI is whining is for political purposes. They want the laws to allow them to search more with fewer impediments. Thus they don't ask Apple for help since that removes the ability to whine about it.
That said, why the 48 hour time? Does that mean living people must use the fingerprint sensor every 2 days or they're locked out?
Re: Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:5, Informative)
Not locked out, but after 48 hours you have to input the password.
Re:Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:5, Insightful)
basically, the FBI, CIA, NSA all are just a bunch of cron jobs.
every 'n' days, they wake up, cry about not being able to stroll thru ALL our communications, find some trendy 'scare' story of the day and bind to it so that they can emotionally keep attacking our personal freedoms and privacy.
every fucking time, that cron job fires, we try to silence it. but its persistent and as some have said, they're playing a long-game, here. they will KEEP trying until they find an emotional weakness and get an 'open' to create even more restrictive anti-privacy laws.
many of us see this. but it does not matter. those that see it are not in a position to stop it. and those that can stop it,do not EVER want to stop it. they are addicts on a power trip and there's no cure for their hunger ;(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
every fucking time, that cron job fires, we try to silence it. but its persistent and as some have said, they're playing a long-game, here
While I agree with what you say, the long-term survival of our personal freedoms and the government's repeated appeals to emotion to erode them are mutually exclusive. Considering the stakes, is there any way at all to stop the cron job once and for all, or do we have to repeatedly quash it?
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with what you say, the long-term survival of our personal freedoms and the government's repeated appeals to emotion to erode them are mutually exclusive. Considering the stakes, is there any way at all to stop the cron job once and for all, or do we have to repeatedly quash it?
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." – John Philpot Curran
Re:Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only didn't they ask for help, but Apple reached out to them immediately and they refused the help [theverge.com] . Perhaps because they had been waiting for an opportunity to complain about encryption.
Re:Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, it's political all right. Apple offered the FBI help to unlock the phone [engadget.com]. In fact, Apple reached out to the FBI for this - presuming the killer used Touch ID, it would be easy to unlock the phone! (Remember, there are a few ways to bypass a fingerprint sensor using fake fingerprints).
But the FBI stalled and stalled until the window closed. You can bet it's on purpose - Apple was offering, pre-emptively, to help them (probably conjuring up a fake finger to fool the sensor). Hell, I'm sure the FBI has access to PLENTY of labs that can do this, too!
So no, the FBI has INTENTIONALLY refused Apple's help. Why? Because the phone is not important at all. The FBI couldn't care less about the phone's contents. The political fight to remove encryption is the real target
The phone's data is unimportant. There is no evidence on the phone the FBI wants, guaranteed. Because if there was, why else would they refuse Apple's help? This is an emotional plea to get the public saying the evil phone companies are keeping them from doing their jobs.
Apple offered to help. The FBI deliberately ignored them. The FBI is who should account for the loss of evidence - they are the ones who deliberately destroyed it.
Re: (Score:3)
TFA said the police had it first and handed it to the FBI when they couldn't get into it. There isn't a timeline, so it is possible the FBI was locked out already when they got the phone. Also the article said Texas police were FLYING the phone to Quantico to be cracked, so apparently the FBI doesn't even have the phone yet and they were just called in to consult on cracking it. Even if they drove it to a regional office, there's no telling if there's a competent person there that could help them. The FBI e
Re:Try police work not phone unlocking (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there was some sort of Police Work that could be done to solve these crimes without taking away everyone rights of privacy...
For instance, a detailed record of all the calls & text messages you've made and received is available from the cellphone company with your righteous subpoena.
Why do you need into the phone again?
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was some sort of Police Work that could be done to solve these crimes without taking away everyone rights of privacy...
For instance, a detailed record of all the calls & text messages you've made and received is available from the cellphone company with your righteous subpoena.
Why do you need into the phone again?
That would have been fine until about 2011. Nowadays, even a novice user can end up "accidentally" using over-the-top services whether they even really intended to or not, let alone someone who was half-way competent and intending to cover their tracks. It's not about getting into their POTS and SMS interfaces, it's about getting into the other data records present on the portable computer system they kept on them 24 hours a day.
Re: (Score:2)
FaceTime voice or video calls are not routed through the phone company, nor are messages sent through iMessage.
Not that I'm saying the FBI should have a backdoor into all of our phones -- I'm just pointing out that what you said isn't entirely true.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was some sort of Police Work that could be done to solve these crimes
Worse than that, the crime is essentially solved already - the name and whereabouts of the perpetrator are not in question. This would seem to be part of the same desperate search that played out in Las Vegas to "find a motive" and the only apparent reason why they would be doing that is to somehow prove that there is something more to mass killings than the fact that an individual with a grudge has access to an unlimited supply of weaponary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you need to know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guy was a major asshole with huge red flags over his head who should have been found and neutralized years ago. If only the Air Force had followed existing laws that would have prevented him from buying guns. But no, we need more gun control and backdoor encryption.
The phone? The fibbies knew there was a 48 hour timeout on the fingerprint thing. The fibbies knew without that they didn't stand a chance of getting into the phone (or they have a way in they don't want us to know about).
This is just the government narrative of "we have to have backdoor encryption cuz this dude".
Re: (Score:3)
This.
The FBI did not want to get its hands dirty.
Look at your phone.
It has email addresses, phone numbers, voicemails, text messages, location information, etc. THAT ARE NOT YOURS!
Also, the FBI has all it needs in this matter to close the case.
Apple is in a familiar spot: Looking at the FBI and then looking at the consumers.
Guess which interested party gives money to Apple?
If Apple were to provide open phones, whichever company provided a secure phone would grab market share as iPhone owners tossed theirs i
Re: (Score:2)
Or, y'know, if the dems hadn't filibustered the Cruz-Grassley bill in 2013 which would have forced govt agencies to forward the available paperwork to NICS or face penalties.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's in the nature of the all-volunteer military that they wind up doing the equivalent of HR sanitation work, sifting through a ton of no-other-options people and winding up with some heavy rejects.
I think the military just want these people out and off their cost structures. Reporting them, labeling them and dealing with the inevitable claims that result from anything other than cutting them loose and closing their files would cost them money. Inevitably many would claim their problems were made
Re: (Score:2)
+1 mod.
Well... I'd have to say this could sadly be the case. While certain military aspects are done to the T (funerals, general healthcare), others fall to the wayside.
What is there ti investigate? (Score:5, Insightful)
We know the USAF gave him a minimum sentence for cracking his babies skull, did not give him a dishonorable discharge, and chose to protect this baby beater by not entering his information into the criminal database. If there is anything to investigate, it is whey the USAF protect wife and kid heaters. The USAF, in fact, could have put him in jail for fiver years, given him a dishonorable discharge, and made his crime public record. The reason that dozens of people are dead is because they chose not to.
The iPhone thing is just another effort to continue to erode our rights to privacy. It is not going to bring the dead back. It is not going to prevent the air force from releasing another trained killer, maybe this time a baby killer, back into society to murder even more people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's obvious. There is some retarded theory going around that you can find "triggers". Once you find these triggers, you can eliminate them and these problems won't happen anymore. Everyone wants to know "What set him off?" It's really the height of stupidity to believe that you can find a single, simple reason for something like this.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most common triggers is poverty. Eliminate poverty and you've eliminated a lot of family violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Encryption is a Munition (Score:1, Informative)
And we have the right to keep and bear arms. So sayeth the Fourth Amendment.
So the FBI better come up with a different strategy than needing to be able to unlock everyone's phones. What do they think is on that phone anyway? I rather doubt Kelley kept anything interesting on his phone; maybe his Contact list? Then subpoena his call records from his phone company. If it was an iPhone it was probably sync'ed to the cloud; subpoena it from Apple.
FBI agents swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Maybe they n
You know what bothers me? (Score:1)
The reaction of the right bothers me greatly when these incidents happen. It's incredibly illogical and harmful.
The fact is, the shooter managed to buy guns because he didn't disclose information for the background check, and that information wasn't otherwise available. He should have been unable to purchase guns on the basis that he had mental health issues, had escaped from a mental health facility, and had a history of violent behavior. Universal background checks are partly about requiring all firearm t
It's worth pointing out... (Score:2, Insightful)
The right of the people... shall not be infringed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the 2nd Amendment:
Back in the day, the word "well regulated" mean "well equipped". The revolutionaries had just finished fending off the well equipped military of the King of England, and they did so because men of fighting age had arms.
In order to keep the new American State free, it's necessary to protect the State's freedom with a well equipped group of fighters. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because not only is that an inalienable right endowed by the Creator (as indicated in the Declaration of Independence), but keeping and bearing arms allows The People to be ready to fight for their freedom—especially against a distant, intractable, Tyrannical power, as the Federal government increasingly seems to be.
Look, the American theory of government is that rights existed before the government; it is not the government that grants rights, but rather the "Creator" (i.e., rights are an inherent aspect of sentient beings). A government gets its authority from the fact that The People collectively agree to delegate some of their own authorities to the Government; yet, the founders thought that the right to bear arms is so fundamental and important to a Free society, that they decided to enshrine that right explicitly in the 2nd Amendment (rather than leave it as one of the implicit, "unenumerated" rights), and in doing so, the founders forbade the government from even accepting from The People any delegation of the associated authority—as the Constitution is currently written, it's not even possible for The People to delegate away their right to keep and bear arms.
If the governments of the United States ever did get rid of the Second Amended, there would be a lot of people who would cry "Tyranny!"; those people would deny ever having legitimately delegated their right away, and there would be—without any doubt—a second Civil War.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, the word "well regulated" mean "well equipped".
*citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To put a finer point on it... (Score:2)
One [af.mil] did.
Re: It's worth pointing out... (Score:2)
(Sometimes the narrative is so optimized for dramatic effect that it becomes thinner than transparent...)
Re: (Score:2)
he wouldn't have been able to hit a fucking thing.
Were there people fucking at that concert? If not, I don't see how that matters. In any event, are you so stupid as to imply that firing into a crowd of thousands would have been ineffective if was using a bump fire stock? Because he wasn't aiming at particular people, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason that he didn't actually have access to a machine gun.
Tell me something, what's the difference between a machine gun and a shotgun? This is a serious question, I'll explain.
One of the most popular guns to ban is the MAC-10. It's a "machine pistol" capable of holding a 30 round magazine of 9mm ammunition and firing them rapidly with a single pull of the trigger. Now compare this to a popular shotgun, the JIC 500, this is a pistol grip shotgun popular for survival hunting, law enforcement, and more. A common variant, and only slightly harder to get legally,
Re: (Score:2)
Their words were perfectly clear. We've just let the definitions shift since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you know little about how legislation is produced, the way words change meaning over time in a living language, or even the concept of a rough draft.
You have drunk the cool aid offered by those who would infringe your rights through sophistry.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your hobbies include yelling at clouds by any chance? I say the language is perfectly clear because it IS perfectly clear. Perhaps it's because for whatever reason I read old writing more often than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy nailed it. [slashdot.org] Read that, and learn what it means to be an American.
Further, if you want to understand how to parse the language, and avoid the misunderstanding that the 2nd only applies to militias, there are lots of articles out there which discuss how to parse it in the context it was written in, such as this pretty long [fee.org] article about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to change white peoples' definition of a right to bear arms is for black people to bear arms:
Here's How The Nation Responded When A Black Militia Group Occupied A Government Building
https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]
Mulford's legislation, which became known as the "Panthers Bill," passed with the support of the National Rifle Association, which apparently believed that the whole "good guy with a gun" thing didn't apply to black people. California Gov. Ronald Reagan (R), who would later campaign
You don't even know you're quoting the NRA (Score:3)
> He shouldm't have been unable to purchase guns on the basis that ...and had a history of violent behavior.
> expand the data used in conducting these checks. Those on the right complain loudly that this somehow violates their second amendment rights
You're totally unaware that you're advocating for exactly the same things the NRA is saying. Under existing federal law, his attempts to purchase should have been blocked because he had plead guilty to intentionally attacking his toddler stepson so bad
Re: (Score:2)
Passing and ignoring laws shows a tyrannical government. There was a saying in the USSR - "give us the person, we will find a law that he broke". You may be doing the smae things as everybody else, but if you piss of someone with a bit of power, they will get you, because some things everyone is doing are actually illegal, just not enforced. But they will make an exception for you and enforce the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I'd take it as the fact the hero used an AR-15...which is the
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can just take third-hand media reports gleaned from the ether, as the poor man is secluding himself to avoid harassment.
Here's one of the interviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] . Feel free to claim that because the interviewer is right-leaning, that the person must be lying.
A background of being a human being (Score:2)
You've got facts precisely backward again. EXISTING federal law is that if you have a criminal background, like the attacker did, you can't purchase or possess firearms. Unfortunately, when he was convicted in 2012, and purchased the guns a few years ago, the federal government was operating in a mode where the executive branch was ignoring the laws. The president at the time actually said he "had" to set a policy of breaking the law because chose not give him the law he wanted.
What the liberals want is t
Uh huh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Phone encryption is the problem here, not how easy it is for any lunatic to get a gun in the US. Sounds like just another distraction from the real issue.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone buys a dozen guns in a year, then perhaps he should have a conversation with someone to explain exactly what he is doing with them all. Similarly as with a ton of ammo.
Let's think this through.
I heard of professional shotgun sport competitors having to jump through hoops to get the ammunition they need. I think it was California that wanted to pass a law that a person could not buy more than some stupid low level of ammunition each month unless they were a licensed firearms dealer. We've seen this at the federal level too, firearm collectors were buying "too many" guns so the ATF put some limit on this and required them to get a firearm dealer license. So, people got t
Re: (Score:2)
Think this through? Many people opposed to gun control seem perfectly fine with using laws to control other 'concerns', like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc, etc, etc.. So do laws work, or don't they?
People will find ways to get abortions if they're illegal, so why make these laws?
People are going to find drugs if they're illegal, so why make these laws?
Drug enforcement officials have been caught violating the rules. Republican lawmakers have been found pushing their girlfriends or whatever to get aborti
Re: (Score:2)
Think this through? Many people opposed to gun control seem perfectly fine with using laws to control other 'concerns', like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc, etc, etc.. So do laws work, or don't they?
Laws work if they make sense. The government got in the business of marriage to encourage the growth of the population, with children, and the formation of stable families. Same sex marriage meets neither goal. If a pair of people, regardless of sex, wish to create some legal contract for the purpose of shared private resources (bank accounts, homes, income) and enabling certain rights (power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc.) then that was always possible before. We didn't need
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're way off in the fringe, got nothing more add.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ask questions if you are not prepared for the answer. What did you think you were going to get?
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not ignorant, untrue and bigoted BS like 'marriage is about children'. Please go and educate yourself before spouting nonsense if you want to have actual conversations with people. Whatever you think you know isn't true for the rest of the world outside your regressive subculture bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard of professional shotgun sport competitors having to jump through hoops to get the ammunition they need. I think it was California that wanted to pass a law that a person could not buy more than some stupid low level of ammunition each month unless they were a licensed firearms dealer. We've seen this at the federal level too, firearm collectors were buying "too many" guns so the ATF put some limit on this and required them to get a firearm dealer license. So, people got their license to buy firearms. We've already seen complaints that the ATF does not have the manpower to inspect every licensed gun dealer for compliance. Well, then make only actual gun dealers be licensed. If a person needs a license to sell Grandpa's shotguns then you've now created the problem of people getting a license to sell even a handful of firearms and not being able to manage it, or people just not bothering with the license and selling them anyway.
After enough people had acquired federal firearm licenses for the reasons you identify, California and the ATF together cracked down on people who had them while not having a "place of business" getting rid of "kitchen counter top" firearm dealers who could otherwise perform background checks for third parties wishing to transfer firearms legally. Then of course they complained about the increase in private transfers between people after making transfers through a dealer more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is valid. Of course the phrasing of the amendment is something like, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In short, the goal of the amendment is to protect the security of a free state. Do we still need a well regulated militia for that part? One could argue that our armed forces are the well regulated militia.
The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were well aware of the differences between regular army, militia, and select militia.
One could also argue that the amendment referred to the types of firearms available at that time in history, or that it did not foresee the changes in technology.
Just like the 1st Amendment only applies to methods of publishing available at the time it was written and the 4th Amendment does not apply to electronic records.
Certainly we agree that there are limits to weapons that can be owned, otherwise anyone could purchase nuclear weapons and fighter jets. What is not agreed is where those limits are.
Nuclear weapons and fighter jets are not "arms" as defined then or now. Further, the arms are limited to those suitable for a militia (U.S versus Miller, 1939) which includes many currently heavily restricted, ill
If they are such a threat (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe a 48 hour cooling off period and a criminal background check should be required before you are able to buy an iPhone.
Re:If they are such a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
What investigation? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing to investigate here. A depressed loon ball with access to high power killing equipment who'd been shit on a bit too much said 'fuck it'. Case closed. What, you think you're gonna find the illuminati are behind it all? This is just another excuse to get decryption keys and back doors from manufactures. Fortunately it'll go nowhere since the more we discuss it the more we have to bring up universal medical care (which nobody wants to pay for) or gun control (which is DOA).
Re: (Score:2)
what exactly are they hoping to learn? This sort of thing has been going on for ages and we've done fuck all about it.
Exactly. The Onion is supposed to be satire, but sometimes it is disturbingly close to real news.
https://www.theonion.com/natio... [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.motherjones.com/pol... [motherjones.com]
Compiled stats on mass gun shootings in US for a few decades. I haven't verified they are 100% accurate, but they do have references.
You can try to look for patterns. One of the things I noticed is the vast majority of the guns were obtained illegally, whatever that means in each case. One thing that was very common was there were a lot of military people involved. There were also a lot of unhappy workers involved shooting up their old places of work. Plenty of mental health
Re: (Score:2)
Major correction (post attempt 2): Majority of guns were obtained Legally. Sorry about that.
Umm...how about this instead... (Score:2)
Instead of handing over the encryption keys to the government why not just employ some simple investigation instead? If they need to know what calls were made from the phone find out which carrier was used and get that info from them. If they want to see what emails were sent that can be found out too.
The FBI and the cops don't want to do this because it means having to get one of those pesky warrants. And that requires just cause, etc. No, they would rather just invade our privacy and trample on our 4th am
Acoustic Analysis of Las Vegas Shooting (Score:2)
Does anyone know if the FBI considered the acoustic analysis [youtube.com] that was offered in response to their pleas for help to the public?
It's worth the 30 minutes, the analysis presented some compelling information, was well explained and reasoned.
What's The Big Deal? (Score:2)
Why would the FBI be all panicky about being unable to get into the murderer's phone? Are they looking for signs of involvement with ISIS or the Russians? Who helped him get the guns? Well, other than the Air Farce, in failing to inform the NCIC of his court martial or his Bad Conduct Discharge or his conviction for domestic violence. Had the Air Force done that, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the other hand, most law enforcement agencies can't be bothered to actually arrest and prosecute cr
Why do they need to get into the phone anyway? (Score:2)
The guy is dead and wont be shooting anyone else and if he wasn't, they would have more enough physical evidence to send the guy to Huntsville for lethal injection.
What exactly are they hoping to find by getting into this guy's phone that they cant get through physical evidence at the crime scene?
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI assumes there is some kind of dark web of solo spree killers.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking about it some more, it does make some sense. The FBI probably wants to know if he was a criminal (who shot the place up for his own reasons) or a terrorist (who shot the place up because Islamic State or whoever told him to go commit violence in the name god).
If he was a terrorist then they need to find out how his mind got warped to the point where he decided to go shoot up a church so they can take further action in an attempt to stop other people from having their mind similarly warped and reduc
BREAKING NEWS ... (Score:2)
... Ineptitude Hampers Investigation of Texas Shooter, Says Common Sense.
let nothing interfere with the law! (Score:2)
Those pesky laws, constitutions, and amendments, we should just do away with them since they're interfering with investigations, right? Bring back the Writ of Assistance too I suppose?
Methinks they're just lazy, they need to relearn how to do investigations without relying on the crutch of stealing all our rights away to make their jobs easier. This is just a technological barrier, and has done far less to "interfere" with their work than has the constitution. If every time they ran into an investigative
Re: (Score:2)
Those pesky laws, constitutions, and amendments, we should just do away with them since they're interfering with investigations, right? Bring back the Writ of Assistance too I suppose?
Already done. It's called a National Security Letter, and it's even better than a Writ of Assistance. When you receive it, you can't tell anyone you have.
Doesn't Touch ID need a live finger to work? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I read it in a few places when Touch ID was new -- it needs a life finger to work. It won't work with a cadaver.
Re: (Score:2)
Stick the hand in a microwave for a minute or two, and it will probably work just fine.
30 years ago? (Score:2)
How did the FBI investigate cases when most people didn't carry small computers on them all the time? I'm not really that concerned about what is effectively a blip of about 20 years where where personal devices were valuable evidence. We still solved crimes before this and we'll still solve crimes after this.
The alternative to encrypting every phone is rampant identity theft, and given that the government is happy to bail out credit agencies and banks but not help your average taxpaying victim has already
Re: (Score:2)
The interviews would take as long as needed and very repetitive. Lots of rephrased questions about politics, books, reading... politics..
All past education, mil, friends, past neighbors, places of work. Then a look at books, other reading material, music, art, all contacts with people outside the USA.
Local court, state, medical and federal court paper files and
Ten years ago, Nokia... (Score:2)
Getting into these phones IS POSSIBLE. (Score:2)
For someone with resources of a Nation state or the FBI, it is totally possible to get into an encrypted Android or iPhone. All one has to do is desolder the SOC and brute force the password, which is likely a crappy one easily found using a rainbow table. Even a 16 char random password can be brute forced in a few days with modern cracking rigs.
This whole process was illustrated by a contractor the last time this was in the news.
Money to Burn (Score:2)
Too bad. (Score:2)
I am sorry, but I simply do not care. No real purpose is served in finding out the motives of these men.
What about the root problem? (Score:2)
Re:terrorist and pedos love iphones! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we already KNOW they do illegal search and seizure on a daily basis.
THEY can not be trusted therefore:
Bulletproof and invulnerable encryption is our only recourse to force police to act within the law
Re: (Score:2)
Bulletproof encryption isn't the only recourse left: Bullets are. Bullets, and, if we're lucky, our military completely loaded with 'democracy'm to deal with the military gear the LEO crime gangs now have at their disposal. The justice system has utterly collapsed. The founding fathers warned us it would need doing eventually.
Wrong.
The founders saw that INSURRECTION against the state appointed leaders (Police, judges) would be a danger to the status quo, and made ALL OF YOUR (militia) liable to be drafted to "putting down insurrections" in ARticle 1.
As for the Military, they do not serve democracy, as noted by the enthusiastic volunteering to kill in Afghanistan and Iraq on the orders of a NOT elected leader (bush v. Gore stopped the count of legal votes)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like your post. (and mine)
Re: (Score:2)
US law enforcement has its "Americans’ Cellphones Targeted in Secret U.S. Spy Program" (Nov. 13, 2014)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a... [wsj.com]
So that covers tracking and the removal of privacy.
The only question left for US law enforcement at a federal, state, city level is what to tell the public about its budgets for collect it all systems.
Keep it out of court and no lawyer, human r
Re:A way for Police to break strong crypto... (Score:4, Insightful)
And then someone gets a copy of Apple's private key and leaks it.
Kinda like what happened to the NSA's hacking tools.
No, (Score:2)
There is no private key in Apple's possession. Their system does not work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the post I replied to and realize I was replying to a theoretical future implementation, not what is done now.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand that iPhones have been encrypting their storage contents since at least the iPhone 5s, you are hopeless, and no one will ever be able to explain it to you, because you are dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
or, at least, that is what we are supposed to believe. If the FBI could break into these devices a good strategy would be to shout about how they cannot get in and so convince crooks/paedoes/political-dissidents/... to buy them.
The FBI have taken a case where they know who did the crime, they have a pretty good idea of the nature of the man and why he did it - but they are using it as a poster case to tell everyone that they cannot break into the 'phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, Just because you're dead doesn't mean you loose all rights. Else copyrights would end at death.