apparently FBI is not seeking a backdoor to breaking encryption
 

so whose lying?

tim cook says the FBI wants a backdoor to their encryption that will effect every phone.

FBI says they want an OS update for 1 phone that disables a feature which destroys data after 10 password misses. this has no effect on anyones encryption. FBI just wants to brute force attack the password without eliminating evidence. How does that effect every cell phone out there???

those are fundamentally different things. someone is seriously bullshitting the public.

:winkwink:

"FBI says they want an OS update for 1 phone that disables a feature which destroys data after 10 password misses"
and what is that in your opinion ? why it should work in your opinion just for one phone ?:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
I'm pretty sure they would have no problems in hacking that phone, it just requires some work that way or another.
if McAfee says he can do it, I'm pretty sure every Kevin Mitnick could do it :-P
it just requires some time
BTW. how is what FBI asks for NOT "backdoor" from your topic ? how would you name it in your own words ???? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
if someone from government will tell you that fire is cold, will you believe him and put your hands into the fire ? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

That's not the only thing the FBI is asking for here.
They are also asking for this version of the OS to allow the FBI to try passcodes electronically via the lightning port or Bluetooth.

They are asking for a patched OS with a deliberate security flaw to be loaded onto this phone.

Problem 1: Once Apple does this, they can do this with any phone.
Problem 2: If they do this, any government can ask for this. Imagine what China will do with this.

FBI is asking for way more than what you propose here.

The phone is owned by the FBI.

The previous owner is a terrorist.

What do any of you, have on your phones you need to be kept secret from the FBI?

yes...they want their brute force software to work on the fast port. duh.

what specifically is the security flaw you are talking about? the FBI director said they want to disable the data-erase feature, on this one phone. the govt has a compelling public safety interest in accessing this one phone. how does this effect every phone.

so what are you talking about? if the govt has a warrant or a judge that agrees the phone data should be searched, how is this a threat to the publics privacy? its not a secret operation to backdoor anything to the public at large.

:helpme

Are you fucking serious?

It is my personal property, the FBI can go fuck themselves. :2 cents:

the phone is owned by san bernadino county, california. the terrorist never owned it.

privacy is an essential element of society. So is law enforcement. We are not in a dictatorship, we are a nation of laws with a court system that is a check on the cops. if a judge agrees the cops need a persons data for good public cause, how does anyone argue that the govt should not work to get around all security features.

i think those defending apple are falsely accusing the government of requiring master keys to all encryption. thats not the facts here. everyone can keep their data erase feature, until you commit a crime.

or is this entire issue an academic one about the government going nazi & ransacking your private data? does china forbid apple from encrypting phones or disable the auto-erase?

this whole thing sounds to me like more liberal hand wringing over nothing. :2 cents:

thats easy. i wouldnt want a private criminal, or a bad friend, or neighbor, to brute force my phone. & we are not talking about disabling it for every phone, are we?


it is a backdoor. FOR ONE PHONE. how does this effect your security? if your in china, apple can use discretion not to disable the auto-erase, right? since apple still controls the master key. So why is apple screwing over the FBI? they are not china.

:helpme

you mean like the protest leaders for OWS? i heard the FBI had assassination plans for those folks

A judge has already ordered it to be opened. So the law of the land is being held up.

It was used by a terrorist. It may have more information on it.

The privacy case here is clear. If a judge orders something to be opened for inspection, it gets opened. Whether it's a car trunk, house or phone. The right of privacy is no longer in force after a judge decides.

The problem here is some think "online privacy" is above offline privacy.

and how this backdoor wouldnt work for other Iphones :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it's like saying that some other backdoor will only work on ***this*** windows 7 computer:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

hack it, dudes ! dont be lazy and spend your time and resources on this case. you won't get keys to allow you even more mass surveillance....

off topic: I wouldnt trust company like that ;-)

yeah but once apple writes this for 1 iphone, it can be used on all of them

you can easily just update one of the phones with different software... basically just:

if(phone_id=xxxxx)
send software version with a backdoor
else
send usual software

US government law enforcement would NEVER lie about wanting to spy on every US citizen!


Not even the head of an agency...


In front of Congress...


Under oath......


Attorney: Spy chief had 'forgotten' about NSA program when he misled Congress | TheHill






.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...527_story.html

(Article from September 2014)

WTF makes you think the phone belongs to the FBI?

In a nutshell; which president, if elected, should I short apple stock?

sure, but this backdoor will work on every Iphone...
just like trojan horses or viruses work on most/ every windows.....

Of Course not :helpme

i guess we will see whos lying in the next week

I don't understand what the issue is here. This is evidence in a crime - a terrorist attack in fact - and law enforcement is asking for technical help from the company that created the cell phone. This shouldn't even be a discussion.

Of course you don't understand; no one would accuse you of that. Maybe a picture will help.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbqPx0bWIAEC5vO.jpg

You live in what used to be Czechoslovakia and are asking a question like this?

people forget easily

Does Anybody Believe the FBI Isnâ??t Out to Defeat Encryption?Scott Shackford

FBI Director James Comeystarts his defensehaof their effort to force Apple to help them break into the iPhone of San Bernardino terrorist and killer Syed Farook with a sentence that is that is extremely hard to take seriously: "The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message."

Thatâ??s from a Sunday contribution on the Lawfare blog, focusing on the same talking points weâ??ve been hearing from the feds since a judge last weekhaordered Applehato take some actions that would make it easier for the FBI to brute force the passcode into Farookâ??s phone. Comey insists that what the FBI is asking for is very narrow and is not about breaking encryption or creating a "master key" to force back doors into encryption.

There are also plenty of appeals to emotion to try to make people feel bad for resisting their efforts. The title of the post is "We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead," a sentiment repeated in the content of the short commentary

The problem with treating Comeyâ??s claim credibly is that we all know full well that the White House, the executive branch, federal law enforcement, and intelligence are all united in a concerted effort to do pretty much the opposite of what Comey says: to find ways to break through encryption. Bloomberg got its hands on ahamemohafrom a strategy meeting from last Thanksgiving that showed that what Comey is doing here is exactly the White Houseâ??s plan:

The approach was formalized in a confidential National Security Council "decision memo," tasking government agencies with developing encryption workarounds, estimating additional budgets and identifying laws that may need to be changed to counter what FBI Director James Comey calls the "going dark" problem: investigators being unable to access the contents of encrypted data stored on mobile devices or traveling across the Internet. Details of the memo reveal that, in private, the government was honing a sharper edge to its relationship with Silicon Valley alongside more public signs of rapprochement.

The argument that accessing Farookâ??s iPhone is an isolated request is very clearly a talking point planned well out in advance, and like many efforts that have come from the White House, weâ??re seeing an obviously organized media blitz to sell it, to the point that theyâ??re overplaying their hand. The Department of Justice (DOJ)harespondedhato Apple CEO Tim Cookâ??s public statement warning against the FBIâ??s demands with a federal court filing calling his concerns an effort to protect his "brand marketing." Apple hadnâ??t even responded to the courtâ??s request yet. This was a public statement from Cook and Apple. And the DOJ responded with ahacourt filinghawithout even waiting to see what arguments Apple actually presented to the judge.

Cook ishasticking to his guns, sending an email out to Apple employees telling them "Apple is a uniquely American company. It does not feel right to be on the opposite side of the government in a case centering on the freedoms and liberties that government is meant to protect." He wants the government to form a tech commission to discuss the privacy implications of what the FBI wants. And he reminds everybody of the obvious that Comey is hoping weâ??ll ignore: That if the government is successful in forcing Apple to help them here, they can come back to the courts again and again and again to order them again and again and again. Comeyâ??s counterargument can be best paraphrased as "No, we wonâ??t," even though everybody knows full well they have a mission to defeat encryption.

In some other news related to the encryption fight, Donald Trump said that people shouldhaboycott Apple, which tells you everything you need to know about what Trump thinks of civil liberties (if you didnâ??t already know he doesnâ??t give a damn about them).

It also turns out the FBI wouldnâ??t have needed to break into Farookâ??s phone at all,haApple claims, if the FBI hadnâ??t arranged to have Farookâ??s passcode reset while the phone was in custody, which cut off the ability to back up the phoneâ??s contents to iCloud (The FBI responded that the iCloud back up doesnâ??t collect all phone data, and they still would have wanted access to the phone from Apple).






.