Apple challenges 'chilling' demand to decrypt San Bernardino shooter's iPhone

[serpentdove]

FBI Offers to Help Agencies With Locked Phones Jn 8:36

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How about a grieving father wanting his dead son's phone unlocked?

"A grieving father is begging Apple to allow him access to the photos stored on his dead son’s iPhone.Leonardo Fabbretti’s adopted son Dama died at age 13 of bone cancer in September,the Guardian reports. Now Fabbretti has written a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook pleading to unlock Dama’s phone so he can see the photos of his son."
http://time.com/4279454/father-asks-apple-to-unlock-his-dead-sons-phone/

AMR

 

[kmoney]

It was offered in the same sense, "I can't believe you said that," mostly means "Why on earth would you say that?"

Have you been spending time PMing with meshak, Letsargue, or Crucible again? Because conversation with emergent readers, the heavily medicated or those in need of can really skew your rhetorical compass. lain:

Or is it just the unsettling nature of following the Chiefs in the offseason?

I don't know what I was thinking.

I also saw your original response and I agree. But I guess he knows he has no good argument so he said that in a desperate attempt to appease.

 

[serpentdove]

Hundreds of requests to unlock phones flood FBI Jn 8:36

 

[kmoney]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-legislation-idUSKCN0X32M4

Exclusive: White House declines to support encryption legislation - sources
WASHINGTON | By Mark Hosenball and Dustin Volz

The White House is declining to offer public support for draft legislation that would empower judges to require technology companies such as Apple Inc to help law enforcement crack encrypted data, sources familiar with the discussions said.

The decision all but assures that the years-long political impasse over encryption will continue even in the wake of the high-profile effort by the Department of Justice to force Apple to break into an iPhone used by a gunman in last December's shootings in San Bernardino, California.

President Obama suggested in remarks last month that he had come around to the view that law enforcement agencies needed to have a way to gain access to encrypted information on smartphones.

But the administration remains deeply divided on the issue, the sources said.

The draft legislation from Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the Republican chair and top Democrat respectively of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is expected to be introduced as soon as this week.

The bill gives federal judges broad authority to order tech companies to help the government but does not spell out what companies might have to do or the circumstances under which they could be ordered to help, according to sources familiar with the text. It also does not create specific penalties for noncompliance.

Although the White House has reviewed the text and offered feedback, it is expected to provide minimal public input, if any, the sources said.

Its stance is partly a reflection of a political calculus that any encryption bill would be controversial and is unlikely to go far in a gridlocked Congress during an election year, sources said.

 

[serpentdove]

U.S. demands that Apple unlock phone in drug case

Senate Bill Would Prohibit 'Unbreakable' Jn 8:36

 

[rexlunae]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-legislation-idUSKCN0X32M4

Exclusive: White House declines to support encryption legislation - sources
WASHINGTON | By Mark Hosenball and Dustin Volz

I would say that anyone who doesn't feel a bit conflicted about this either hasn't thought it through very carefully, or is on some extreme end of authoritarian to anarchist spectrum. No one wants terrorists (or other serious criminals) to be able to hide their communications effectively. But then, I think most people understand the need for real, meaningful technical security measures to protect privacy, including against some of the more overbearing states.

 

[Stripe]

Do these morons not understand? Encryption can always be cracked.

 

[rexlunae]

Do these morons not understand? Encryption can always be cracked.

jA0EAwMCG9xa1WzoSfZgyVW7jr1lT+QD6GpSdJPYhYVeIiLUWozbkDoY9LMauNmUwHUKKQw8Gw3c
qmg4BSZxjaMZn0EB+zp5bEyDtkCNiEvci4WS8H/J1oHl/PjcjEup1nBys7wk

 

[Stripe]

jA0EAwMCG9xa1WzoSfZgyVW7jr1lT+QD6GpSdJPYhYVeIiLUWozbkDoY9LMauNmUwHUKKQw8Gw3c
qmg4BSZxjaMZn0EB+zp5bEyDtkCNiEvci4WS8H/J1oHl/PjcjEup1nBys7wk

If that is an encrypted message, it could be cracked.

 

[rexlunae]

If that is an encrypted message, it could be cracked.

Theoretically.

 

[Stripe]

Theoretically.

If you like your sentences to contain redundancy: "If that is an encrypted message, it could theoretically be cracked."

Of course, nobody is going to try.

However, it exposes the stupidity of Apple, who seem to think their devices should be impenetrable.

 

[rexlunae]

If you like your sentences to contain redundancy: "If that is an encrypted message, it could theoretically be cracked."

Of course, nobody is going to try.

I guess I don't see where your confidence comes from. Sure, if you can apply enough time and processing power, any message could, theoretically, be cracked. The whole basis of modern crypto is the fact that certain operations are a lot faster than their inverses (multiplication versus factoring, for instance). But that doesn't mean it isn't reasonably secure, even against state actors.

However, it exposes the stupidity of Apple, who seem to think their devices should be impenetrable.

Well, they were ordered to help penetrate it.

 

[Stripe]

I guess I don't see where your confidence comes from.

:AMR:

Didn't you just finish agreeing with me? All codes can "theoretically" be cracked.

Sure, if you can apply enough time and processing power, any message could, theoretically, be cracked.

Exactly. What are you talking about my "confidence" for when you support my statement? :AMR:

The whole basis of modern crypto is the fact that certain operations are a lot faster than their inverses (multiplication versus factoring, for instance). But that doesn't mean it isn't reasonably secure, even against state actors.

"Reasonably secure" means "somewhat vulnerable."

Apple makes a big song and dance about "privacy" as if its encryption tools were meant to provide it. They never can guarantee privacy.

Well, they were ordered to help penetrate it.

Apple should have helped. It would have made the process a non-event. Instead, its device got cracked in a very public manner.

 

[rexlunae]

:AMR:

Didn't you just finish agreeing with me? All codes can "theoretically" be cracked.

I honestly wasn't sure. I'm not sure what the significance of what you said was supposed to be, even if it is technically true at face value.

Sure, if you can apply enough time and processing power, any message could, theoretically, be cracked.

Exactly. What are you talking about my "confidence" for when you support my statement? :AMR:

"Reasonably secure" means "somewhat vulnerable."

That vulnerability can be exceptionally unlikely to be accessible to anyone, if the encryption algorithm is strong. But there are certainly avenues of attack that can be executed against any cryptographic system.

Apple makes a big song and dance about "privacy" as if its encryption tools were meant to provide it. They never can guarantee privacy.

That's where I don't follow you. Certainly, within certain parameters, encryption can give you good privacy guarantees.

Apple should have helped. It would have made the process a non-event. Instead, its device got cracked in a very public manner.

Maybe. Of course, Apple didn't think that the FBI would be able to find anyone who could access the device. And they still clearly prefer the code to bypass the lock screen not to exist at all.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not sure what the significance of what you said was supposed to be.

That Apple is run by morons who do not understand crypto.

That and Tim Cook is a homo.

I don't follow you. Certainly, within certain parameters, encryption can give you good privacy guarantees.

Yet it can never guarantee privacy.

 

[rexlunae]

That Apple is run by morons who do not understand crypto.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

That and Tim Cook is a homo.

Why do you feel such a strong need to do that?

Yet it can never guarantee privacy.

It's really all about the strength of the guarantee. It's a lot more likely that you'll have privacy if you have strong crypto.

 

[Stripe]

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I do. They made a song and dance about protecting privacy and reality bit them on the bum.

Why do you feel such a strong need to do that?

To do what? Call Tim Cook a homo?

It's not a "strong need." It's just true.

It's really all about the strength of the guarantee. It's a lot more likely that you'll have privacy if you have strong crypto.

Which would be fine if Apple's understanding matched.

 

[rexlunae]

I do. They made a song and dance about protecting privacy and reality bit them on the bum.

And yet, their guarantee of privacy was, in practical terms, strong enough to confound the FBI until an Israeli company intervened.

To do what? Call Tim Cook a homo?

It's not a "strong need." It's just true.

What does it matter, here? It's like you can't focus on anything else.

Which would be fine if Apple's understanding matched.

Any software has bugs. But there were probably only a few people in the world willing and able to break Apple's software for the FBI. That seems fairly strong to me, if not unlimited.

 

[Stripe]

And yet, their guarantee of privacy was, in practical terms, strong enough to confound the FBI until an Israeli company intervened.

This is pure nonsense.

They made a song and dance about privacy and then got burned when it was shown they could not guarantee it. The identity of the group that cracked their code is irrelevant. Nor is the difficulty they had doing it. Privacy is something that simply cannot be guaranteed. Apple was stupid to pretend it was.

What does it matter, here?

What does it matter that Tim Cook is a homo? Clearly, he's not normal and is going to hell.

It's like you can't focus on anything else.

Focus? :darwinsm:

It was put there as something you could talk about to divert attention from how weak your contention with me is.

Any software has bugs.

Uh huh.

But there were probably only a few people in the world willing and able to break Apple's software for the FBI. That seems fairly strong to me, if not unlimited.

Can you find someone who says encryption cannot be strong? Who are you arguing with?

Encryption can always be overcome. Privacy cannot be guaranteed. Apple was stupid to pretend it could.

They made a song and dance that put the issue in the headlines and got burned in the PR department when the FBI cracked the phone. They should have quietly aided the FBI.