[paranee2]

Apple tells US judge iPhones are 'impossible' to unlock

Apple tells US judge iPhones are 'impossible' to unlock - BBC News

Posted via CB10

[LoneStarRed]

Is that a joke?

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[paranee2]

'No back doors'
Meanwhile, Apple chief executive Tim Cook has told an audience in California that the company does not allow intelligence agencies to access data via "back doors" in its software.
"We think encryption is a must in today's world," said Mr Cook, speaking at the Wall Street Journal's WSJDLive conference.

Posted via CB10

[H4zN]

And this is just a few days after iOS 9.1 is jailbroken yet again. Go figure

Posted via CB10

[LoneStarRed]

And this is just a few days after iOS 9.1 is jailbroken yet again. Go figure

Posted via CB10

I guess cracking and manipulation of the entire OS doesn't count. ROTFL

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[Dave Bourque]

US judge can't find Internet Explorer

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2639

[rthonpm]

It's no threat to BlackBerry because they use the same type of device level encryption scheme: the device creates a unique key that is wiped if the phone is wiped. Since it's randomly generated there's no means by which the manufacturer could decrypt the contents of the device.

[laid-back]

i believe the article said that the iphones "from now on" can not be cracked. go figure

[Omnitech]

i believe the article said that the iphones "from now on" can not be cracked. go figure

Most likely simply because device encryption is on by default now with modern iPhones. I don't think this has anything to do with any kind of magical new Apple technology - law-enforcement is just not used to devices being encrypted by default.

BlackBerry has stated that device encryption will be on by default in the Priv, and it looks like Google is going to make that a requirement for devices shipping with Android 6.0 as well.

What is more interesting at the moment to me is what is going on in the USA regarding whether or not law-enforcement can compel a device-owner to divulge their device password / encryption keys to the authorities or not. Several cases have gone against the defendants, but there is some indication the tide may be turning on that and the issue may go before the Supreme Court before long.

[rthonpm]

What is more interesting at the moment to me is what is going on in the USA regarding whether or not law-enforcement can compel a device-owner to divulge their device password / encryption keys to the authorities or not. Several cases have gone against the defendants, but there is some indication the tide may be turning on that and the issue may go before the Supreme Court before long.

So far it comes down to how the encrypted device is unlocked. The general consensus in the courts is that fingerprints can be collected by police so they can compel someone to unlock their device with their fingerprint. If it's a password, then that's knowledge protected by the Fifth Amendment. The basic logic is your fingerprints are left everywhere by basic physics. A password you create is something that only exists in your mind so divulging it to law enforcement is tantamount to testifying against yourself.


Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

So far it comes down to how the encrypted device is unlocked. The general consensus in the courts is that fingerprints can be collected by police so they can compel someone to unlock their device with their fingerprint. If it's a password, then that's knowledge protected by the Fifth Amendment. The basic logic is your fingerprints are left everywhere by basic physics. A password you create is something that only exists in your mind so divulging it to law enforcement is tantamount to testifying against yourself.

Yep, though I would still argue that the fingerprint rationale is still on shaky ground because of the value of a fingerprint in such scenarios. Otherwise we will reach a state where it's OK to grab someone's DNA from a strand of hair and clone them from it, without any repercussions. Can you imagine how crazy it would be if there became a massive black-market in DNA of famous athletes and so on, people following them around everywhere, trying to collect DNA samples? I'm sure the science-fiction writers have already covered this..

[TGR1]

Privacy <> security. In this particular case, Apple is drawing the line on personal privacy with respect to the handset.

[TGR1]

Yep, though I would still argue that the fingerprint rationale is still on shaky ground because of the value of a fingerprint in such scenarios. Otherwise we will reach a state where it's OK to grab someone's DNA from a strand of hair and clone them from it, without any repercussions. Can you imagine how crazy it would be if there became a massive black-market in DNA of famous athletes and so on, people following them around everywhere, trying to collect DNA samples? I'm sure the science-fiction writers have already covered this..

Is it actually illegal to grab a celebrity's chewing gum and mess around with extracting the DNA? Is our DNA actually protected in any way? It's certainly an interesting scenario.

[Omnitech]

Is it actually illegal to grab a celebrity's chewing gum and mess around with extracting the DNA? Is our DNA actually protected in any way? It's certainly an interesting scenario.

It's a big deal now, and as usual the politicians will screw it all up for years before someone forces them to grab a clue. :-|

And you better be careful of these services that ask for a DNA sample to give you a geneology report or a report about possible genetic health issues you might have - US law enforcement are now setting precedents by demanding access to those private DNA samples to try to solve crimes - often fishing-expeditions that threaten innocent people - and the companies holding the data are often stupid about how they try to monetize it without your consent:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...services.shtml

[TGR1]

It's a big deal now, and as usual the politicians will screw it all up for years before someone forces them to grab a clue. :-|

And you better be careful of these services that ask for a DNA sample to give you a geneology report or a report about possible genetic health issues you might have - US law enforcement are now setting precedents by demanding access to those private DNA samples to try to solve crimes - often fishing-expeditions that threaten innocent people - and the companies holding the data are often stupid about how they try to monetize it without your consent:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...services.shtml

I read about how one of those companies didn't make it clear that they shared the info with other people of similar geneology. Whoa!

I can definitely see insurance companies potentially using it to run the stats on how much a genetic risk one runs and then denying coverage.

[early2bed]

From law enforcement's standpoint, we have never had absolute impenetrable boxes for people to store things in. There has always been some mechanism to get into any vault/box/safe, etc. if deemed absolutely necessary.

One can always come up with some scenario where, say, your grandfather died in a fire that destroyed his will but there was an electronic copy on his iPhone. There would absolutely be no way to get into it. Or, say, a serial killer stalks someone and a security camera captures the victim taking iPhone pictures before being killed. There would be no way for the police to get the pictures out. What if on 9/11 victims recorded their last will and testament on their smartphones which then locked.

I'm not advocating that a back door be required. I'm just saying that truly "impossible to unlock" is something new that we have never dealt with.

[Omnitech]

I can definitely see insurance companies potentially using it to run the stats on how much a genetic risk one runs and then denying coverage.

Exactly. And just the tip of the iceberg. Employers, business competitors, con artists, etc etc etc.

[Omnitech]

From law enforcement's standpoint, we have never had absolute impenetrable boxes for people to store things in. There has always been some mechanism to get into any vault/box/safe, etc. if deemed absolutely necessary.

That's not really the issue. The issue are new forms of technology that provide VASTLY greater personal data than has EVER been accessible in one place. MASSIVELY personal data that is VERY sensitive, EASILY abused, which has never been accessible to ANYone, including the person the data is actually taken from, in the case of DNA data.

This is a huge paradigm-shift, and it requires a paradigm-shift in thinking to preserve basic civil liberties.

[Prem WatsApp]

I read about how one of those companies didn't make it clear that they shared the info with other people of similar geneology. Whoa!

I can definitely see insurance companies potentially using it to run the stats on how much a genetic risk one runs and then denying coverage.

Yes!!! So totally this...

Insurance is taken out to cover against the unexpected. That's the rule.

So by acquiring knowledge about the individual and a potential disease, the risk is no longer "unexpected" and therefore not insurable ...

Basically, it means removing the individual from the market (making the market smaller, decreasing their risk spread out over the whole pool, but are they gonna lower the rates and premiums for the rest of the pool members....? haha!?! ).

:-D

�   Ahoy, Privateers...! :-)   �

[Prem WatsApp]

That's not really the issue. The issue are new forms of technology that provide VASTLY greater personal data than has EVER been accessible in one place. MASSIVELY personal data that is VERY sensitive, EASILY abused, which has never been accessible to ANYone, including the person the data is actually taken from, in the case of DNA data.

This is a huge paradigm-shift, and it requires a paradigm-shift in thinking to preserve basic civil liberties.

Thank you.

Removal of human dignity. Individual becomes a number and is labeled either an asset or a liability (based on criteria outside of the individual's choosing or control) .... :-(

Where's the difference between that and racism? Where's the difference between that and labelling Einstein as a school loser (yes, pretty much! followed by Nobel Prize) or a Jew destined to be removed from the country or sent to extermination? (3rd Reich history)

"Eu"thanasia ("good" or "useful" killing) is not far away from this line of thinking. If our corporate culture turns completely fascist and profit-only, there's no democratic process that will protect us as an individual from the plutocracy and technocrats...

I'll leave it at that, before it becomes too political or inflammatory.

Bottom line: Our data needs to be protected!!
By technological and legislative means...

:-))))


�   Ahoy, Privateers...! :-)   �

[world saviour]

Thank you.

Removal of human dignity. Individual becomes a number and is labeled either an asset or a liability (based on criteria outside of the individual's choosing or control) .... :-(

Where's the difference between that and racism? Where's the difference between that and labelling Einstein as a school loser (yes, pretty much! followed by Nobel Prize) or a Jew destined to be removed from the country or sent to extermination? (3rd Reich history)

"Eu"thanasia ("good" or "useful" killing) is not far away from this line of thinking. If our corporate culture turns completely fascist and profit-only, there's no democratic process that will protect us as an individual from the plutocracy and technocrats...

I'll leave it at that, before it becomes too political or inflammatory.

Bottom line: Our data needs to be protected!!
By technological and legislative means...

:-))))


�   Ahoy, Privateers...! :-)   �

Good post. It's probably too late already.

Posted via CB10

[sigint99]

Apple tells a load of bollocks all the time just to appease authorities. If anyone truly believes that iPhones cannot be subject to covert surveillance then they're living in a walled garden full of funny weed.

It's just amazing how many people fall for the BS and lies that spew out of the mouth of Timmy Crook.

[z10Jobe]

i believe the article said that the iphones "from now on" can not be cracked. go figure

Iphones do crack. No question about that.

Posted via CB10

[bakron1]

As I have said many times before, if you think any phone out there is 100% secure, unless your on a BES server, I know a great deal on some beach front property in the Everglades you can buy for a bargain.

[Cashgap]

Apple tells a load of bollocks all the time just to appease authorities. If anyone truly believes that iPhones cannot be subject to covert surveillance then they're living in a walled garden full of funny weed.

It's just amazing how many people fall for the BS and lies that spew out of the mouth of Timmy Crook.

If you toned it down, some folks might think you'd read the article.

"Apple has said that encrypted data on newer iPhones can't be accessed, even by Apple, though the firm could in theory help police unlock older phones."

They didn't say iOS ver X can't be jailbroken. They didn't say iPhone version X can't be surveilled. Read what they said. Do you think the CEO of the largest public company on Earth could get away with lying to a US court?

Not in grownup land.