[bakron1]

You've seen card skimmers at your local gas stations? I would hope you reported them to the managers or owners. Even if you prefer to use cash, by reporting skimmers you can really save a lot of other people a lot of trouble.

They have been reported and they are popping up more and more, all the more reason to use cash.

[Eumaeus]

Anything is possible, of course, but my read is this:

1. The FBI didn't need to "legalize" cracking that phone; they have a warrant.
2. It was a technical problem; the FBI did not have the technical capability to get in, especially once they'd incompetently (or intentionally) changed the password.
3. The FBI wanted to set a precedent by forcing Apple to write a custom OS to let them brute-force that phone.
4. As the case shaped up, after the unfavorable (to the FBI) ruling in New York, it looked that the "precedent" that was about to be set was going to be "The government does not have the right to force a company to write custom software for them."
5. Rather than have a court rule against them, the FBI cancelled the hearing. To save face, they claim to have another means to crack the phone.
6. They don't. There is nothing useful on that phone, and they know it.
7. They will wait for another case ("Terrorists!!!! Think of the children!!!") and a more sympathetic judge, and try again. They may well pick a different phone manufacturer, one more likely to roll over.
8. This case has very little to do with Blackberry, except that Apple's defense of security is in the interest of everyone, regardless of what smartphone you prefer.

[Elephant_Canyon]

I have also started to pay cash for my gas because of card skimmers being used at gas pumps here which can steal your card information like your PIN. The banks will preach convenience by using all this electronic payment stuff, but what amazes me is we used cash for over 200 years and never had none of the electronic theft issues we have today. Just a thought.

If you use online banking, you can get transaction and fraud alerts on all your cards. Heck, some cards even give you notifications through Apple Pay of all transactions, whether or not it was an Apple Pay transaction. Using these tools, you can catch fraudulent transactions almost immediately. And you're not liable for any fraud on your cards. Oh, and in the US, the merchant is now responsible for all fraud perpetrated through magnetic-swipe transactions, so these gas stations will start taking this fraud seriously when it hits them in the wallet.

So, in all, credit cards are mostly safer than cash, at least from a theft and fraud perspective. If someone steals your credit card, you can get any stolen money back. If someone steals your cash, it's gone forever.

Anything is possible, of course, but my read is this:

1. The FBI didn't need to "legalize" cracking that phone; they have a warrant.
2. It was a technical problem; the FBI did not have the technical capability to get in, especially once they'd incompetently (or intentionally) changed the password.
3. The FBI wanted to set a precedent by forcing Apple to write a custom OS to let them brute-force that phone.
4. As the case shaped up, after the unfavorable (to the FBI) ruling in New York, it looked that the "precedent" that was about to be set was going to be "The government does not have the right to force a company to write custom software for them."
5. Rather than have a court rule against them, the FBI cancelled the hearing. To save face, they claim to have another means to crack the phone.
6. They don't. There is nothing useful on that phone, and they know it.
7. They will wait for another case ("Terrorists!!!! Think of the children!!!") and a more sympathetic judge, and try again. They may well pick a different phone manufacturer, one more likely to roll over.
8. This case has very little to do with Blackberry, except that Apple's defense of security is in the interest of everyone, regardless of what smartphone you prefer.

I was going to post something eerily similar to this.

[app_Developer]

They have been reported and they are popping up more and more, all the more reason to use cash.

You're more motivated than I am to go inside and pay. Plus I like the discount/points. I just keep one card for swipe transactions including gas and if i need a reissue, then I need a reissue.

[KNEBB]

Here's a thought : if an U.S. based company is having trouble with government agencies because these agencies are unable to gain access to encrypted data on those devices, what challenges would a non-U.S. based company face attempting to market and sell encrypted devices in the same country; given the government doesn't have backdoor access to those devices.

That might be why BlackBerry has experienced lack luster support with U.S. carriers versus the support given to less secure platforms. Accessing Personal Data on these devices is a significant reason for the their present designs. Not having access would be counterproductive to their functionality.
Given what's been surfacing in the media over the past few years, it something to consider.


Posted via CB10

[co4nd]

There is nothing for Blackberry to exploit for BB10. BB10 is done, nothing is going to save it at this point.

[BB_PP]

Hasn't Blackberry always touted security? Has it helped before?

OS10 is helping law enforcements now! BlackBerry created a product which was meant for government

Posted via Priv...

[TGR1]

Anything is possible, of course, but my read is this:

1. The FBI didn't need to "legalize" cracking that phone; they have a warrant.
2. It was a technical problem; the FBI did not have the technical capability to get in, especially once they'd incompetently (or intentionally) changed the password.
3. The FBI wanted to set a precedent by forcing Apple to write a custom OS to let them brute-force that phone.
4. As the case shaped up, after the unfavorable (to the FBI) ruling in New York, it looked that the "precedent" that was about to be set was going to be "The government does not have the right to force a company to write custom software for them."
5. Rather than have a court rule against them, the FBI cancelled the hearing. To save face, they claim to have another means to crack the phone.
6. They don't. There is nothing useful on that phone, and they know it.
7. They will wait for another case ("Terrorists!!!! Think of the children!!!") and a more sympathetic judge, and try again. They may well pick a different phone manufacturer, one more likely to roll over.
8. This case has very little to do with Blackberry, except that Apple's defense of security is in the interest of everyone, regardless of what smartphone you prefer.

Full retreat. Doubt they have actually found any such person.

Sounds from the briefs that the FBI had very shaky legal grounds in the first place and had resorted to claims and accusations and outright lies that would have gotten *my* civilian, non-FBI **** tossed in jail had I tried to spin them. Their lawyers did not come off looking good.

People here really think BBRY poking up their head in this firefight is a smart idea? Anyone here think BBRY is safe from similar demands if they did and has the resources to fight? Google Lavabit. People are mad that BBRY may exist without handsets. How about shutting down completely instead of handing over the keys to the kingdom or being forced to build a way in if those keys don't exist?

This is way bigger and unrelated to about being secure enough for government use.

[early2bed]

The FBI would never cancel a hearing like this unless they had actually cracked the phone already and, even then, would probably push the case through. It's great case to set a precedent and they have federal legal resources to see if they can get access for the next phone they want no matter what the brand.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Here's a thought : if an U.S. based company is having trouble with government agencies because these agencies are unable to gain access to encrypted data on those devices, what challenges would a non-U.S. based company face attempting to market and sell encrypted devices in the same country; given the government doesn't have backdoor access to those devices.

That might be why BlackBerry has experienced lack luster support with U.S. carriers versus the support given to less secure platforms. Accessing Personal Data on these devices is a significant reason for the their present designs. Not having access would be counterproductive to their functionality.
Given what's been surfacing in the media over the past few years, it something to consider.


Posted via CB10

How does that explain the lackluster support that BlackBerry is getting.... from just about every other nation.

I think what the US Government didn't like was how BlackBerry's relied on the NOC... just another point of weakness, if an enemy was trying to cut off communications. Sadly BlackBerry themselves made it oh so clear what would happen if just one switch outside the US Government's ability to protect were to be attacked..

[Elephant_Canyon]

The FBI would never cancel a hearing like this unless they had actually cracked the phone already and, even then, would probably push the case through. It's great case to set a precedent and they have federal legal resources to see if they can get access for the next phone they want no matter what the brand.

They would cancel it if they thought there was a good chance they would lose, in order to avoid setting a precedent that wasn't in their favor.

[robsteve]

If I was being cynical, Apple told a third party how to do it and referred them to the FBI. The FBI gets what it wants, Apple saves face.

[Jerry A]

Full retreat. Doubt they have actually found any such person.

Sounds from the briefs that the FBI had very shaky legal grounds in the first place and had resorted to claims and accusations and outright lies that would have gotten *my* civilian, non-FBI **** tossed in jail had I tried to spin them. Their lawyers did not come off looking good.

People here really think BBRY poking up their head in this firefight is a smart idea? Anyone here think BBRY is safe from similar demands if they did and has the resources to fight? Google Lavabit. People are mad that BBRY may exist without handsets. How about shutting down completely instead of handing over the keys to the kingdom or being forced to build a way in if those keys don't exist?

This is way bigger and unrelated to about being secure enough for government use.

Given BlackBerry's track record, they'll roll over for a government in order to keep operating.

[Jerry A]

How does that explain the lackluster support that BlackBerry is getting.... from just about every other nation.

I think what the US Government didn't like was how BlackBerry's relied on the NOC... just another point of weakness, if an enemy was trying to cut off communications. Sadly BlackBerry themselves made it oh so clear what would happen if just one switch outside the US Government's ability to protect were to be attacked..

You're assuming that NOC access hasn't been granted. Given that BlackBerry already granted such access to Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, that's a far stretch.

Also, given the particular set of laws in many nations, vampiric access to backbone telecom services is already guaranteed.

[randall2580]

I watched the congressional hearing where FBI director was questioned by a Congressman who had actual experience in security of mobile devices. He asked the director if the FBI had considered cloning the memory and then performing brute force attacks on the clones. The director after hemming and hawing for a moment said he was not one of the technical people and would have to defer to them and get back to that congressman, but he was assured that they could not break into the phone without Apple's help.

When I read the statement that the FBI now thought they had a way in - that question and answer session came to my mind. I don't know - I guess we won't know for certain - but perhaps the firm this Congressman had worked with previously got involved in this and showed the FBI how to do this very endeavor which would not require Apple's assistance.

Now, this requires the physical phone, the ability to clone the memory to sufficient quantity to do a full range of brute force attacks, and then to have the technology to accomplish that. If this is the case I'm not sure it tarnishes Apple's security credentials.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

You're assuming that NOC access hasn't been granted. Given that BlackBerry already granted such access to Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan, that's a far stretch.

Also, given the particular set of laws in many nations, vampiric access to backbone telecom services is already guaranteed.

Not talking about access.... talking about failure of BlackBerry's centralized network. One switch went out and 50 million users lost BBM, Email for three/four days. That was an accident that woke many up to the weakness of relying on one vendor with their own unique network. Was not long afterwards that the US military started looking at having other vendors and who could provide an EMM solution that was all under their control.

[bakron1]

Not talking about access.... talking about failure of BlackBerry's centralized network. One switch went out and 50 million users lost BBM, Email for three/four days. That was an accident that woke many up to the weakness of relying on one vendor with their own unique network. Was not long afterwards that the US military started looking at having other vendors and who could provide an EMM solution that was all under their control.

Very good points and they did make sure that type of mass interruption will not happen again. It's called not putting all your eggs into one basket, a good saying the holds true more then ever into today's fast paced business world.

[Al moon]

BlackBerry 10 is the best.

  

it is, but when chen himself has said that he would be more than willing to help out any govt agency with help unlocking a device someone should be concerned

[Prem WatsApp]

Not talking about access.... talking about failure of BlackBerry's centralized network. One switch went out and 50 million users lost BBM, Email for three/four days. That was an accident that woke many up to the weakness of relying on one vendor with their own unique network. Was not long afterwards that the US military started looking at having other vendors and who could provide an EMM solution that was all under their control.

Redundancy hadn't been planned properly...? *eek* :-D

�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

[byex]

they are popping up everywhere here. every week several gas stations get hit. Some are taking measures to prevent it from happening but its hard to do

Chip and pin solves this problem. At least for now.

Posted via CB10

[Mr.Willie]

Yep, wife and I, in another state get phone calls saying people were attempting to use our cards in another state. The lady keeps telling me they are cancelling my card "for my protection". Lady I'm already protected by law. You're cancelling for your protection, but she wouldn't admit to it. Anyway, thankfully I had one card that wasn't affected so I could buy fuel. ��

What I'd like someone to tell me is how is my Q10, which isn't on BIS or BES12, secure. How is it more secure than an iPhone that is not backed up to the cloud, only encrypted backups to a local machine ?

Average Joe, BBOS10, or even a Priv.

Chip and pin solves this problem. At least for now.

Posted via CB10

So does Apple Pay, but merchants don't like the fact that they can't track your purchases. Unfortunately I only have one chip and pin card.

[Litigator08]

If I was being cynical, Apple told a third party how to do it and referred them to the FBI. The FBI gets what it wants, Apple saves face.

Except what the FBI wants is for Apple to do it, because Apple is the device manufacturer. If the search does produce evidence the FBI wants to use, then the method will have to stand up to scrutiny in court. A third party, no matter who it is, will never have the credibility of the device's manufacturer (Apple, BBRY, Samsung, whomever). A good defense attorney would not have a problem casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of any third party intervention, since it would be difficult for the government to prove that the third party hack did not compromise the device's data.

[Litigator08]

Full retreat. Doubt they have actually found any such person.

Sounds from the briefs that the FBI had very shaky legal grounds in the first place and had resorted to claims and accusations and outright lies that would have gotten *my* civilian, non-FBI **** tossed in jail had I tried to spin them. Their lawyers did not come off looking good.

The FBI team knew it was in trouble when they read Apple's last brief, which is why last week they asked to be able to present witnesses at the scheduled hearing.

[robsteve]

Except what the FBI wants is for Apple to do it, because Apple is the device manufacturer. If the search does produce evidence the FBI wants to use, then the method will have to stand up to scrutiny in court. A third party, no matter who it is, will never have the credibility of the device's manufacturer (Apple, BBRY, Samsung, whomever). A good defense attorney would not have a problem casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of any third party intervention, since it would be difficult for the government to prove that the third party hack did not compromise the device's data.

Not sure where this concerns evidence in court. The owner of the phone is the county/state, they are allowing access to it, just don't know the password. Supposing the phone has GPS data on it showing where the couple was between the time the couple committed the crimes and were later captured/killed and that GPS data leads to a third part being charged. What is the argument the third party has, the GPS data is not reliable because it was not produced through Apple's efforts?

If the GPS data on the phone leads a trail of bread crumbs from the incident to where they were later captured and killed and this trail is accurate at the beginning and end points, with a stop over at a third party, what is the argument? I suppose they could argue that the data was tainted and the stop over was fabricated, but that would really be getting into conspiracy theories.

[byex]

Yep, wife and I, in another state get phone calls saying people were attempting to use our cards in another state. The lady keeps telling me they are cancelling my card "for my protection". Lady I'm already protected by law. You're cancelling for your protection, but she wouldn't admit to it. Anyway, thankfully I had one card that wasn't affected so I could buy fuel. ��

What I'd like someone to tell me is how is my Q10, which isn't on BIS or BES12, secure. How is it more secure than an iPhone that is not backed up to the cloud, only encrypted backups to a local machine ?

Average Joe, BBOS10, or even a Priv.



So does Apple Pay, but merchants don't like the fact that they can't track your purchases. Unfortunately I only have one chip and pin card.

You're sorely mistaken if you think apple pay is just as or more secure than a chip and pin card.
No phone is anymore secure than another. The mobile smartphones have been compromised in every way possible.
This smoke and mirror debacle with FBI and Apple is a joke. Apple has openly admitted that there is a way in. They can do it. NSA has done it. Reason why NSA isn't sharing with FBI is a whole other topic.
I would much rather have my backups on a local computer than in the cloud.

Posted via CB10