17 ms·
FBI’s Comey Concedes Mistake Was Made Over iPhone in San Bernardino Case
- eridius 11y agoAnyone have a non-paywalled version? Going through Google isn't bypassing the paywall.
- gist 11y agoInteresting the link I have below is getting through the paywall for me.
- crb 11y agoYou now have to open an Incognito window and then paste into Google search to bypass the WSJ paywall - I suspect they look at some login cookie to detect humans.
- mparlane 11y agoStrange, I used the "Wait! Google Sent Me" plugin and it worked without incog.
- eridius 11y agoAlready tried that, it doesn't work. I think WSJ is A/B testing, closing the loophole for some people and not others.
- icpmacdo 11y agoIts because you also need to turn off Ad Block or whitelist WSJ when using chrome Incognito
- dmitrygr 11y agoNON PAYWALLED: http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-chief-admits-mistake-iphone-wake-san-bernardino-203036523--abc-news-topstories.html http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-chief-admits-mistake-iphone-wake-s...
- officialchicken 11y agoThank you
- kencausey 11y agoThere is another choice which is to click the 'web' link under the title above which does a Google search for the title. Nearly always at the top of the Google search the article will appear and through that route you will get the entire article from many paywalled news sites, including WSJ.
- hmahncke 11y agoWSJ closed this[1]; web link here finds the article in google which still hits the paywall. [1]http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-google/ http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-go...
- levemi 11y agoThis is fixed in Google Chrome by opening up the console in Web Enspector, and enabling Network conditions from the three dot menu and then in that new tab select Googlebot as the custom user agent. Note that you will still have to click on a google search link.
- retromario 11y agoI wouldn't exactly call that a "fix", but still, thanks for the tip.
- levemi 11y agoOnce you've set it up once and figured it out it's easy to just to toggle it the next time. It's definitely more work. I prefer this to installing a random extension that can read all my data on all websites.
- eric_h 11y ago
- gist 11y agoNon paywalled: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjM3KGNtqDLAhXBFT4KHYnGDGoQqQIIHjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Ffbis-comey-concedes-mistake-was-made-over-iphone-in-terror-case-1456862127&usg=AFQjCNFGornE8LJjU8ejqSqETEo3o4FwfQ&cad=rja https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
- dclowd9901 11y agoIs there some reason this doesn't work for me?
- xexers 11y agoThat link doesn't work for me either.
- cordite 11y agoThey updated recently so only those with Google bot user agents can break the glass
- xerophyte12932 11y agoWorks for me. The "article" is super short anyway. The walled part barely adds anything
- eganist 11y ago"We made a mistake, but you must still help us!" You know, the sad part about this (paraphrased) quote is that it'll probably be used as justification by the California court system to rule on this case specifically rather than on the circumstance more broadly. I wonder if that's Comey's strategy in admitting the error.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago> “If I didn’t do that, I ought to be fired, honestly,” There is a serious problem here. If you ask me any government official who forces a backdoor down the throat of a private company ought to be fired, yet he believes he should be fired if he DOESN'T do it. There's a very big divide happening right now in the US. This is going to be a rough time.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- malandrew 11y agoHonestly, intentionally doing anything that you knowingly believe to be against the Constitution should be a fire-able offense. Upholding the Constitution is basically your primary job responsibility in Law Enforcement and the Military. No other duty should supercede that duty.
- mbreese 11y agoBut, it's not the role of law enforcement to interpret the Constitution. So in cases such as this, where there isn't really any precedent or the law is ambiguous, the proper location for the decision is the courts.
- frandroid 11y agoActually, it is the role of law enforcement: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oat... I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
- icebraining 11y ago
- thecosas 11y agoThe Congressional hearing is happening now: http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-3 http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-3
- bsirkia 11y ago"Oh wait, our attempt create a backdoor to every private citizen's iPhone, using a single terrorism case as a trojan horse, has been discovered? Oops sorry but we still need those backdoors." It also amazes me he thought it was a helpful metaphor to say that the FBI doesn't want a backdoor, just for Apple to take the “vicious guard dog away” and “let us pick the lock.” I think every American would prefer having a guard dog protecting their personal property and data than just let these liars pick the lock.
- illumin8 11y agoThe vicious guard dog metaphor is very poor, most likely planned to intentionally confuse non-technical people. The reality is that he is asking Apple to weaken the front-door to the point where an average attacker can open it with a paper clip.
- draw_down 11y agoThis seems a bit more complicated than simply saying they made a mistake, though. If they didn't do this, someone who knew the password could have wiped the backups or changed other info, and then everyone would be yelling at the FBI for not having the employer change the password. So it's a choice between potentially leaving the device/backups open to tampering, and whatever the hell the situation is now.
- criddell 11y ago> During his testimony today, Comey dismissed the notion that Apple’s assistance in the San Bernardino case would impact other phones, reiterating his belief that any code Apple created to help in this case would only work on Farook’s phone. I hate this kind of willful ignorance. That update, if properly signed, will work on similar phones. The software is distinct from the signing and it's the software that Apple doesn't want to create. Or maybe Comey believes that every time his phone is updated, an engineer in Cupertino lovingly arranged the bits for him.
- macintux 11y agoArtisanal bit wrangling. As a service.
- solipsism 11y agoWillful ignorance, huh? You're charitable.
- TTPrograms 11y agoEven if he's right, it sets precedent, which has the same effect. Doesn't really matter if Apple has to rewrite the code each time or just re-upload it each time.
- make3 11y agoIt's outright deception, not willful ignorance.
- Zizzle 11y ago"During his testimony today, Comey dismissed the notion that Apple’s assistance in the San Bernardino case would impact other phones, reiterating his belief that any code Apple created to help in this case would only work on Farook’s phone." And that belief is based on what exactly? Apple has being saying the opposite. Apple doesn't know it's own code? FBI knows it better.
- jonlucc 11y agoIt's true, but very narrow, I think. FBI means that Apple could sign the update to only work on that phone. Apple means that once the compromised version of the OS is built, the only thing stopping it from being widespread is changing the device id check code to other phones or taking it out entirely.
- nightpool 11y agoI feel like all of this talking about a "hard drive" that transports the tool around is a little specious—aren't Apples firmware updates signed? And the update itself would be IMEI locked? The issue here isn't the reusability of the technology—the issue is the reusability of the legal precedent. And this is certainly a very scary precedent to set!
- X-Istence 11y agoApples updates are signed, but they are not locked to a particular IMEI.
- nightpool 11y agoRight, but the FBI has indicated that they would like this particular one to be, to add some amount of code that would render it non-functional when put on another device. (and certainly from a security perspective that would be the correct choice to make)
- acqq 11y ago"Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a final court ruling forcing Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to give the FBI data from an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters would be “potentially precedential” in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-congress-idUSKCN0W33G7 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-congress-... "Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance testified in support of the FBI on Tuesday, arguing that default device encryption "severely harms" criminal prosecutions at the state level, including in cases in his district involving at least 175 iPhones."
- nightpool 11y agoExactly—this completely agrees with my top level comment. Its not the technology we should be worrying about (although of course apple should be closing the vulnerability that allows the FBI to compel them to help decrypt this phone) but the more important—and scary—thing we should be worrying about here is the legal precedent that this case sets.
- alblue 11y agoI sat through the YouTube presentation (which is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw if you have four hours to spare). In general the discussions were quite well presented, apart from a couple of rabid questioners suggesting that public security trumped any one individuals' right to personal security. I've written up a summary of the hearings at InfoQ here: http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/03/apple-fbi-congress http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/03/apple-fbi-congress The general responses from Apple were that it wouldn't be possible to write this just for one phone; that once the FBiOS was available for one it would be available for any phone. Dr Landon also highlighted the fact that most people now use their phones as part of a two-factor authentication, and that the easiest way to break into a system (such as the IRS leak) is to compromise login credentials. The fear is, therefore, that once pandora's box is opened that the operating system would be installable on any device and thus potentially give access to any state actor to any account simply through device compromise. The entire hearing was very well laid out, though in a few cases Apple's witnesses weren't quite as fluid as the FBI's. The congress members have five days to ask additional questions, after which presumably a report will be made. More information is available at the House page here: http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2016/3/the-encryption-tightrope-balancing-americans-security-and-privacy http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2016/3/the-encryption-t...
- evincarofautumn 11y agoIt’s fascinating to me how many laypeople are saying “public security is important, therefore we should unlock the phone” while many technologists are saying “public security is important, therefore we should absolutely not unlock the phone”.
- alanwatts 11y ago>We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. Who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it? -Carl Sagan
- jonlucc 11y agoDoes anyone know what happens if Apple loses engineers over this? Not that it's likely, but I could see someone saying "I came here to build secure systems, not break them". Does the government bear costs to replace or retrain? If enough quit, can the government compel them to stay to complete the task?
- rplst8 11y agoThis is an excellent question. Congressman Darrel Issa had some great questions about this during today's hearing. Basically he hinted at the fact that how far can the government go to ensure they did their job correctly.
- ibejoeb 11y agoLots of interesting stuff in this session. "We are a rule-of-law country. The FBI is not cracking into your phone or listening to your communications except under the rule of law," says Comey (1:37). I suppose that's the NSA's job... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw
- chatmasta 11y agoI appreciate that Professor Landau emphasized the "arms race" between companies securing their systems, and adversaries breaking them. Companies push software with bugs, adversaries exploit the bugs (and hopefully responsibly disclose them), then the company patches the bug and pushes a new update. Any iPhone <5 running iOS <8 is comically exploitable. This should drive home the point that as time progresses, older vulnerabilities become easier to exploit, so that leaving them unpatched becomes irresponsible. If the FBI asks Apple to create new software to grant the FBI the ability to unlock the phone, they are effectively asking Apple to exploit a vulnerability in their software. By definition, Apple will know that vulnerability exists. In the "arms race," when Apple identifies a vulnerability, they fix it. In this case, when Apple identifies the vulnerability, will the FBI allow them to fix it? Or would the FBI prefer that Apple have a responsibility to "maintain" the vulnerability and ensure it remains exploitable?
- studentrob 11y agoI'd love to see a transcript [2], or list of participants [4] and find out which representatives present lean towards Apple or towards the FBI. I skipped around the video. I mostly saw support for Apple, with a few exceptions, one being Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner, a House republican of Wisconsin, asked Apple what legislation they would support, and Mr. Sewell, Apple's general counsel, said they support debate on the subject [1] The congressman was clearly bullying Mr. Sewell here and using his position as congressman to make it appear as though Apple is not being agreeable. Well, encouraging debate before writing one-sided legislation sounds like great teamwork to me. The congressman should have been reminded that not supporting new legislation is a valid position, and that every problem we face need not be solved with new laws. Perhaps Mr. Sewell is trying to be respectful to the congressman. But I think he should not shy from responding in kind. Treat others as they treat you. No one will judge you for it. I think Apple missed an opportunity here to say they do not feel new legislation is needed, since guaranteeing back doors into devices would be an abridgement of consumers' right to privacy, and Apple's right to create safe products for consumers as it sees fit. Overall though this seemed like a productive session. Mr. Gowdy, a House republican of South Carolina, also bullies Sewell in the same manner [3], literally asking Apple to lobby for legislation. In other words he is saying, get some lobbyists, do my work for me, pay for my next election campaign and solve your own problem. I don't know how you could be more blatantly obvious about being a corrupt, useless politician. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s EDIT transcript here, though no speaker names are given and quotes are cut short [2] http://www.c-span.org/video/?405442-1/hearing-encryption-federal-investigations http://www.c-span.org/video/?405442-1/hearing-encryption-fed... [3] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s EDIT list of participants: [4] http://pastebin.com/raw/rHqYpv3g http://pastebin.com/raw/rHqYpv3g
- Cheezmeister 11y agoTL;DR: "Yadda yadda terrorists something something guns kill people blah blah blah think of the children yadda AMERICA." Truly, I'm getting weary of all the nearly-identical news of Uncle Sam's assault on digital privacy. If the strategy is to desensitize and wear down the US populace, it's working.
- cdellin 11y agoI'm as strong a supporter of a citizen's right to encryption as anyone, but I actually think that Mr. Comey's testimony was accurate and forthright, and his framing of the issue of encryption as it relates to the capabilities of law enforcement was appropriate and well-reasoned.
- studentrob 11y agoManhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance sums up the DOJ's position quite succinctly. Emphasis added > "Apple has created a technology which is default disk encryption. It didn't exist before. It exists now. Apple is now claiming a right of privacy about a technology that it just created. That right of privacy didn't exist before Apple created the technology." [1] Wrong. The first and fourth amendments grant rights to privacy. The exact transcripts of what we say in the privacy of our homes, prior to a warranted wiretap or without witness testimony, are not the subject of law enforcement's investigation. Our entire history of digital communications should not be open for government surveillance. It would be overreach to try to implement, and anyway it is impossible to guarantee without destroying the US tech industry and turning us into a big brother state. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h46m22s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h46m22s
- russell_h 11y agoThe fourth amendment specifically requires a warrant to violate someone's privacy. In all of the cases at hand a warrant has been issued. There really isn't a fourth amendment issue.
- studentrob 11y agoYou're right, and thanks for correcting me. I do still disagree with the District Attorney's statement. We can write something on a piece of paper and burn it, or think something in our heads, and keep it private. That this is now possible with digital communications via encryption is not a new right, it is simply a new means to protect that right. Further, Apple didn't invent encryption, and this statement further shows how little the DOJ understands about technology.
- wjy 11y agoVance seems to be confusing the right to privacy with the ability to actually enforce it. Apparently, a "right" to privacy is all well and good, as long it can be casually violated and a warrant served later. As soon as the mechanism protecting your privacy has real teeth, then it's a problem.
- lowpro 11y agoIf anyone watched the entire hearing today, Personally I was astounded by the misunderstandings of both the director and everyone asking the questions, it seemed that only one or two of them understood what Apple was trying to say in a technical sense.
- DavideNL 11y agoExactly, i was suprised about this also. Even at the end of the hearing the same 'stupid' questions were asked over and over, by which it became clear they still didn't understand the basics.
- eastern 11y agoRead that as FBI's Comedy
- jfoster 11y agoI'm putting on my pragmatism hat. I can't understand why Apple are fighting this. They're essentially forcing the government into resorting to legal mechanisms that will have longer term impacts. It's pretty clear to nearly everyone that this phone belonged to someone who committed a terrorist attack. The data on it may prove useful in preventing future attacks. If Apple were being cooperative, they could create the mechanism to get the data off the phone, have the FBI hand over the phone so they could do that for them, (optionally) delete that version of the OS if there's a problem with it even existing, and no legal precedent would be set. The question of whether the FBI should be able to compel them wouldn't arise, because they would have been cooperating off their own accord. If the FBI asks them to do this to the iPhone of someone who is more likely to be innocent, perhaps then this debate should be had. For now, they have the means, can do it without setting a precedent, have a pretty good reason to do it, and can do it in isolation. They should just do it, in my opinion.
- mpeg 11y agoI don't think the FBI can or will hand over the phone, that would compromise their entire investigation. Besides, once the software exists and is signed by Apple, it's very hard to prove that all copies have been deleted.
- jfoster 11y agoIt's difficult to imagine this recovery operation could happen if Apple never get access to the phone. Perhaps they could have representatives from both Apple & FBI present. Proving all copies are gone isn't possible; you can't prove non-existence. Ensuring extreme unlikelihood seems relatively straightforward, though. Make fewer copies, trusted personnel only, isolate the development to a particular location with no network access, etc. Naturally there'll be a risk that a copy survives, just as there's a risk that a contingent of rogue Apple employees are already working on it for the FBI.
- snsr 11y agoThe phone belongs to San Bernadino County, and is administered by them. This entire effort is PR intended to set precedent or encourage new legislation.
- DavideNL 11y agoOne important fact(1) i haven't heard in the entire hearing: (2)The FBI wants 3 things: disable 'erase after 10', disable delay between attempts, create possibility to enter PINs programmatically so they can be brute forced. (1) If this would be created, criminals/terrorist could easily defeat this by (instead of 6 digits) enabling alphanumeric passwords and creating strong passwords that cannot be brute forced (which isn't even a usability problem since you can easily unlock your iPhone with your fingerpint most of the time.) So the end result of (2): security is lowered for 99% of all people (innocent) and criminals/terrorist (1%) can still easily avoid being caught by this measure.
- studentrob 11y agoComey also said, They [Apple] sell phones, they don't sell civil liberties, they don't sell public safety, that's our business to worry about. [1] He thinks public safety is entirely his domain and private companies cannot help people keep themselves safe. That's as bad as "self-made" business owners who cannot see that roads and infrastructure helped make their businesses successful and cry socialism whenever taxes are levied. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s
- alanwatts 11y agoAs technology has become more and more pervasive in society the role of security, at least in the preventative sense, has fallen more and more on the people who make the technology.
- PascalsMugger 11y agoHe seems to be suggesting that the FBI (and maybe law enforcement in general) is in charge of deciding what our civil liberties are. They've simply decided there's no right to create an unlockable lock, when there's clearly no law or part of the constitution that indicates that. But since they think they're in charge of civil liberties, they've decided by fiat.