8 ms·

> was not “scalable.” This is the same James Comey that said they just were just asking Apple for access to just that one phone.

intrasight 11y ago
Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of we could count on congress to provide adequate oversight.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  That won't happen unless American voters want it. They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it.
  - thoman23 11y ago
    I don't think it's that straightforward. It's hard to vote for something that doesn't come up for a vote. And it doesn't come up for a vote if the right people don't want it to come up for a vote.
    - Ntrails 11y ago
      "The people" aren't given the opportunity to vote on many things, yet the people they elect do vote. The people they elect often side with their supporters (especially financial ones) on issues that are important to said supporters. A candidate can use their NRA/pro gun status as part of their platform and it will have a meaningful impact on the turnout. Logically if the US electorate cared even half as much about [topic x] as they do about guns - candidates would care too and "democracy" would follow... no? (I'm not bashing the US, just taking gun control as an example where a passionate popular view is reflected democratically)
  - jMyles 11y ago
    This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gclid=CjwKEAjw9OG4BRDJzY3jrMng4iQSJABddor1GnER5RdItcJl_5VbZKMKh_bNAFT8a-Fom5anrbW7MBoCGQXw_wcB#isbn=1563244462&pcrid=70112876352&pkw=&pmt=&plc= http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...
    - dave_sullivan 11y ago
      > absurdly reductionist view > Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? > a pithy but pointless HN comment > might expand your thinking on this topic Just throwing it out there: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head: > They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it Was there a vote on it? When exactly? Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it. Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
      - jMyles 11y ago
        You're right. I got a bit impatient there. This argument seems to come up again and again and no amount of reason and explanation seems to be able to overcome it, even to the point of convincing its adherents to read what others have said about it. This notion ("the people get exactly what they vote for") goes back to Ancient Greece; it's not like its a novel topic.
      - wfo 11y ago
        You're right of course disagreement should be explained better. But he is responding to a one-line meme whose only purpose is to establish learned helplessness and end discussion that massively oversimplifies a very complex issue and is essentially copy pasted in any article here that even touches on politics. It gets quite exhausting engaging, having long in depth discussion about how this view is overly simplistic on every single thread only to have it appear again tomorrow, exactly the same as before. I think downvotes and silence is the correct move here.
  - Flimm 11y ago
    > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    What "it" can one vote for ?
- cat-dev-null 11y ago
  It's always been this way and always will... neverending, necessary security "arms race."
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  It's amazing to me too that the very concept of an "unwarrantable" space is simply impossible to conceive.
  - sixothree 11y ago
    Considering all communication is subject to eavesdropping the space they are wanting to access borders on the realm of private thoughts. And some day soon it just may exist in that realm.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > private thoughts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE CGP Grey has a very good explanation of this situation.
      - josho 11y ago
        Then contrast our potential inability to keep private thoughts with the fact that the government is allowed theirs by merely stamping Top Secret across a document.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      I will be reporting this thought crime to the Ministry of Truth.
  - karmelapple 11y ago
    I don't disagree, but do some countries truly publicly accept unwarranted spaces? I can imagine most governments wouldn't really want to give up that ability if possible.
    - chopin 11y ago
      In some civilized countries, yes. Take eg. your brain (as an accused), a doctor, a lawyer. There are even countries respecting the sources of journalists...
and-can 11y ago
“The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land,” Comey continued. “I hope thoughtful people will take the time to understand that. Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t. But we can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead. “
- Spivak 11y ago
  So if someone the FBI is interested in knew they were being targeted and used a strong, complex, long password which would be impossible to 'guess' even without the restrictions then how does > and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. even make sense when there isn't a force in the universe that can guess that password in 10 millennia. If they demand that restrictions like gated attempts and automatic wipes be removed, they're just pushing the industry to move to restrictions that can't be removed. Hell, if I was feeling really cheeky and worked for Apple, I would give the FBI their backdoor which allowed them access, but they have to provide the phone a proof of work worth at least $10 trillion. No this probably couldn't be made secure.
- vitd 11y ago
  That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    The government owned the iPhone in question.
    - rubyfan 11y ago
TallGuyShort 11y ago
Just think of how many lives were saved by the data they got off that phone. Oh wait...
- enjo 11y ago
  Is it unreasonable to think there is legitimately valuable Intel on that phone? I'd say it's at least plausible, maybe even likely lives can be saved by getting at messages on a known terrorists phone.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    I wouldn't say likely when it was a government-owned phone and he also had a personal phone and went very much out of his way to thoroughly destroy that phone and another. Possible? Sure. But not in any way justifying a "scalable" solution. He doesn't want to look victims in the eye, but he's ignoring human rights activists who have had their identities compromised for less.
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    Yes. The FBI had offers (from credible firms) to crack the phone from day 2. (After they screwed it up and started talking about it.) They didn't take those offers because they were trying to force Apple into a larger breach. Why did they risk it? Because they knew there was nothing of value on the phone. If this was the criminal's only phone we might hypothesize that it has valuable info on it. But when the criminal destroyed one phone and didn't bother to destroy the other it suggests there's nothing on it. I'm sure it has more than zero data. The FBI merely has to claim that knowing if criminals play Candy Crush is helpful to justify it, in one sense. But enough to justify the trouble they put Apple through? Doubtful. Enough to justify the decades of distrust they sowed in the security community? Not a chance.
- coroutines 11y ago
  I hope someone sticks a couple hundred FOIA requests in that hole they speak to the people from. Hold them accountable: "What did the FBI get out of this?"
astronautjones 11y ago
Well, heads of US security apparatuses haven't seemed to be capable of anything beyond immediate contradiction lately
- razster 11y ago
  To me they seem to be a step behind. Maybe they're just too old.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    I think they're farther ahead than you think. Apple is having to stand up against this overreach because the public simply isn't. We here are an echo chamber, but we're hardly representative of public opinion, which it turns out support the FBI more than Apple. http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...
bradgessler 11y ago
"Not scalable" is a good thing! I hope the next phone costs $5m to hack.

intrasight 11y ago

Indeed. Americans need to wake up to the fact that these spooks simply cannot be trusted. The very concept of trust is alien to their culture. Would be nice of we could count on congress to provide adequate oversight.

Nutmog 11y ago
That won't happen unless American voters want it. They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it.
- thoman23 11y ago
  I don't think it's that straightforward. It's hard to vote for something that doesn't come up for a vote. And it doesn't come up for a vote if the right people don't want it to come up for a vote.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    "The people" aren't given the opportunity to vote on many things, yet the people they elect do vote. The people they elect often side with their supporters (especially financial ones) on issues that are important to said supporters. A candidate can use their NRA/pro gun status as part of their platform and it will have a meaningful impact on the turnout. Logically if the US electorate cared even half as much about [topic x] as they do about guns - candidates would care too and "democracy" would follow... no? (I'm not bashing the US, just taking gun control as an example where a passionate popular view is reflected democratically)
- jMyles 11y ago
  This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gclid=CjwKEAjw9OG4BRDJzY3jrMng4iQSJABddor1GnER5RdItcJl_5VbZKMKh_bNAFT8a-Fom5anrbW7MBoCGQXw_wcB#isbn=1563244462&pcrid=70112876352&pkw=&pmt=&plc= http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...
  - dave_sullivan 11y ago
    > absurdly reductionist view > Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it? > a pithy but pointless HN comment > might expand your thinking on this topic Just throwing it out there: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head: > They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it Was there a vote on it? When exactly? Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it. Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      You're right. I got a bit impatient there. This argument seems to come up again and again and no amount of reason and explanation seems to be able to overcome it, even to the point of convincing its adherents to read what others have said about it. This notion ("the people get exactly what they vote for") goes back to Ancient Greece; it's not like its a novel topic.
    - wfo 11y ago
      You're right of course disagreement should be explained better. But he is responding to a one-line meme whose only purpose is to establish learned helplessness and end discussion that massively oversimplifies a very complex issue and is essentially copy pasted in any article here that even touches on politics. It gets quite exhausting engaging, having long in depth discussion about how this view is overly simplistic on every single thread only to have it appear again tomorrow, exactly the same as before. I think downvotes and silence is the correct move here.
- Flimm 11y ago
  > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  What "it" can one vote for ?
cat-dev-null 11y ago
It's always been this way and always will... neverending, necessary security "arms race."
dclowd9901 11y ago
It's amazing to me too that the very concept of an "unwarrantable" space is simply impossible to conceive.
- sixothree 11y ago
  Considering all communication is subject to eavesdropping the space they are wanting to access borders on the realm of private thoughts. And some day soon it just may exist in that realm.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > private thoughts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE CGP Grey has a very good explanation of this situation.
    - josho 11y ago
      Then contrast our potential inability to keep private thoughts with the fact that the government is allowed theirs by merely stamping Top Secret across a document.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    I will be reporting this thought crime to the Ministry of Truth.
- karmelapple 11y ago
  I don't disagree, but do some countries truly publicly accept unwarranted spaces? I can imagine most governments wouldn't really want to give up that ability if possible.
  - chopin 11y ago
    In some civilized countries, yes. Take eg. your brain (as an accused), a doctor, a lawyer. There are even countries respecting the sources of journalists...

and-can 11y ago

“The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land,” Comey continued. “I hope thoughtful people will take the time to understand that. Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t. But we can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead. “

Spivak 11y ago
So if someone the FBI is interested in knew they were being targeted and used a strong, complex, long password which would be impossible to 'guess' even without the restrictions then how does > and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. even make sense when there isn't a force in the universe that can guess that password in 10 millennia. If they demand that restrictions like gated attempts and automatic wipes be removed, they're just pushing the industry to move to restrictions that can't be removed. Hell, if I was feeling really cheeky and worked for Apple, I would give the FBI their backdoor which allowed them access, but they have to provide the phone a proof of work worth at least $10 trillion. No this probably couldn't be made secure.
vitd 11y ago
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  The government owned the iPhone in question.
  - rubyfan 11y ago

TallGuyShort 11y ago

Just think of how many lives were saved by the data they got off that phone. Oh wait...

enjo 11y ago
Is it unreasonable to think there is legitimately valuable Intel on that phone? I'd say it's at least plausible, maybe even likely lives can be saved by getting at messages on a known terrorists phone.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  I wouldn't say likely when it was a government-owned phone and he also had a personal phone and went very much out of his way to thoroughly destroy that phone and another. Possible? Sure. But not in any way justifying a "scalable" solution. He doesn't want to look victims in the eye, but he's ignoring human rights activists who have had their identities compromised for less.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  Yes. The FBI had offers (from credible firms) to crack the phone from day 2. (After they screwed it up and started talking about it.) They didn't take those offers because they were trying to force Apple into a larger breach. Why did they risk it? Because they knew there was nothing of value on the phone. If this was the criminal's only phone we might hypothesize that it has valuable info on it. But when the criminal destroyed one phone and didn't bother to destroy the other it suggests there's nothing on it. I'm sure it has more than zero data. The FBI merely has to claim that knowing if criminals play Candy Crush is helpful to justify it, in one sense. But enough to justify the trouble they put Apple through? Doubtful. Enough to justify the decades of distrust they sowed in the security community? Not a chance.
coroutines 11y ago
I hope someone sticks a couple hundred FOIA requests in that hole they speak to the people from. Hold them accountable: "What did the FBI get out of this?"

astronautjones 11y ago

Well, heads of US security apparatuses haven't seemed to be capable of anything beyond immediate contradiction lately

razster 11y ago
To me they seem to be a step behind. Maybe they're just too old.
- themartorana 11y ago
  I think they're farther ahead than you think. Apple is having to stand up against this overreach because the public simply isn't. We here are an echo chamber, but we're hardly representative of public opinion, which it turns out support the FBI more than Apple. http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-just...

bradgessler 11y ago

"Not scalable" is a good thing! I hope the next phone costs $5m to hack.