4 ms·
Did any of the commenters here actually read the article? Although the FBI paid more than $1.3 million for the method, Amy Hess, the agency’s executive assista
by justinlardinois 11y ago
Did any of the commenters here actually read the article?
Although the FBI paid more than $1.3 million for the method, Amy Hess, the agency’s executive assistant director for science and technology, said Wednesday that it didn’t purchase the rights to the technical details and therefore doesn’t have the necessary information to submit the method for an Obama administration review known as the Vulnerabilities Equities Process.
"The FBI assesses that it cannot submit the method to the VEP," Hess said in a statement. "We do not have enough technical information about any vulnerability that would permit any meaningful review.”
...
The law enforcement agency bought the hacking tool from an entity it hasn’t identified and then used it to access data on an encrypted iPhone
It sounds like the FBI doesn't actually understand the details of how the crack worked and was hand-holded through the process.
- sprucely 11y agoHow could any information obtained in such a way be useful to them, as there is no way to prove it is not tainted (chain of custody and all that?)
- uxp 11y agoIt's not useful for them for any specific investigation, but it certainly can tell them where they might stick their fingers next.
- ikeboy 11y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11585324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11585324 tl;dr tainted refers to evidence obtained illegally and is not applicable here.
- williamscales 11y agoI think the general implication that's being suggested is that the FBI is all too happy to not know the details. It sets a dangerous precedent where these sorts of things are routed through contractors so that safeguards like the VEP are bypassed.
- equalarrow 11y agoExactly. The 3rd party will hold this method (until patched some day in the future possibly) and they FBI will keep coming back, paying an initial seed round equivalent for possibly no usable data, claiming the same 'defense'. This just shows typical contempt for the public in general. Why should we be surprised?
- themartorana 11y agoIs there any sort of path to holding the FBI responsible for aiding and abetting a criminal organization, or even working with domestic terrorists? I imagine that's what I'd be labeled by the FBI if I hacked someone's phone (or many peoples' phones) with this exploit.
- roywiggins 11y agoThe only phone we know has been hacked by this method is in the FBI's hands: they have a warrant. It's possible the contractor in question is a gray-hat hacker who really hasn't ever performed the hack on any phones they don't own, which makes everything they've done perfectly legal.