5 ms·

Wouldn't something like that be encrypted and have a neural password?

by erikpukinskis 10y ago

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
What makes you think the government couldn't demand the maker of the neural connectors exfiltrate the neural password?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  The fact that this is already a solved problem for iPhones via the Secure Enclave?
  - Zombieball 10y ago
    I'm not convinced it is entirely solved though. Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? I think at the end of the day, software has bugs. And if you have an extremely well funded and intelligent group (e.g. Equation Group) looking for these holes and keeping them secret for personal use and exploitation rather than fixing them, there are going to be ways for your data to be compromised.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? The phone in the San Bernardino case was an iPhone 5C, with the A6 processor. Secure Enclave was introduced in the A7. https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure-enclave/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure...
      - Zombieball 10y ago
        Ah yes, I forgot this detail. Thanks!
    - greedo 10y ago
      No, the model of the iPhone the FBI wanted to access didn't have the Secure Enclave.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - digler999 10y ago
      I agree with you, although you were wrong about that specific Apple case. I don't trust "secure enclave" because it would be too easy for a TLA to infiltrate the chip foundry and backdoor the silicon. they can literally print money, circumvent the constitution using secret courts/NSL's, their resources are infinite. what would stop them from doing this ? Even if you couldn't infiltrate the chip foundry, you could order a bunch of the chips, reverse engineer them, and in a few months, ship a duplicate with a neutered "enclave". Then interdict the shipment to the phone manufacturer (this isn't tinfoil, it's been done) and "supply" them with your version of the "secure enclave". There's no limit to this cat and mouse game.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        That's not really an argument against a neural lace, though. You're just as fucked if you don't get one - they drop child porn on your laptop, or just disappear you.
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    There is a even easier way to get somebody finished off.. drop a noisy true crypt container on there cellphone or notebook - if they get searched- they will be held in contempt indefinably for a white noise treasure trove they can not open.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      Easy to defend, they have to prove you created said file consciously if the device was ever in the possession of someone else other than police. If they are likely to break the law to tamper with evidence, you've already lost.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It's a solved problem the way the laws are currently written. It's not a solved problem if the laws are rewritten to require manufacturers to support a backdoor.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  How would the maker of the neural connectors get your neural password?
fenwick67 10y ago
There have been several court cases where the government has compelled people to give up encryption keys in court, I assume this will be no different.
- andreyf 10y ago
  If you have something, a court can order you to give it up. If you know something which might incriminate you (e.g. a password), your testimony is protected by the 5th.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Passwords have only been protected by the 5th amendment when ownership of the electronic account/device is unproven.
  - BickNowstrom 10y ago
    For international laws, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law Specifically for the US, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fricosu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fricosu
  - sbierwagen 10y ago
    Important to note that this is a legal theory, that is not yet backed up by precedent or statute! The police have successfully compelled password disclosure many times.
    - andreyf 10y ago
      There has been tons of precedent, on both sides: http://www.zdnet.com/article/florida-court-says-password-disclosure-not-protected-by-fifth-amendment/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/florida-court-says-password-dis... This is the only sane interpretation, though, as people have more and more encrypted devices, it's unreasonable to punish someone for not remembering a password.

Wouldn't something like that be encrypted and have a neural password?

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago

What makes you think the government couldn't demand the maker of the neural connectors exfiltrate the neural password?

ceejayoz 10y ago
The fact that this is already a solved problem for iPhones via the Secure Enclave?
- Zombieball 10y ago
  I'm not convinced it is entirely solved though. Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? I think at the end of the day, software has bugs. And if you have an extremely well funded and intelligent group (e.g. Equation Group) looking for these holes and keeping them secret for personal use and exploitation rather than fixing them, there are going to be ways for your data to be compromised.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? The phone in the San Bernardino case was an iPhone 5C, with the A6 processor. Secure Enclave was introduced in the A7. https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure-enclave/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure...
    - Zombieball 10y ago
      Ah yes, I forgot this detail. Thanks!
  - greedo 10y ago
    No, the model of the iPhone the FBI wanted to access didn't have the Secure Enclave.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - digler999 10y ago
    I agree with you, although you were wrong about that specific Apple case. I don't trust "secure enclave" because it would be too easy for a TLA to infiltrate the chip foundry and backdoor the silicon. they can literally print money, circumvent the constitution using secret courts/NSL's, their resources are infinite. what would stop them from doing this ? Even if you couldn't infiltrate the chip foundry, you could order a bunch of the chips, reverse engineer them, and in a few months, ship a duplicate with a neutered "enclave". Then interdict the shipment to the phone manufacturer (this isn't tinfoil, it's been done) and "supply" them with your version of the "secure enclave". There's no limit to this cat and mouse game.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      That's not really an argument against a neural lace, though. You're just as fucked if you don't get one - they drop child porn on your laptop, or just disappear you.
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  There is a even easier way to get somebody finished off.. drop a noisy true crypt container on there cellphone or notebook - if they get searched- they will be held in contempt indefinably for a white noise treasure trove they can not open.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Easy to defend, they have to prove you created said file consciously if the device was ever in the possession of someone else other than police. If they are likely to break the law to tamper with evidence, you've already lost.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's a solved problem the way the laws are currently written. It's not a solved problem if the laws are rewritten to require manufacturers to support a backdoor.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
How would the maker of the neural connectors get your neural password?

fenwick67 10y ago

There have been several court cases where the government has compelled people to give up encryption keys in court, I assume this will be no different.

andreyf 10y ago
If you have something, a court can order you to give it up. If you know something which might incriminate you (e.g. a password), your testimony is protected by the 5th.
- nickff 10y ago
  Passwords have only been protected by the 5th amendment when ownership of the electronic account/device is unproven.
- BickNowstrom 10y ago
  For international laws, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law Specifically for the US, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fricosu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fricosu
- sbierwagen 10y ago
  Important to note that this is a legal theory, that is not yet backed up by precedent or statute! The police have successfully compelled password disclosure many times.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    There has been tons of precedent, on both sides: http://www.zdnet.com/article/florida-court-says-password-disclosure-not-protected-by-fifth-amendment/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/florida-court-says-password-dis... This is the only sane interpretation, though, as people have more and more encrypted devices, it's unreasonable to punish someone for not remembering a password.