9 ms·

The FBI could have broken into San Bernadino shooter's phone without Apple

252 points by grecy 9y ago

m3kw9 9y ago
After this long given they don’t upgrade the OS, it will eventually be cracked.
gr3yh47 9y ago
second verse, same as the first
- johnhenry 9y ago
  but a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse?
leecarraher 9y ago
well they did right? Isn't that what they paid cellebrite $900K to do. (http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-fbi-pays-israeli-co-900000-for-iphone-hack-1001188315 http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-fbi-pays-israeli-co-90000...)
- itakedrugs 9y ago
  Maybe they paid both, to get more "friends"
natch 9y ago
>any system that is designed to allow law enforcement agencies all across the country to expeditiously decrypt devices pursuant to court order will be enormously complex, raising the likelihood of serious flaws in implementation. Generally I agree with the EFF but I always find this particular argument specious. If someone were to design such a system but without flaws in its implementation, would EFF be OK with that? I don't think so, because those agencies are rife with bad actors. A perfect system, in the hands of bad actors, is already a problem. The problem at the outset is with the context of use. Yes there are other problems that would follow on because the system would not be technically perfect, but even before that, the flawed context of giving these tools to bad actors should not be overlooked. Setting up such a system, perfect or not is a bad idea, period. Yes it will be imperfect but even if you buy into the mistaken idea that it can be made perfect, the context of use, in agencies with bad actors, is already broken even before the imperfections allow exploits by agency outsiders. No, we don't have to assume that the agencies are staffed with only good people. Not even for the sake of argument, and not even for the sake of a polite white paper from the EFF.
- dalore 9y ago
  One could argue that it's not a perfect system if it's susceptible to bad actors. A good system protects even when some of the good guys are bad guys.
- pg_bot 9y ago
  IMO the toothpaste is already out of the tube on this one. We already live in a world where strong encryption exists, and is accessible to the common developer. The DOJ does not get to live in the world that it wants to. I understand this will make their lives more difficult, however I do not care. Currently they are in the "anger and bargaining" stage of grief, I hope they realize that "going dark" isn't really that bad.
  - josefresco 9y ago
    > I hope they realize that "going dark" isn't really that bad. I hope you know that, because I don't know a single person, expert or not who with confidence can claim "going dark" isn't going to be "that bad".
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Somehow the US survived in a world where everyone was dark 100% of the time for over 200 years. Maybe the FBI should just go back to relying on actual criminal research techniques and remember part of their job is protecting constitutional rights such as the right to privacy.
      - stevew20 9y ago
        Maybe they fired all the good investigators and hired data analysts, and are having serious buyers remorse!
      - josefresco 9y ago
        I knew my comment would be unpopular however I'm genuinely curious how you feel about law enforcements ability to wiretap, or perform surveillance suspects given a court order. This capability has existed in the period you referenced, and to me it would seem ... similar(?) to law enforcement being granted permission (by a court) now to surveil a suspect's digital devices. Why does the switch to digital change things? Similarly, If I lock my home/car/object, commit a crime - are you okay with law enforcement breaking into my property to gather evidence? I'm honestly asking, not trying to snark - please help me work through how encryption differs from other "analog" tools meant to ensure privacy.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
I agree with the EFF's position regarding backdoors, but this article isn't convincing. - There really isn't anything nefarious in trying to find a good case to set precedent. That's actually the EFF's (and ACLU, etc.) business model: find the most sympathetic plaintiff for the issue you want to litigate to improve your chances in court (and the court of public opinion). - A method that is "90% ready" just isn't ready. Not only are such numbers meaningless in such a project. It just doesn't matter, legally, if you gain such capabilities in the future. A good faith interpretation of the FBI's motivation must also accept that if(!) the FBI had any interest in the phone's content, that interest was urgent. I also consider the EFF's and tech community's technical arguments to be rather weak and transparent attempts to skirt the core issue: we don't want backdoors for governments, period. By suggesting technical difficulties they are trying to shift the debate from the political sphere to the technology. That's probably good for the cause, but it circumvents the mechanism we have established for policy debates, namely democracy. The difficulties also seem to be far exaggerated: a 1-of-2 encryption scheme should be possible. There are several such schemes (like 2-of-3) working flawlessly for Bitcoin already. Safekeeping of master decryption keys also seems to be a solved problem. Certificate Authorities, as just one example, seem to do so mostly without any hitches.
- braythwayt 9y ago
  > There really isn't anything nefarious in trying to find a good case to set precedent Far enough, however the FBI's argument was that they needed a backdoor to get into phones like this, when it turns out that they didn't need the back door at all, and not only did they purchase a "crack" to open the phone, they also had Apple's help and could have gotten the information they needed using the tools they already had at their disposal. As I read it, this is not about finding a nice court case, it's about misleading the courts with the respect to the necessity of the back door. In other words, they weren't finding a sympathetic case, they were manufacturing it.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > it's about misleading the courts with the respect to the necessity of the back door. In other words, they weren't finding a sympathetic case, they were manufacturing it. Absolutely. Now they kinda of gave Comey the benefit of the doubt saying "he didn't know" but it turns out ROU team was doing it. --- The OIG report concluded that Director Comey didn’t know that his testimony was false at the time he gave it. But it was false, and technical staff in FBI’s own ROU knew it was false. --- Not sure what happened there. I think there are two levels of "truth" one is what is written and recorded, and the real "truth". How did ROU started working on the device to begin with. Did they go to the evidence box and started tinkering with the phone when CEAU wasn't watching? Did they clone the device and handed it to multiple teams "here if anyone of you can figure it out, you get an extra 10 days of vacation" or something like that. On the manufacturing part. FBI, likes to manufacture evidence and skirt around entrapment whenever possible. What better way to look important and get more power than making your own reality. Here is their informant infiltrating a mosque in Irvine, CA and radicalizing people. http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-muslim-fbi-20151221-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-muslim-fbi-2... he was reported to the, wait for it, ... FBI. There are other cases as well: https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupting-terror-u-s-plot-deserves-scrutiny-skepticism/ https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupt...
newscracker 9y ago
And if they had had some patience, they could have initiated an automatic WiFi backup from the iPhone to iCloud and probably accessed the information on iCloud through a court order that Apple would've complied with. Quoting from this Buzzfeed article from February 2016. [1] > "The Apple ID password linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed soon after the government took possession of the device, Apple, San Bernardino County, and federal officials have acknowledged over the past 48 hours. If that password change hadn’t happened, senior Apple executives said on Friday afternoon, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible." > "The Apple executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a backdoor. One of those methods would have involved connecting the iPhone to a known Wi-Fi network and triggering an iCloud backup that might provide the FBI with information stored to the device between the October 19th and the date of the incident." > "Apple sent trusted engineers to attempt that method, the executives said, but they were unable to do it. It was then that they discovered that the Apple ID password associated with the iPhone had been changed sometime after the terrorist's death -- within 24 hours of the government taking possession of the phone. By changing the password, the government foreclosed its ability to obtain a fresh copy of the most recent device data via this back-up-to-known-wifi method." [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-appleid-passcode-changed-in-government-cust https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-app...
- valuearb 9y ago
  One wonders why the FBI didn't focus on having a standard protocol/office for handling iOS and Android devices to ensure they could maximize the ability to access them. Like someone who could tell the field agents, don't change the password!
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
> According to the Times, DOJ officials are “convinced that mechanisms allowing access to [encrypted] data can be engineered without intolerably weakening the devices’ security against hacking.” Why do people believe this? It will only make things more complicated and more complicated usually means easier to break.
dep_b 9y ago
It probably takes way more effort, time and money than the FBI likes to invest to break open an iPhone. So this high profile incident was used as a way to influence public opinion that this kind of heavy protection was helping pedophiles and terrorists. I think the main result of their initial declaration was people buying more iPhones if anything at all. And now it backfires.
rgbrenner 9y ago
I agree with the EFF.. but: They write At the same time, according to the OIG report, the chief of the FBI’s Remote Operations Unit (the FBI’s elite hacking team, called ROU) knows “that one of the vendors that he worked closely with was almost 90 percent of the way toward a solution that the vendor had been working on for many months.” 90% finished with no definitive end in sight? That doesnt sound like a solution.. then the EFF concludes: March 1, 2016: Comey testifies... The OIG report concluded that Director Comey didn’t know that his testimony was false at the time he gave it. But it was false, and technical staff in FBI’s own ROU knew it was false. No it was not false. It was completely true at the time. 90% is not a solution. Comey does not have a time machine to see when/if the exploit would be completed. March 16, 2016: An outside vendor for the FBI completes its work on an exploit for the model in question. Now they have an exploit.. and what does the FBI do? They drop the their alternative approach involving the courts and apple. Making weak, clearly disingenuous (or worse, technically clueless if they really believe 90% is the same as 100%) arguments do not help the EFF. This will be the first part that their opponents latch on to and attack.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  After you're 90% done, you only have the other 90% to finish. Easy, peasy.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    The first 90% takes 90% of the project time the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.
    - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
      We have a project manager who asks "are you done, or done done?" The two are very different.
      - hinkley 9y ago
        When I was young and impressionable it was done done. My last contracting gig the project manager (who was honestly too good for the customer and noped out after about 14 months and told me countless times “you can’t fix stupid”) started saying done done done. And still people would say, when asked if they were done done done, “yes, but...” At some point the developer is done with a task even if the task isn’t done with them. And they will make any rationalization necessary to take partial credit for completion.
kodablah 9y ago
Sorry to veer into whataboutism wrt Apple and regions they operate in, but I'm curious about the hypothetical: What if China demanded Apple create a signed version of the OS w/ the key bypass? Among other reasons for asking, one reason is to highlight that while the FBI were nefarious here, that Apple was able to fight it and publicly post that they disagreed without any repercussions makes me at least a bit happier about the process.
GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
Any access-key/backdoor is either going to be very distributed so it can be used, or it's going to be under a SAP (special access program or similar alphabet soup); either way it will be compromised either for profit, or by conscience by someone another Snowden like person.
michaelmrose 9y ago
People inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt perhaps because they are of the class of people so unlikely to run afoul of the law seem to be confused about what 90% ready means. If it was ready 3 weeks later 90% ready means we have 100% broken the security involved and are wrapping this is a reasonable interface and writing documentation. Our developer could plug in your phone and crack it right now but we need to build something with buttons and documentation.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  People certain they know what 90% means perhaps because they are of the class that doesn't know much about software development.
wpdev_63 9y ago
I have a very close friend that works for the clandestine service, Mussolini. He tells me that they have backdoors into all cellphones that exist. I didn't believe him at first but looking at the recent vault 7 leaks[0], now I am not doubting him. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7 EDIT: Also it's not hacking/breaking in when it's a built in backdoor.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  >I have a very close friend that works for the clandestine service, Mussolini. Do you mean the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad? Mussolini was the name of the fascist Italian dictator.
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    It's actually a rogue nongovernmental intelligence service entirely made up of resurrected Mussolini clones.
berbec 9y ago
> The Department's [FBI's] blind faith in technologists’ ability to build a secure backdoor on encrypted phones Hasn't it been show time and again that, on any sort of reasonable timescale, there is no such thing as a secure backdoor? Governments wanting one to exist cannot change the nature of software, especially with the current pentesters out there. If such a backdoor exists, someone will find it.
c3534l 9y ago
I don't have a problem with legitimate inquiries into crime, with probable cause, approved by an independent whose role is to safeguard against needless intrusions by the government. I don't believe in legally requiring code to be insecure through backdoors, extrajudicious dragnet "intelligence," or other deeply disturbing secret police BS authoritarian strains of the intelligence communtiy seem to be advocating. If they can open the phone with or without Apple's help is almost irrelevant. What matters is if they have gone through an accountable process to gain legal authorization to open it. On the other hand, the fact that the FBI used this to gain legal powers in the vein of the burning of the Reichstag is unacceptable.
ritanelson 9y ago
Confront your cheating spouse with evidence, i was able to spy on my cheating ex phone without finding out.....it really helped me during my divorce ...you can contact (cyberguru1370@GMAIL.COM) for spying and hacking social networks, school servers, icloud and much more,viber chats hack, Facebook messages and yahoo messenger, calls log and spy call recording, monitoring SMS text messages remotely, cell phone GPS location tracking, spy on Whats app Messages, his services are AFFORDABLE.................................... ONLY GOD CAN THANK HIM FOR ME.

252 points by grecy 9y ago

m3kw9 9y ago

After this long given they don’t upgrade the OS, it will eventually be cracked.

gr3yh47 9y ago

second verse, same as the first

johnhenry 9y ago
but a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse?

leecarraher 9y ago

well they did right? Isn't that what they paid cellebrite $900K to do. (http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-fbi-pays-israeli-co-900000-for-iphone-hack-1001188315 http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-fbi-pays-israeli-co-90000...)

itakedrugs 9y ago
Maybe they paid both, to get more "friends"

natch 9y ago

>any system that is designed to allow law enforcement agencies all across the country to expeditiously decrypt devices pursuant to court order will be enormously complex, raising the likelihood of serious flaws in implementation. Generally I agree with the EFF but I always find this particular argument specious. If someone were to design such a system but without flaws in its implementation, would EFF be OK with that? I don't think so, because those agencies are rife with bad actors. A perfect system, in the hands of bad actors, is already a problem. The problem at the outset is with the context of use. Yes there are other problems that would follow on because the system would not be technically perfect, but even before that, the flawed context of giving these tools to bad actors should not be overlooked. Setting up such a system, perfect or not is a bad idea, period. Yes it will be imperfect but even if you buy into the mistaken idea that it can be made perfect, the context of use, in agencies with bad actors, is already broken even before the imperfections allow exploits by agency outsiders. No, we don't have to assume that the agencies are staffed with only good people. Not even for the sake of argument, and not even for the sake of a polite white paper from the EFF.

dalore 9y ago
One could argue that it's not a perfect system if it's susceptible to bad actors. A good system protects even when some of the good guys are bad guys.
pg_bot 9y ago
IMO the toothpaste is already out of the tube on this one. We already live in a world where strong encryption exists, and is accessible to the common developer. The DOJ does not get to live in the world that it wants to. I understand this will make their lives more difficult, however I do not care. Currently they are in the "anger and bargaining" stage of grief, I hope they realize that "going dark" isn't really that bad.
- josefresco 9y ago
  > I hope they realize that "going dark" isn't really that bad. I hope you know that, because I don't know a single person, expert or not who with confidence can claim "going dark" isn't going to be "that bad".
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Somehow the US survived in a world where everyone was dark 100% of the time for over 200 years. Maybe the FBI should just go back to relying on actual criminal research techniques and remember part of their job is protecting constitutional rights such as the right to privacy.
    - stevew20 9y ago
      Maybe they fired all the good investigators and hired data analysts, and are having serious buyers remorse!
    - josefresco 9y ago
      I knew my comment would be unpopular however I'm genuinely curious how you feel about law enforcements ability to wiretap, or perform surveillance suspects given a court order. This capability has existed in the period you referenced, and to me it would seem ... similar(?) to law enforcement being granted permission (by a court) now to surveil a suspect's digital devices. Why does the switch to digital change things? Similarly, If I lock my home/car/object, commit a crime - are you okay with law enforcement breaking into my property to gather evidence? I'm honestly asking, not trying to snark - please help me work through how encryption differs from other "analog" tools meant to ensure privacy.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

I agree with the EFF's position regarding backdoors, but this article isn't convincing. - There really isn't anything nefarious in trying to find a good case to set precedent. That's actually the EFF's (and ACLU, etc.) business model: find the most sympathetic plaintiff for the issue you want to litigate to improve your chances in court (and the court of public opinion). - A method that is "90% ready" just isn't ready. Not only are such numbers meaningless in such a project. It just doesn't matter, legally, if you gain such capabilities in the future. A good faith interpretation of the FBI's motivation must also accept that if(!) the FBI had any interest in the phone's content, that interest was urgent. I also consider the EFF's and tech community's technical arguments to be rather weak and transparent attempts to skirt the core issue: we don't want backdoors for governments, period. By suggesting technical difficulties they are trying to shift the debate from the political sphere to the technology. That's probably good for the cause, but it circumvents the mechanism we have established for policy debates, namely democracy. The difficulties also seem to be far exaggerated: a 1-of-2 encryption scheme should be possible. There are several such schemes (like 2-of-3) working flawlessly for Bitcoin already. Safekeeping of master decryption keys also seems to be a solved problem. Certificate Authorities, as just one example, seem to do so mostly without any hitches.

braythwayt 9y ago
> There really isn't anything nefarious in trying to find a good case to set precedent Far enough, however the FBI's argument was that they needed a backdoor to get into phones like this, when it turns out that they didn't need the back door at all, and not only did they purchase a "crack" to open the phone, they also had Apple's help and could have gotten the information they needed using the tools they already had at their disposal. As I read it, this is not about finding a nice court case, it's about misleading the courts with the respect to the necessity of the back door. In other words, they weren't finding a sympathetic case, they were manufacturing it.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > it's about misleading the courts with the respect to the necessity of the back door. In other words, they weren't finding a sympathetic case, they were manufacturing it. Absolutely. Now they kinda of gave Comey the benefit of the doubt saying "he didn't know" but it turns out ROU team was doing it. --- The OIG report concluded that Director Comey didn’t know that his testimony was false at the time he gave it. But it was false, and technical staff in FBI’s own ROU knew it was false. --- Not sure what happened there. I think there are two levels of "truth" one is what is written and recorded, and the real "truth". How did ROU started working on the device to begin with. Did they go to the evidence box and started tinkering with the phone when CEAU wasn't watching? Did they clone the device and handed it to multiple teams "here if anyone of you can figure it out, you get an extra 10 days of vacation" or something like that. On the manufacturing part. FBI, likes to manufacture evidence and skirt around entrapment whenever possible. What better way to look important and get more power than making your own reality. Here is their informant infiltrating a mosque in Irvine, CA and radicalizing people. http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-muslim-fbi-20151221-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-muslim-fbi-2... he was reported to the, wait for it, ... FBI. There are other cases as well: https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupting-terror-u-s-plot-deserves-scrutiny-skepticism/ https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupt...

newscracker 9y ago

And if they had had some patience, they could have initiated an automatic WiFi backup from the iPhone to iCloud and probably accessed the information on iCloud through a court order that Apple would've complied with. Quoting from this Buzzfeed article from February 2016. [1] > "The Apple ID password linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed soon after the government took possession of the device, Apple, San Bernardino County, and federal officials have acknowledged over the past 48 hours. If that password change hadn’t happened, senior Apple executives said on Friday afternoon, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible." > "The Apple executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a backdoor. One of those methods would have involved connecting the iPhone to a known Wi-Fi network and triggering an iCloud backup that might provide the FBI with information stored to the device between the October 19th and the date of the incident." > "Apple sent trusted engineers to attempt that method, the executives said, but they were unable to do it. It was then that they discovered that the Apple ID password associated with the iPhone had been changed sometime after the terrorist's death -- within 24 hours of the government taking possession of the phone. By changing the password, the government foreclosed its ability to obtain a fresh copy of the most recent device data via this back-up-to-known-wifi method." [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-appleid-passcode-changed-in-government-cust https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-app...

valuearb 9y ago
One wonders why the FBI didn't focus on having a standard protocol/office for handling iOS and Android devices to ensure they could maximize the ability to access them. Like someone who could tell the field agents, don't change the password!

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

> According to the Times, DOJ officials are “convinced that mechanisms allowing access to [encrypted] data can be engineered without intolerably weakening the devices’ security against hacking.” Why do people believe this? It will only make things more complicated and more complicated usually means easier to break.

dep_b 9y ago

It probably takes way more effort, time and money than the FBI likes to invest to break open an iPhone. So this high profile incident was used as a way to influence public opinion that this kind of heavy protection was helping pedophiles and terrorists. I think the main result of their initial declaration was people buying more iPhones if anything at all. And now it backfires.

rgbrenner 9y ago

I agree with the EFF.. but: They write At the same time, according to the OIG report, the chief of the FBI’s Remote Operations Unit (the FBI’s elite hacking team, called ROU) knows “that one of the vendors that he worked closely with was almost 90 percent of the way toward a solution that the vendor had been working on for many months.” 90% finished with no definitive end in sight? That doesnt sound like a solution.. then the EFF concludes: March 1, 2016: Comey testifies... The OIG report concluded that Director Comey didn’t know that his testimony was false at the time he gave it. But it was false, and technical staff in FBI’s own ROU knew it was false. No it was not false. It was completely true at the time. 90% is not a solution. Comey does not have a time machine to see when/if the exploit would be completed. March 16, 2016: An outside vendor for the FBI completes its work on an exploit for the model in question. Now they have an exploit.. and what does the FBI do? They drop the their alternative approach involving the courts and apple. Making weak, clearly disingenuous (or worse, technically clueless if they really believe 90% is the same as 100%) arguments do not help the EFF. This will be the first part that their opponents latch on to and attack.

tedunangst 9y ago
After you're 90% done, you only have the other 90% to finish. Easy, peasy.
- celticninja 9y ago
  The first 90% takes 90% of the project time the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.
  - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
    We have a project manager who asks "are you done, or done done?" The two are very different.
    - hinkley 9y ago
      When I was young and impressionable it was done done. My last contracting gig the project manager (who was honestly too good for the customer and noped out after about 14 months and told me countless times “you can’t fix stupid”) started saying done done done. And still people would say, when asked if they were done done done, “yes, but...” At some point the developer is done with a task even if the task isn’t done with them. And they will make any rationalization necessary to take partial credit for completion.

kodablah 9y ago

Sorry to veer into whataboutism wrt Apple and regions they operate in, but I'm curious about the hypothetical: What if China demanded Apple create a signed version of the OS w/ the key bypass? Among other reasons for asking, one reason is to highlight that while the FBI were nefarious here, that Apple was able to fight it and publicly post that they disagreed without any repercussions makes me at least a bit happier about the process.

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago

Any access-key/backdoor is either going to be very distributed so it can be used, or it's going to be under a SAP (special access program or similar alphabet soup); either way it will be compromised either for profit, or by conscience by someone another Snowden like person.

michaelmrose 9y ago

People inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt perhaps because they are of the class of people so unlikely to run afoul of the law seem to be confused about what 90% ready means. If it was ready 3 weeks later 90% ready means we have 100% broken the security involved and are wrapping this is a reasonable interface and writing documentation. Our developer could plug in your phone and crack it right now but we need to build something with buttons and documentation.

tedunangst 9y ago
People certain they know what 90% means perhaps because they are of the class that doesn't know much about software development.

wpdev_63 9y ago

I have a very close friend that works for the clandestine service, Mussolini. He tells me that they have backdoors into all cellphones that exist. I didn't believe him at first but looking at the recent vault 7 leaks[0], now I am not doubting him. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7 EDIT: Also it's not hacking/breaking in when it's a built in backdoor.

lightbyte 9y ago
>I have a very close friend that works for the clandestine service, Mussolini. Do you mean the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad? Mussolini was the name of the fascist Italian dictator.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  It's actually a rogue nongovernmental intelligence service entirely made up of resurrected Mussolini clones.

berbec 9y ago

> The Department's [FBI's] blind faith in technologists’ ability to build a secure backdoor on encrypted phones Hasn't it been show time and again that, on any sort of reasonable timescale, there is no such thing as a secure backdoor? Governments wanting one to exist cannot change the nature of software, especially with the current pentesters out there. If such a backdoor exists, someone will find it.

c3534l 9y ago

I don't have a problem with legitimate inquiries into crime, with probable cause, approved by an independent whose role is to safeguard against needless intrusions by the government. I don't believe in legally requiring code to be insecure through backdoors, extrajudicious dragnet "intelligence," or other deeply disturbing secret police BS authoritarian strains of the intelligence communtiy seem to be advocating. If they can open the phone with or without Apple's help is almost irrelevant. What matters is if they have gone through an accountable process to gain legal authorization to open it. On the other hand, the fact that the FBI used this to gain legal powers in the vein of the burning of the Reichstag is unacceptable.

ritanelson 9y ago

Confront your cheating spouse with evidence, i was able to spy on my cheating ex phone without finding out.....it really helped me during my divorce ...you can contact (cyberguru1370@GMAIL.COM) for spying and hacking social networks, school servers, icloud and much more,viber chats hack, Facebook messages and yahoo messenger, calls log and spy call recording, monitoring SMS text messages remotely, cell phone GPS location tracking, spy on Whats app Messages, his services are AFFORDABLE.................................... ONLY GOD CAN THANK HIM FOR ME.