Actually, I wonder what percentage of Apple's sales are to the US Government? Would Apple actually notice if this were to go into effect?
Conversely, it would be interesting to watch the reaction if Apple were to suddenly start refusing to sell to the US Government. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone...." and all that.
However, there's definitely a clear (and, amazingly, bipartisan) group of folks in Congress who recognize that the FBI's arguments about how it "needs" this information is a bunch of hogwash.
It's not bi-partisan so much as election year politics. It appears most of Congress's constituents are on Apple's side here, so they have to look ticked off, or they risk alienating voters.
Give it until December, and we'll be back to politics as usual.
Who needs to filter everyone's search results when you can use Facebook and Google's massive database of personal information to target standard terrorist profiles? Photos tagged by facial recognition, friends, likes, posts, browsing history, etc.
There's no fourth amendment protection since it's all third party data.
technically correct, it's all subject to the 3rd party doctrine...If Facebook and Google were willing to give it up voluntarily. Which they aren't.
Unlike a cell phone companies CSLI data, which has value in terms of troubleshooting, diagnostics, future cell site placement, etc but otherwise isn't otherwise of particular interest to them. So they'll hand it over to law enforcement if asked nicely.
The information you list for Facebook and Google is one of their primary sources of income. It has immense commercial value to them, and they protect it accordingly.
Yes, agreed - there should be nothing at all keeping her from disclosing detailed financial records to allow her readers to ensure she's not receiving any payments from the government, right?
And there will be plenty of Techdirt points for the commenter who wrings something resembling logic or clarity out of this sentence: So in the same way I’d argue we legalize drugs, why not have a careful, legal pathway to break into a phone?
Because only 2 industries I've ever found refer to their customers as "Users"?
Technology aside, there's this other little issue...
Ok, so the points about the technology are spot on. But no one has commented on the other problem:
Assuming the system worked as advertised (which, lets face it, you may as well assume the assistance of a perfectly spherical purple cow):
Good luck finding 9 people globally who are both smart and ethical enough to make a legitimate "Good/Evil" decision _and_ stupid enough to attract the attention of every intelligence organization on the planet to themselves and their families.
This will not stop terrorists and criminals using their own secure encryption
Actually, Kazakhstan is an edge case where, with regards to encrypted TCP and UDP flows at least, it might.
Kazakhstan is a relatively small country, and their telco's and ISPs likely have a small number of connections to ISP's outside Kazakhstan.
The ability to analyze and shut down traffic flows you can't decrypt is well within the capabilities of most "next-gen" firewalls.
Next-gen firewalls won't necessarily help with encrypted data that's transferred over non-encrypted sessions, but there are systems on the market that can catch that in most cases.
It's unlikely they could actually shut it down 100%, but 95%+ efficiency is probably possible for them. Couple that with period, high-visibility arrests and you could call it "close enough"
I am saying that the high success rate could be because prosecutors choose defendants that are most certainly guilty instead of choosing ones that may not be.
Or, it could be that many of the people being prosecuted can't afford the legal fees (attourneys, expert witnesses, etc) associated with taking a court case all the way through the appeals process. Particularly when the assets they might be able to leverage to pay those fees have been frozen.
It would be very interesting to see figures on what it would cost a "typical" defendant to litigate a case through, say, a second appeal.
You have to wonder about the state of mind allows someone to be so concerned that something is a bomb that they move closer to it in order to get a better picture.
Looking at the redactions in this case, I have to wonder if whoever was doing the job purposefully botched it in order to intentionally weaken the governments arguments in court.
While it's tempting to dismiss actions like this as "government stupidity", you don't get to a position of responsibility where you're entrusted with redacting documents if you're not at least a little intelligent. You're looking at someone who's at least a little bit smart in terms of legal requirements and who probably has some operational experience in the area as well.
Where do the laws on GPS tracking stand right now? Could LA require that all drivers mount GPS tracking units on their cars, and then send them threatening letters saying "We know where you've been. You'd better watch it."?
No need to tag vehicles with GPS. It's expensive and obvious. Mobile phones are much easier, given that they're nearly ubiquitous and generally speaking are carried voluntarily. You also get far better granularity at the mobile-device level than you do the vehicle level.
I don't know about LA but in my travels I've found no such thing as "an area known for prostitution." None of them loiter in any place; they're always wandering all over, and they don't dress provocatively so you can't tell one from a legit lady walking around.
dunno how much you travel, but there are informally identified "no-go" areas in every major city I've ever been in. They're easy to spot (and hence avoid) if you know what to look for, and the locals always know where they are, but you won't find them on maps.
Once upon a time I worked for an ISP in a large US City.
Our main facility was in the middle of the downtown area red zone, and you couldn't get food delivered after dark. Prostitution, drug houses, doc shops, and all kinds of illicit businesses literally surrounded our building. It was not uncommon for our night-shift operators to be pulled over on the suspicion that they were looking to buy any number of illegal items.
I'd have gotten a minimum of 2 letters a day in the mail under this program. More if I needed to travel to any of our secondary/overflow facilities during a given shift.
On the post: Law Enforcement Groups File Amicus Brief In Favor Of FBI... But Which Undermines DOJ's Claim That This Is Just About One Phone
Re:
Substitute "iPhone" with "Device with updatable firmware". the same precedent will work. The specific details wont matter.
"Under the All-writs act, Amazon has been compelled to provide a custom operating system for their Alexa devices"
"Under the All-writs act, Ford has been compelled to provide a custom operating system for their in-vehicle entertainment systems"
"Under the All-writs act, Samsung has been compelled to provide a custom operating system for their smart TV's"
Nothing that's upgradable will be trustable.
On the post: Congressman Proposes Law Banning Government From Purchasing Apple Devices
Re:
Conversely, it would be interesting to watch the reaction if Apple were to suddenly start refusing to sell to the US Government. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone...." and all that.
On the post: Congressman Proposes Law Banning Government From Purchasing Apple Devices
Finally - clear, concise legislation
On the post: Congress Seems Pretty Angry About The FBI's Belief That The Courts Can Force Apple To Help It Get Into iPhones
Re: Big takeaway from watching the hearing
the "under oath" part is only relevant when there are meaningful penalties for getting caught lying.
On the post: Congress Seems Pretty Angry About The FBI's Belief That The Courts Can Force Apple To Help It Get Into iPhones
"normal" changes during election years
It's not bi-partisan so much as election year politics. It appears most of Congress's constituents are on Apple's side here, so they have to look ticked off, or they risk alienating voters.
Give it until December, and we'll be back to politics as usual.
On the post: White House Asked Google & Facebook To Change Their Algorithms To Fight ISIS; Both Said No
Re: Smoke and mirrors
technically correct, it's all subject to the 3rd party doctrine...If Facebook and Google were willing to give it up voluntarily. Which they aren't.
Unlike a cell phone companies CSLI data, which has value in terms of troubleshooting, diagnostics, future cell site placement, etc but otherwise isn't otherwise of particular interest to them. So they'll hand it over to law enforcement if asked nicely.
The information you list for Facebook and Google is one of their primary sources of income. It has immense commercial value to them, and they protect it accordingly.
On the post: White House Asked Google & Facebook To Change Their Algorithms To Fight ISIS; Both Said No
Re:
On the post: White House Asked Google & Facebook To Change Their Algorithms To Fight ISIS; Both Said No
Re:
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re: Re:
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re:
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Somehow I think even she has limits.....
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Because only 2 industries I've ever found refer to their customers as "Users"?
If anyone knows of a 3rd, I'd love to hear it.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Technology aside, there's this other little issue...
Assuming the system worked as advertised (which, lets face it, you may as well assume the assistance of a perfectly spherical purple cow):
Good luck finding 9 people globally who are both smart and ethical enough to make a legitimate "Good/Evil" decision _and_ stupid enough to attract the attention of every intelligence organization on the planet to themselves and their families.
On the post: Kazakhstan Decides To Break The Internet, Wage All Out War On Encryption
Re:
Actually, Kazakhstan is an edge case where, with regards to encrypted TCP and UDP flows at least, it might.
Kazakhstan is a relatively small country, and their telco's and ISPs likely have a small number of connections to ISP's outside Kazakhstan.
The ability to analyze and shut down traffic flows you can't decrypt is well within the capabilities of most "next-gen" firewalls.
Next-gen firewalls won't necessarily help with encrypted data that's transferred over non-encrypted sessions, but there are systems on the market that can catch that in most cases.
It's unlikely they could actually shut it down 100%, but 95%+ efficiency is probably possible for them. Couple that with period, high-visibility arrests and you could call it "close enough"
On the post: DOJ Pretty Sure The Problem With The Criminal Justice System Is Everyone Else
Re: Re: Re:
Or, it could be that many of the people being prosecuted can't afford the legal fees (attourneys, expert witnesses, etc) associated with taking a court case all the way through the appeals process. Particularly when the assets they might be able to leverage to pay those fees have been frozen.
It would be very interesting to see figures on what it would cost a "typical" defendant to litigate a case through, say, a second appeal.
On the post: NY Governor Announces App Version Of State's 'See Something, Say Something' Program
Re: Re: Things to do today ...
On the post: Judge In FBI Case Was Forced To Redact His Mocking Of FBI's Ridiculous Arguments
A Redactor with a conscience?
While it's tempting to dismiss actions like this as "government stupidity", you don't get to a position of responsibility where you're entrusted with redacting documents if you're not at least a little intelligent. You're looking at someone who's at least a little bit smart in terms of legal requirements and who probably has some operational experience in the area as well.
On the post: L.A. Politician Proposes Bold Plan To Wreck Homes, Destroy Lives And Abuse License Plate Reader Technology
Re:
No need to tag vehicles with GPS. It's expensive and obvious. Mobile phones are much easier, given that they're nearly ubiquitous and generally speaking are carried voluntarily. You also get far better granularity at the mobile-device level than you do the vehicle level.
On the post: L.A. Politician Proposes Bold Plan To Wreck Homes, Destroy Lives And Abuse License Plate Reader Technology
Re: “an area known for prostitution.”
dunno how much you travel, but there are informally identified "no-go" areas in every major city I've ever been in. They're easy to spot (and hence avoid) if you know what to look for, and the locals always know where they are, but you won't find them on maps.
On the post: L.A. Politician Proposes Bold Plan To Wreck Homes, Destroy Lives And Abuse License Plate Reader Technology
Re:
Our main facility was in the middle of the downtown area red zone, and you couldn't get food delivered after dark. Prostitution, drug houses, doc shops, and all kinds of illicit businesses literally surrounded our building. It was not uncommon for our night-shift operators to be pulled over on the suspicion that they were looking to buy any number of illegal items.
I'd have gotten a minimum of 2 letters a day in the mail under this program. More if I needed to travel to any of our secondary/overflow facilities during a given shift.
Next >>