Well, in this particular case that's a nonissue. It's very clear that the feds don't actually think the phone contains anything that would be useful in court anyway. Further, their interest is not actually in the contents of the phone per se, but in gaining the legal precedent.
John McAfee is certainly flamboyant and arguably unstable (although he does intentionally play up "instability" as part of his public image, so who knows how much is an act), but when you look at his actual claims about tech in this area, he tends to be correct.
Yes. I think people tend to get a bit distracted by trying to identify the specific parties they fear are going to attack. It doesn't matter much in the end, because what you have to do to protect yourself is pretty much the same thing regardless.
The proper security mindset is to assume that anything that you don't have direct physical control over is actively malicious in nature (and the things you do have physical control over are viewed with a suspicious eye).
It's literally unbelievable that the FBI doesn't have access to the tools to perform this or the expertise to get it done.
Just to drive this point home, I'm sitting here right now looking at my small hobbyist electronic workbench and realizing that I have all of the tools and skills needed to so accomplish this right now.
And I am not an EE, I'm a software guy who likes to solder things. I imagine that an actual expert would consider it child's play.
The difference is that you can turn your cookies off and have it be effective with Facebook.
With ISPs, cookies don't enter into it. Verizon, for example, was tagging the traffic itself in a manner that you had little control over. Facebook cannot technically do this sort of thing. You have to be an ISP to pull it off.
"The only difference is where the pilot is sitting when it happens, and that has zero relevance to the operation's legality or morality."
I strongly disagree, but the ethical connection is not direct. I think like this: one of the things that helps to limit levels of aggression that are unethical is the expense of conducting that aggression. Drones dramatically reduce that expense, which means that one of the factors encouraging military restrain is reduced or eliminated.
Unless restraint can be restored in some other way, drones just make the use of force too cheap, easy, and invisible to the American people. So the use of that technology in the current circumstance encourages bad behavior. So it is unethical.
My problem with "lane splitting" being legal (fortunately, I live in a state where it isn't) has more to do with predictability. The most important thing that traffic laws give us is predictability: you have a very good idea what the other traffic is going to do.
Lane-splitting is inherently a surprising thing: it means that every motorcycle on a multilane road now becomes a random factor that other drivers have to pay extra attention to, just in case they start driving where there are no lanes.
It violates the #1 driver safety rule: never do anything surprising.
"I just think it's insanely misleading to suggest that Apple is being asked by this court order to roll out an update to all users that would make their phone less secure."
I haven't heard that many people making this argument, which is good since, as you say, it's a misleading one.
The actual argument is this: the government is using this case to set a legal precedent that would allow them to force any tech company to go to extraordinary lengths to break your security.
If this is successful, it simply means that this is another aspect where you are prevented by law from being able to trust the tech that you use and the companies that provide it.
"given a valid set of warrants, and given that every other location for documents and information could be searched, what makes the phone so special as to not be subject to a warrant like everything else?"
Absolutely nothing, and the cops have every tool available to them that they have available in those other cases. They can legally crack a safe, and they can legally crack encryption.
That's not what this debate is about. This debate is about the government being able to tell everyone that they cannot have locks on their doors that are too strong.
I understand what you're saying, agree with you in principle. However, in reality DAs make those sorts of decisions every day. What Ramos said isn't incorrect in terms of the way the system works. He just said it more plainly than is normal.
In all fairness, deciding who is going to get criminally charged for what is the primary job duty of any DA. Ramos is no more or less empowered in this respect than any other DA.
On the post: The FBI Claims Failure To Guess Password Will Make Data 'Permanently Inaccessible,' Which Isn't True
Re: Re: Here's how unbelievable it is
On the post: NY DA Cy Vance Asks Law Enforcement About Problems With Encryption; Won't Take 'No Problems' For An Answer
Re: But .....
On the post: The FBI Claims Failure To Guess Password Will Make Data 'Permanently Inaccessible,' Which Isn't True
Re: Legal question here
Well, in this particular case that's a nonissue. It's very clear that the feds don't actually think the phone contains anything that would be useful in court anyway. Further, their interest is not actually in the contents of the phone per se, but in gaining the legal precedent.
On the post: The FBI Claims Failure To Guess Password Will Make Data 'Permanently Inaccessible,' Which Isn't True
Re: McAfee
"Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm wrong."
On the post: Broadband Industry 'Studies' Claim Users Don't Need Privacy Protections Because ISPs Are Just Harmless, Innovative Sweethearts
Re: Let's Encrypt
The proper security mindset is to assume that anything that you don't have direct physical control over is actively malicious in nature (and the things you do have physical control over are viewed with a suspicious eye).
On the post: The FBI Claims Failure To Guess Password Will Make Data 'Permanently Inaccessible,' Which Isn't True
Here's how unbelievable it is
Just to drive this point home, I'm sitting here right now looking at my small hobbyist electronic workbench and realizing that I have all of the tools and skills needed to so accomplish this right now.
And I am not an EE, I'm a software guy who likes to solder things. I imagine that an actual expert would consider it child's play.
On the post: The Donald Sends Cease And Desist Threat To Band Over The Use Of His Name In Music And Video
Re: Re: An answer to the age old-question
On the post: DRM Is Evil, Part 8,492: Nook Pulls Out Of UK, Exploring Options To Let People Retain Access To At Least Some Books
Re: Re: Spin Dept.
I have never, and will never, buy an eBook that I can't strip the DRM from.
On the post: Verizon Strikes $1.35 Million Settlement With FCC Over Its Use Of Stealth 'Zombie Cookies'
Re:
With ISPs, cookies don't enter into it. Verizon, for example, was tagging the traffic itself in a manner that you had little control over. Facebook cannot technically do this sort of thing. You have to be an ISP to pull it off.
On the post: Guy Who Pretends He Invented Email Whines At Every Journalist For Writing Obit Of Guy Who Actually Helped Create Email
Re: Re: Microsoft
That entirely depends on how you define "success".
On the post: Judge Voids Tons Of Chicago Traffic Camera Tickets Over Due Process Concerns
Re: Re:
The two are far from mutually exclusive. I think the phrase for the combination of the two is "systemic corruption".
On the post: French Parliament Votes For Law That Would Put Tech Execs In Jail If They Don't Decrypt Data
Re: Re: Re: Why idiots keep getting voted in.
On the post: Abuse Of Power: Laws Should Be Designed As If The People We Distrust The Most Are In Power
Re: Drones
I strongly disagree, but the ethical connection is not direct. I think like this: one of the things that helps to limit levels of aggression that are unethical is the expense of conducting that aggression. Drones dramatically reduce that expense, which means that one of the factors encouraging military restrain is reduced or eliminated.
Unless restraint can be restored in some other way, drones just make the use of force too cheap, easy, and invisible to the American people. So the use of that technology in the current circumstance encourages bad behavior. So it is unethical.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lane-splitting is inherently a surprising thing: it means that every motorcycle on a multilane road now becomes a random factor that other drivers have to pay extra attention to, just in case they start driving where there are no lanes.
It violates the #1 driver safety rule: never do anything surprising.
On the post: We Read All 20 Filings In Support Of Apple Against The FBI; Here Are The Most Interesting Points
Re: Re: Re:
I haven't heard that many people making this argument, which is good since, as you say, it's a misleading one.
The actual argument is this: the government is using this case to set a legal precedent that would allow them to force any tech company to go to extraordinary lengths to break your security.
If this is successful, it simply means that this is another aspect where you are prevented by law from being able to trust the tech that you use and the companies that provide it.
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely nothing, and the cops have every tool available to them that they have available in those other cases. They can legally crack a safe, and they can legally crack encryption.
That's not what this debate is about. This debate is about the government being able to tell everyone that they cannot have locks on their doors that are too strong.
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re: Re: Re: When was he proclaimed king?
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re: When was he proclaimed king?
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re: Re: mocking victims
On the post: Yes, Donald Trump Can Create Problems For Free Speech & The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Sometimes. Sometimes people are happy for other reasons, too.
"Id rather grudging respect."
You'd rather have grudging respect over what? Actual respect?
Next >>