Posted on 03/28/2016 3:01:02 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
“Dude. I have 2 degrees and 30 years experience.”
Dude. I have six years of college and retired 40 years of experience.
Besides that, wtf did you find wrong with my post?
The FBI biggest concern is not offending those that want to kill us and our children.
This leaves we the people with one recourse. Defending our selves.
Because you focused on the 4 digit pin, which is like the lock on the screen door.
There is no destruct on tamper device on the iPhone (other than if you are stupid enough to repeatedly enter wrong PINs). That means you can open it up, and have you way with it! A case tamper requiring pin would be tougher, but even that could be defeated, if you know it’s there.
Security is (1) something you have and (2) something you know
The something you have in this case is the device. The something you know is the passcode which indirectly drives the encryption seed. If you compromise either one of the (2) you are own it.
I will say that there is more bad (intentional an unintentional) info about security/encryption out there than any other topic in CS.
And new we find out there is predictability in primes (that will make the brute force hacks easier).
You can’t make a device bullet-proof - you have to just try to make it difficult...and that’s what Apple has done, and it’s a good thing.
I just hope they had time to exploit what they found before it got blabbed all over the world.
IN the end all it took was a glass of water : phone broked good
Of course they didn't find anything useful on the phone. There never was anything useful on the phone. Anything useful, if it was on any phone at all, was on the personal phones which the shooters destroyed prior to their crime rampage, not on this government-issued work phone.
Personally, I think the FBI is just saying that they cracked this phone as a face-saving excuse and a final FU to Apple for humiliating them. They can safely lie about it because they're never going to have to produce any evidence (which, as explained above, doesn't exist in the first place) from this phone.
No, you're the communist if you disavow the rule of law. That, and support for Apple is also support for communism.
Here, I'll give this right back to you. It fits you better than it does me.
That is just speculation. You have no facts in evidence. Obviously you are okay with having a gamble with other people's lives.
Personally, I think the FBI is just saying that they cracked this phone as a face-saving excuse and a final FU to Apple for humiliating them.
Apple is the one who has been humiliated. Their vaunted "security" didn't even last a week once that Israeli firm got ahold of it. And no, the FBI is not lying. Lying to a Federal Judge would have serious legal ramifications for them, and they will not do it. Their own agents would turn on anyone who tried to do that. Everyone involved would lose their jobs, and likely be prosecuted.
They can safely lie about it because they're never going to have to produce any evidence (which, as explained above, doesn't exist in the first place) from this phone.
No, they cannot safely lie. They can lie at great peril to their careers and to their own personal lives. And No, you didn't "explain" anything above, you pushed your own personal wishful opinion, and declared it a fact.
I shot you down for doing it.
A healthy mistrust of the FBI is a good thing.
How much information on a smart phone can’t be found anywhere else. Text and phone records can be found through the telephone company, Internet access records can be found via their ISP and the phone company, and most smart phones these days back up personal information to “the cloud.”
I read somewhere that SMS text messages are only kept for a short period of time but I doubt that. Because I believe that you can ask your phone company to pull your records out of archive. It isn’t easy but it can be done. Plus the feds probably require the phone company to keep the records for a period of time.
And bottom line: no one is going to be designing bombs on their smart phone. A desktop would be used for that.
Actually, Google is my friend, I know it very well: This is a good example of something that was NOT a virus, NOT on a sketchy website, and did not involve the download of anything to your computer that can do at least as much damage as a virus.
Nonsense.
They told a federal judge that there was absolutely positively no way to get into the phone without Apple's cooperation.
They told a federal judge that they found some way to get into the phone without Apple's cooperation.
Which statement is the lie?
Indeed. The government’s whining about “going dark” is self-serving twaddle — they are now collecting floods of information that simply did not exist a generation ago, and are whining like spoiled children because a few trickles of that flood have bypassed them.
Various possibilities. Deception is a very major and important aspect of warfare.
—The encrypted phone was broken almost immediately.
—The encrypted phone was broken by Apple when requested, provided they could deny same.
—The encrypted phone was broken with outside help.
—The encrypted phone was broken by the FBI themselves, with no outside help.
—The encrypted phone is still not broken.
—Valuable information found
—No valuable information found
—Combinations of these and other variables
One thing I am fairly certain: What goes out to the news community is mostly manipulated to assist security services, not to reveal “the truth.”
That was not a lie. At the time they said that, they knew of no other option. Why are you trying to characterize that as a lie? That is in itself dishonest.
They told a federal judge that they found some way to get into the phone without Apple's cooperation.
Which statement is the lie?
Neither one of those statements are lies, but your effort to portray them as lies, is in fact a lie.
When each statement was made, those statements were true. Conditions had changed so that the initial statement was no longer true, but at the time they made it, it was in fact true.
Not an acceptable excuse. There is a doctrine of "due diligence" which applies here, holding people responsible for what they reasonably should have known.
This excuse is equivalent to trying to tell the IRS that your income for the year was $5.98 and it's not a lie because you never actually looked at your pay stubs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.