Apple Encryption Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 10/19/2014 12:42:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is crystal clear in meaning.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
FBI Director, James Comey, an Obama appointment, does not give a damn what the Constitution says.
In a recent speech, Comey warns If Apple and Google Won't Decrypt Phones, We'll Force Them To
Everyone is stoked that the latest versions of iOS and Android will (finally) encrypt all the information on your smartphone by default. Except, of course, the FBI: Today, its director spent an hour attacking the companies and the very idea of encryption, even suggesting that Congress should pass a law banning the practice of default encryption.Safe That Cannot be Cracked
It's of course no secret that James Comey and the FBI hate the prospect of "going dark," the idea that law enforcement simply doesn't have the technical capability to track criminals (and the average person) because of all those goddamn apps, encryption, wifi network switching, and different carriers.
"Encryption isn’t just a technical feature; it’s a marketing pitch … it’s the equivalent of a closet that can’t be opened. A safe that can’t be cracked. And my question is, at what cost?" Comey said. "Both companies [Apple and Google] are run by good people, responding to what they perceive is a market demand. But the place they are leading us is one we shouldn’t go to without careful thought and debate."
You sound like the victims of Stalin's purges who went to their grave shouting, "You'll regret this when Comrade Stalin hears about it!" ;)
The GOP is all for this. McCain. Peter King. All the Bushies. And this guy Comey got famous by framing Martha Stewart for the Bush administration.
If you think the 4th Amendment actually means something, the GOP says you are a "wacko bird". Both parties have contempt for us.
100% agreed.
The most frustrating thing about the way things are these days is we're being beaten down by both "sides", yet people still cling to partisan outlooks that have long since ceased to have real meaning.
It actually IS that they cannot crack Apple's 256 bit encryption. Apple allows you to use any of the 227 characters available on your keyboard and your pass code can be up to 256 characters in size. That is a ridiculously large passcode, I know, but it is possible. That passcode is entangled with the UUID of your device to provide the key to encrypt your data. This means that they would have to brute force their way through 227 256 possible combinations of passcodes (actually a bit smaller as Apple's passcode creation routine will not allow more than two consecutive identical characters) to test all of them to find your particular passcode to decrypt your data. Apple also has set it up that because it is hardware entangled with the UUID of the device, the attempts must be done on the device. . . and there is a increasing wait period between attempts, so your data cannot be downloaded to a supercomputer for crunching. It really wouldn't matter anyway, even making thousands of attempts per second, it would take multiple quadrillions of years to try every possible combination. The Universe would have died from heat death before you got anywhere near done.
Add that when your data is uploaded as a 256 bit encrypted stream to iCloud, it is further anonymized, broken into bits, and then AGAIN additionally 256 bit encrypted on top of your encryption. Apple does not have your key. . . and even if the government got Apple's key, all they would have would be anonymous encrypted data in blocks, associated with no particular person, without keys. Lots of luck in doing anything with the gobbledegook they would be handed.
The ONLY way they could get your data is the old fashioned way. . . get a court order, serve it on you, requiring you to turn over what they are SPECIFICALLY seeking, by description, naming exactly what they want. No fishing allowed. Just exactly what the Fourth Amendment requires.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
It’s not like y’all don’t have the capability to break into our private property already but, what if the citizens wake up one day and believe you are no longer White Hatters and the Black Hatters reverse your scam?
Reeeelleeee?
Who says the Government has an absolute right to anything and everything?
Shall we print using the King’s paper?
Shalle we submit oir sermons, for their review and approval?
Do they have an absolute right to tell us who we may confer with?
Share our thought?
Force us to give up our Nom de Juers?
Yey, the government should be unbridled?
A Lois Lerner should be allowed to act in accoradance with her fascist belief, harming another American? Disadvantaging them?
The EPA can run roughshod over whomever they please ?????
We lost all our records but, YOU are still in jeopardy of whatever we decide suits our agenda????
A policeman should have the unfettered right to peruse your cell phone? For a traffic stop? For a DUI?
For whatever reason....they deem?
You are a rug???
I don’t believe it!!!
DO I need to repost my epic post, so you have a clear an unmistakable understanding of what they gather...currently and without a warrant???
Apple doesn’t own the device.
The device is the personal property of the person who paid for it and owns it.
They have zero right or obligation to break into anyone’s private property.
Two Factor Passwords fk the gubmint.
They are good but, the person who starts to crack a “Two Factor” will be dead before those files are ever revealed.
Here is Apple's current statement: Apple - Privacy - Government Information Requests
On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.Reading the statement (not just the paragraph above) in its entirety, my impression is that Apple would, if it could, and if the warrant called for it.
On further searching .. Apple slaps a passcode lock on iOS 8 devices, but cops can still inhale your iCloud - UK Register: 23 Sep 2014
This article purports to quote from Apple's previous privacy remarks:
Apple can perform this data extraction process on iOS devices running iOS 4 or more recent versions of iOS. Please note the only categories of user generated active files that can be provided to law enforcement, pursuant to a valid search warrant, are: SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party App data.FWIW, that article is pretty informative.
Yes. With a proper warrant, as a reasonable and therefore constitutional search and seizure. My understanding is that in most states this would mean myself and my possessions can be searched for a DUI but not for a normal traffic stop.
Right of search is, of course, not an unfettered right, as it is only reasonable if the "fetters" of the Constitution are complied with.
Electronic data storage is obviously something the Founders didn't have. But I see no reason why it should be considered to have greater rights to privacy than older forms of record-keeping.
For example, my understanding is that if I'm arrested, legally, for any reason, my wallet and other records I have on my person at the time will be searched, with the information found potentially used against me at trial, perfectly constitutionally.
Cell phones are simply an extension of this. If I don't want evidence used against me, I shouldn't be carrying it around with me.
There are, of course, ways to encrypt this data, and a person can certainly use them legally, just as he would have the right to keep his dead tree journals in code. A person should not be compelled to provide a password, just as he, I assume, cannot be compelled to decode a paper journal if doing so violates his 5A rights.
But the cops have every right to try on their own to break a phone's encryption, just as they do to break a code on paper.
If people choose, for convenience, to carry around with them a device containing evidence that can be used against them, that's their problem, just as if they chose to carry a paper diary with similar information.
That authorities may sometimes cross the bounds of what is constitutionally reasonable does not mean any and all electronic storage should be protected.
I’ve got my tinfoil hat firmly in place. I have some suspicion that the goobermint can decrypt all this and that the complaints are merely for show in order to make the people complacent.
“reasonable S&S”
My concern is that those in power will always find a way to abuse this. They always seem to be able to create trumped up charges against “enemies.” And by “enemies”, I don’t mean terrorists and criminals, I mean political opponents, conservatives, Christians, and anyone not on board with the liberal agenda.
Maj. Hasan, the Ft. Hood killer, was communicating openly and practically spelled out his intentions. Many in authority were fully aware of this and did nothing to prevent it.
The government is not using their current ability to snoop on us to protect us. They are using it for their own political purposes.
In addition, privacy goes down the drain even at low levels. You can count on it that your cranky neighbor or brother-in-law will snoop into your medical records, tax records, DMV records or whatever if he has a job that gives him access.
Post of the Day.
Thank you.
Yes, they can be accessed with a warrant... unless the target refuses to cooperate with the warrant, which puts him in legal jeopardy anyway. As far as I know, you can't claim the 5th on documents covered by a warrant.
No disagreement. I just don’t see any way to prevent this type of stuff from happening.
Those who work at places where they have access to supposedly private information have always snooped. Witness all the private eye shows where the PI can always get supposedly confidential information from a friend in the police department. All electronics has done is make misuse of data much easier, just as it’s made proper use of data much easier.
Major Hassan was not stopped before his spree simply because doing so would have been “racial profiling,” and therefore nobody had the guts to act. In fact, most who saw such tendencies probably didn’t recognize them in a form of doublethink they not even aware of.
Had Hassan been arrested before going on his spree, we might well have had a media furore about racial profiling, Islamaphobia in the armed forces, etc. Only the spree would have justified his arrest in liberal eyes, and of course he hadn’t done that yet.
Just as a similar uproar would have occurred if 9/11 had been prevented by keeping the hijackers from boarding. Since nobody would know what had been prevented, the racial profiling and discrimination would have been completely unjustified.
Here’s an interesting discussion of whether you can be compelled to provide a password.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=580986
From a practical perspective, all they can do is imprison you, I presume for contempt of court, until you do give up the password. If doing so would provide evidence sufficient to convict you of a really serious crime, possibly a capital one, I find it difficult to see what incentive the accused would have to do so, regardless of what a court may order.
I’m not seeing where an indefinite prison term is any better than a definite one. ;)
More seriously, in true capital cases, the prosecutors most likely have a pretty good circumstantial case against you to start with, or they wouldn’t even know about the documents you’re refusing to turn over. Things also get a little murky about how much defense you can offer when you take the 5th, that is, how limited the scope of the claim is and what that means you yourself cannot discuss without waiving that claim. Add on to that the negative inference the jury will make, regardless of any pro forma instructions otherwise, about your refusal to turn over the documents.
So when you are convicted, your refusal to cooperate will factor into any sentencing recommendations.
Now, if the only thing having a prayer of standing between you and a lethal injection is your password, sure, you’re not going to give it up. But that doesn’t mean you’re going to skate, either.
If the voters had a spine, they'd be putting every candidate for Congress on the spot to ask what s/he intends to do about Comey's power-grab trial balloon.
They’re still trying to operate under that assumption of legitimacy that they’ve long ago lost.
Of course, those on the left still grant it to them, the gov’t in general, because it’s part of their foundational belief system.
They even view corrupt practices like the IRS targeting with the same presumption of legitimacy - they wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t the right and just thing to do, now would they?
I would seriously think the 5th amendment would blatantly apply to this -
you CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE INCRIMINATING INFORMATION TO THE GOV’T.
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.