Posted on 03/31/2016 10:20:28 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Holy shit, man. I... wow. You’ve spun yourself stupid.
The device was already locked/erased/bricked/scrambled/pick-your-word. The FBI admitted to attempting to unlock it, and it was erased. That’s what it does, it erases the contents of the phone by scrambling them and resetting the file table on the EEPROM. Do you understand basic abstraction in a computer system?
It didn’t matter if Apple did what you’re saying they were asked, the device was already bricked. Don’t you get that? Changing the number of tries or timing between tries wouldn’t have accomplished anything, the device was already useless. At that point, the ability to retrieve the data would require that they reproduce the cryptographic key required to unscramble the data on the user partition which would’ve required they use their IP to attempt to reverse the damage done. Since they’ve PUBLICLY stated, as per the articles I referenced, that they CANNOT HELP, this is all a moot point. There’s absolutely nothing they could’ve done to help, and being compelled to do so would’ve solved nothing.
Seriously man, read what we’re posting. You’re a braying jackass at this point who’s refusing to read the technical facts germane to this conversation. You’re just repeating “did you read the court filing?” The court filing is useless and a waste of time if you understand the basics of the device and software, which you have demonstrated you do not.
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
Catchy, mind if I use it. You guys are so damn clever.
Agree with both of you.
What has happened to FR? I would be inclined to blame it on trolls, but some of the anti-privacy, anti-Constitution crowd are long time posters.
Maybe everything has a shelf life and FR is past its expiration. Maybe most of the true conservatives have moved elsewhere? Maybe the Trump/Cruz wars have splintered us? idk
I dunno. I am just an old fashioned, garden variety rule of law type conservative. Some of the stuff I read here sounds like it was cut and paste from Slate. That’s my stance. Some don’t like it, I’m OK with that. It’s worked for a long time, see no reason to change it. I can tell you this though, there is a real determined core that wants to litigate Apple v FBI no matter what I try to talk about and evidently my opinion on the Constitution doesn’t matter because I am not a super secret code writer, just a guy who lives and earns a living on the web.
You and I are on the same page on this. Thanks for the great post.
At last, you accept what you are!
LIAR! I have posted both links to the Court Order and I have posted the Court Order in its entirety, as well as the pertinent sections. That makes you a liar. You have done neither.
The apple phone I believe is encrypted with a block AES-256 bit hardware S-box. Given the repeating opcodes and and addressing modes and other structures within a computers memory It shouldn't be to difficult if one has physical access to the phone ( or ssh wink wink nod nod say no more say no more ). A simple search will show that current research believes that AES-256 is less secure than AES-128.
Friends make arrangements for one time pads!
When I was in grad school and we had to give a monthly presentation of our work, when we didn't fully know and/or understand what we were talking about we called it our monthly stand-up, turn around and speak out your arse session. The profs just liked a good laugh!
Truth to me is that this event is indistinguishable from propaganda and we may know the truth in 20 to thirty years. Some of use may know sooner than others ;)
That's totally bogus. Reading the search results you find they all debunk that claim. The researchers point out that Grover's Algorithm applied to AES 256 would result in two AES 128 encryptions but that the hardware to do that simply doesn't exist and it's doubtful it ever will, while the Quantum hardware to apply it to AES 128 to convert it to two AES 64s does. The other point is the are talking about COMMUNICATIONS AES and linear encryption. The following is from a cryptographer forum of just a few months ago:
It shows there exists an attack that works on a weakened version of AES-192 and AES-256.The best attack on AES-256 is still brute force.
Maybe someday there will be an attack faster than brute force on AES-256 (all 14 rounds), but that hasn't been shown yet.
and they are still not discussing elliptical encryption techniques.
The reason that AES 128 is still used for communications in banking, financial, and even government uses is that it's still good enough and it's fast. AES 256 handshaking takes too damn long.
Friends make arrangements for one time pads!
Communications. . . again.
Swordmaker,
You might as well talk to the wall and expect a better conversation. People are so hell-bent on their hatred for Apple and blinded by their ignorance of the facts of this case and think that the federal government is actually looking out for us because this case is about “keeping the American public safe.”
I am really getting sick of what my beloved Free Republic is turning into.
Winston Smith—eventually he learned to love Big Brother.
What you write isn't the truth. You simply regurgitate whatever crap streams from Tim Cook's orifice.
Okay, but from what i've read about how they did it, I very much doubt that Apple can fix it with a software update, and I just don't see them doing a hardware update on an older version of phone. Why bother?
This does not conform to the facts.
It didn’t matter if Apple did what you’re saying they were asked, the device was already bricked. Don’t you get that?
No it was not. From where did you get this completely erroneous information? If you do not even know this basic fact, why am I even discussing this with you? You obviously are not up to speed on this issue.
Seriously man, read what we’re posting. You’re a braying jackass at this point who’s refusing to read the technical facts germane to this conversation.
The irony in this statement is highly amusing.
Once again, you demonstrate an inability to understand the responses you are given. My "Yeah? So?" response is to indicate that I know you can throw childish names, and so what are you going to do other than that?
You may not have noticed, but childish name calling really doesn't get you anywhere in these discussions. Most of us are old enough, or perhaps I should say "mature" enough not to be impressed by name calling.
That you have posted links, and that you may have posted the entire thing is irrelevant to the fact that you focus like a laser beam on the parts you wish to emphasize, and you completely ignore the parts that contradict the propaganda that you keep trying to circulate.
The Court Filing would have allowed Apple to maintain complete control over all software. You have been shown this many times, but you would rather do your chicken little dance and cheer-lead Apple's Hissy fit.
I have posted the entire text of the order. The parts YOU CLAIM ARE THERE, ARE NOT. I posted the text of the order, verbatim, and challenged you to point out where the words you claim existed in the order, yet you did not point them out, nor could ANYONE ELSE FIND THEM!
I highlighted the parts that were quite specific of what the order explicitly ordered Apple to do. . . but you NEVER pointed out what you claimed was there. For example your claim that "Apple could keep the iPhone" or that Apple could keep the results of their labors. Not one word of the Court order says one thing even closely similar to that effect.
I had my staff attorney search for your claimed words or even implied permissions for Apple to keep the evidence, or not to hand over the fruits of the order. . . and he said such was NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE ORDER and if anyone claimed such was in the order, that person would be completely delusional!
It seems to me that fits you to a "T"!
It is NOT irrelevant that I posted links, that I "may" have posted the entire thing—which is a LIE from you because I explicitly did at least three times, and referenced it with links many more times than that—because it directly REFUTES your lies. . . and your false and dis-information propaganda that you spread in every one of these threads.
The Court Filing would have allowed Apple to maintain complete control over all software. You have been shown this many times, but you would rather do your chicken little dance and cheer-lead Apple's Hissy fit.
The court filing has no force, ZERO, nothing. It is merely an argument, a protestation of one side in the dispute that has no weight and should be given no weight until the JUDGE gives it weight. YOU keep pounding that court filing, but the FBI's self-serving protestations of their intent means NOTHING until it is entered as a COURT ORDER SIGNED BY A JUDGE! Otherwise, it is just a PUFFERY which has ZERO proof behind it.
Much of the statements the FBI put in that Court Filing have been shown to have been ABSOLUTELY FALSE DECLARATIONS by the sworn testimony of the FBI's own director before Congress when he testified completely the opposite of what was in that Court Filing! That makes it perjury, as it was filed as sworn to be true. So either FBI Director Comey perjured himself before Congress, or the Court Filing was filed its perjured statements claiming to be facts. Which is it, Dio?
Most of us here respond to facts, a sign of maturity. You don't. You have reading comprehension problems and suffer from wishful thinking on what you do read. A sign of lack of mature abilities. In addition, you do not have even an inkling of the difference between a Court filing by a single party to a court and a Court Order actually signed by a judge, which shows an ignorance of concepts most mature people have grasped. All such things warrant trying to get your attention by using vocabulary and techniques more attuned to your apparent emotional age. Since that doesn't seem to work either, you must be totally delusional. . . mentally ill. That's sad.
Diogenes, once again you prove that TRUTH is irrelevant to you. You lie every time you post, regardless or what the truth is. You stated that I ignored what the actual court order said, and just posted out-of-context portions of the court order that backed my position, obfuscating the actual words, and don't post links or the actual words. That was the lie you posted.
Now, when I show you that I have posted links to the court order and even posted the verbatim court order in its entirety, YOU claim that is "irrelevant" to your claim that "Swordmaker did not ever post the actual words of the court order," and ignore the parts that allow Apple to keep the iPhone and software.
Where did you learn to lie so glibly like that? You lie with such ease the ability to lie like that must have been transferred to you in your mother's milk.
As I have said before, Diogenes, the seeker of an honest man from whom you adopted your Freepname, would be whirling like a dervish in his grave having you represent him on this forum.
My previous response is still appropriate, so I just reused it.
Apple would have had total control. All your spin does not change the fact that all their accusations were nothing but lies.
Deliberate lies meant to goad and fearmonger their armies of cultish followers.
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.