5 ms·

“The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We simply want the chance, with a search warrant,

by and-can 10y ago

“The relief we seek is limited and its value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That’s it. “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land,” Comey continued. “I hope thoughtful people will take the time to understand that. Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t. But we can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead. “

vitd 10y ago
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  The government owned the iPhone in question.
  - rubyfan 10y ago
    "The government" is not one organization.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      That doesn't seem relevant unless there's a dispute over ownership, which there isn't.
  - lukifer 10y ago
    But it didn't own the software, which is still patented and copyrighted by Apple, and merely licensed to end users.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      So an EULA just protected people?
  - mentat 10y ago
    In what sense of ownership?
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Public funds purchased the phone. I'm not sure what you mean?
      - Taniwha 10y ago
        The phone is evidence in a police investigation, they didn't buy it, while its owners are dead surely it belongs to their hiers? or does that whole rule of law thing mean nothing
        uptown 10y ago
        The phone was a work phone issued by the San Bernardino Health Department, so no - the heirs of the killers didn't assume ownership of the phone. It was always the property of the San Bernardino Health Department.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-officials-have-access-to-the-terrorist-iphone/ http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-o...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - rubyfan 10y ago
        "public funds" is not a single shared bucket of loot that everyone puts into. In this case it was a county owned device. County governments are typically recognized incorporated organizations that have no real line of authority or connection with the federal government. So no, the FBI or federal doesn't have some ownership claim that makes it ok to break into. As others point out they have basically seized the device from its owner in the course of investigation.
  - ghostly_s 10y ago
    If the government org in question had followed iOS deployment best-practices, they would have already had sanctioned access to this phone.
  - smileysteve 10y ago
    Which is a bigger flag for mismanagement. If the phone had had device management software as most major companies provision, no hack would have been necessary.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Well reset it, and start downloading pictures of cats, what's the problem?
Spivak 10y ago
So if someone the FBI is interested in knew they were being targeted and used a strong, complex, long password which would be impossible to 'guess' even without the restrictions then how does > and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. even make sense when there isn't a force in the universe that can guess that password in 10 millennia. If they demand that restrictions like gated attempts and automatic wipes be removed, they're just pushing the industry to move to restrictions that can't be removed. Hell, if I was feeling really cheeky and worked for Apple, I would give the FBI their backdoor which allowed them access, but they have to provide the phone a proof of work worth at least $10 trillion. No this probably couldn't be made secure.
developer2 10y ago
The only way to accomplish the goal in the first paragraph is to execute the steps they "don't want to" do from the second paragraph. It's more than double-speak, it's pure bullshit.

by and-can 10y ago

vitd 10y ago

That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.

ikeboy 10y ago
The government owned the iPhone in question.
- rubyfan 10y ago
  "The government" is not one organization.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    That doesn't seem relevant unless there's a dispute over ownership, which there isn't.
- lukifer 10y ago
  But it didn't own the software, which is still patented and copyrighted by Apple, and merely licensed to end users.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    So an EULA just protected people?
- mentat 10y ago
  In what sense of ownership?
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Public funds purchased the phone. I'm not sure what you mean?
    - Taniwha 10y ago
      The phone is evidence in a police investigation, they didn't buy it, while its owners are dead surely it belongs to their hiers? or does that whole rule of law thing mean nothing
      - uptown 10y ago
        The phone was a work phone issued by the San Bernardino Health Department, so no - the heirs of the killers didn't assume ownership of the phone. It was always the property of the San Bernardino Health Department.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-officials-have-access-to-the-terrorist-iphone/ http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-o...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - rubyfan 10y ago
      "public funds" is not a single shared bucket of loot that everyone puts into. In this case it was a county owned device. County governments are typically recognized incorporated organizations that have no real line of authority or connection with the federal government. So no, the FBI or federal doesn't have some ownership claim that makes it ok to break into. As others point out they have basically seized the device from its owner in the course of investigation.
- ghostly_s 10y ago
  If the government org in question had followed iOS deployment best-practices, they would have already had sanctioned access to this phone.
- smileysteve 10y ago
  Which is a bigger flag for mismanagement. If the phone had had device management software as most major companies provision, no hack would have been necessary.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Well reset it, and start downloading pictures of cats, what's the problem?

Spivak 10y ago

So if someone the FBI is interested in knew they were being targeted and used a strong, complex, long password which would be impossible to 'guess' even without the restrictions then how does > and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. even make sense when there isn't a force in the universe that can guess that password in 10 millennia. If they demand that restrictions like gated attempts and automatic wipes be removed, they're just pushing the industry to move to restrictions that can't be removed. Hell, if I was feeling really cheeky and worked for Apple, I would give the FBI their backdoor which allowed them access, but they have to provide the phone a proof of work worth at least $10 trillion. No this probably couldn't be made secure.

developer2 10y ago

The only way to accomplish the goal in the first paragraph is to execute the steps they "don't want to" do from the second paragraph. It's more than double-speak, it's pure bullshit.