To Customer Support To Customer Support

Apple must help Feds unlock San Bernardino killer's iPhone – judge

  • 17 February 2016
  • 21 replies
  • 499 views
Jasper_The_Rasper
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
This exactly why backdoors are a double edged sword. The authorities need to be access some devices as and when needed to help prevent atrocities. The key has to be maybe on a case by case basis. We are all concerned about the privacy of our data obviously but surely if we have nothing to hide we hgave nothing to worry about - and I can understand and do agree with the argument about just what they collect and store etc but we have to find a happy medium somewhere.
 

FBI wants to brute-force PIN-protected encrypted mobile without it self-destructing

 
                                 


  17 Feb 2016 at 02:45, Darren Pauli Apple must assist the FBI in unlocking the passcode-protected encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters in California.
 
US magistrate Sheri Pym says Cupertino has to find a way to supply software that prevents the phone from automatically annihilating its user data when too many password attempts have been made.
 
The smartphone belonged to Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 coworkers on December 2. The couple died in a gun battle with police soon after.
 
Full Article

21 replies

R
Rank
Userlevel 7
Helping the FBI I agree to a extent to weed out these shooters and terrorists. However a happy media has to be agreed upon and case by case examined. As a society we must band together with law enforcement and help out.
nic
Userlevel 7
Badge +56
Here's Apple's response:
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I agree that they should not be forced to backdoor or weaken their encryption just for this one case because it then opens that back door for any of their phones.
Baldrick
Rank
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
Here's Apple's response:
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I agree that they should not be forced to backdoor or weaken their encryption just for this one case because it then opens that back door for any of their phones.
Completely agree with you on this, Nic.
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
Ssherjj
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +62
@ wrote:
Here's Apple's response:
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I agree that they should not be forced to backdoor or weaken their encryption just for this one case because it then opens that back door for any of their phones.
I also agree with Apples letter ...this is not fair for all iPhone users if this was implemented.
Windows Insider, iMac 2021 27 in i5 Retina 5, iMac OS Sonoma (14.3.1}, Security: iPads, W 10 & (VM:15), ALIENWARE 17R4, W10 Workstation, ALIENWARE 15 R6, W11, Webroot® SecureAnywhere™ Internet Security Complete (Android Samsung Galaxy Ultra Note 23, Webroot Beta Tester. Security
Jasper_The_Rasper
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
OK a question but bear in mind that I am pretty much in the middle of the argument for and against.
BUT if person is known to have or about to commit an antrocity and also have links to other members of a terrorist group should their smart phones be allowed to hacked to prevent further loss of life?
It is not easy I know, especially if it would allow access to innocent peoples devices but if it was possible to limit it to that single persons phone surely that should be allowed.
Baldrick
Rank
Userlevel 7
An interesting point ...which I suppose means that it boils down to exactly where does one draw the line...not an easy one to define.
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
nic
Userlevel 7
Badge +56
For me it falls into the same fallacy as the ticking time bomb used to justify torture. We might save a dozen people if we hacked into the terrorist's phones, but that's worth less to me than the privacy of the entire population of the world.
R
Rank
Userlevel 7
In my opinion their smart phones should be hacked in order to save lives. I undersand their would be some that are iinnocent but those indviduals can be weeded out. The botoom line is stop the crime from happening and arrest the criminal.
nic
Userlevel 7
Badge +56
But that will in turn cause other people to be killed by oppressive governments who hack the phones of dissidents and then execute them. So how many lives will be saved versus cost by this hack?
R
Rank
Userlevel 7
My question is how many lives will be lost if they don't hack this person whom is going to commit a crime or a terrorist attack??? If nothing is done people die and this person will continue to commit a crime one after another....so what's the answer than??
Jasper_The_Rasper
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
It is not easy to draw a line at all because there are good arguments on both sides.
If those terrorists had links to another who was going to commit something on the same scale as 9/11, that could be prevented as well as possibly a nation going to war,
 
We all value our privacy but there must a middle ground somewhere.
 
IF it can be done and limited to an individuals phone, possibly maybe by iPhones techinicians so the authorities had no access to the hack then go for it. 
From reading several articles about it, it strikes me that most of the arguments come from the hack being used by the authorities on anyone elses phones as well. BUT if that hack was kept out of their hands in some way if it was possible maybe that would be the way to go.
 
 
 
Baldrick
Rank
Userlevel 7
The problem is who does the hacking...patently many do not trust the FBI to just hack that phone...so perhaps the answer is an independent body, affiliated to none of the government agencies, that has the responsibilities for assessing the approrpiateness of the hack and then actually carrying out.
 
Not foolproof I know but perhaps better than nothing.
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
R
Rank
Userlevel 7
I have to agree with you Jasper there has to be a fine line drawn that
one can protect ones privacy as well as concentrate on hacking "only"
the criminal
Jasper_The_Rasper
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
@ wrote:
The problem is who does the hacking...patently many do not trust the FBI to just hack that phone...so perhaps the answer is an independent body, affiliated to none of the government agencies, that has the responsibilities for assessing the approrpiateness of the hack and then actually carrying out.
 
Not foolproof I know but perhaps better than nothing.
That is just it Baldrick, it is not foolproof at all but at some point it may have to be done and if it is, it will have to be totally independant of Governments. How though that will be another question.
Baldrick
Rank
Userlevel 7
Well, it will have to be an independant body so perhaps it could be set up as an affliate or a service under UN stewardship?
Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete Beta Tester v9.0.24.49, imaged by Macrium Reflect v7.2
Jasper_The_Rasper
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
@ wrote:
Well, it will have to be an independant body so perhaps it could be set up as an affliate or a service under UN stewardship?
And run by people who cannot be bought with the promise of vast amount of money.
R
Rank
Userlevel 7
The following article is a update on unlock San bernardino killer's ihone
************************************************************************************************************************************
 

Apple is using a straw man argument to fight the FBI.

By Mark Wilson
 
http://betanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/straw_man.jpg
Listen to Tim Cook and you’d be forgiven for thinking that Apple was standing up for the little guy, sticking up for the likes of you and I in fighting the FBI. The FBI, Apple would have you believe, wants Apple to break encryption, thereby weakening security for everyone. But that's not really the case at all.
The FBI has not asked for encryption to be broken; it wants access to data on the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, and it wants to do so by using the (as yet unknown) PIN that has been used to lock it. Get it wrong too many times and the device is wiped. The FBI wants custom firmware to be made available that would allow it to brute force the PIN. It's nothing to do with cracking encryption, but that's not what Apple wants you to believe. It's an exercise in misdirection and a classic straw man argument. The problem is, if the straw man goes up in flames, will Apple too?
 Tim Cook went as far as issuing a public letter explaining why Apple was refusing to comply with the court order that has been handed down. The word 'encryption' is used seven times in Tim Cook's letter, the word 'encrypt' once. You'd be forgiven for thinking that the FBI has asked for the magic keys that decrypt data, thereby meaning the same could be done for any iOS device out there -- but that's absolutely not the case.
 
full article here:
Ssherjj
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +62
Very interesting article ?
 
 
Thank you
Windows Insider, iMac 2021 27 in i5 Retina 5, iMac OS Sonoma (14.3.1}, Security: iPads, W 10 & (VM:15), ALIENWARE 17R4, W10 Workstation, ALIENWARE 15 R6, W11, Webroot® SecureAnywhere™ Internet Security Complete (Android Samsung Galaxy Ultra Note 23, Webroot Beta Tester. Security
Jasper_The_Rasper
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
Great article ?
Nemo
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +34
Here's an article that clearly sets out the issues involved in accessing the data on this iPhone without any hyperbole.
 
And one from arstechnica entitled Infinite Loop.
 
 
Ssherjj
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge +62
Thanks Nemo! Exc:Dellent article!
Windows Insider, iMac 2021 27 in i5 Retina 5, iMac OS Sonoma (14.3.1}, Security: iPads, W 10 & (VM:15), ALIENWARE 17R4, W10 Workstation, ALIENWARE 15 R6, W11, Webroot® SecureAnywhere™ Internet Security Complete (Android Samsung Galaxy Ultra Note 23, Webroot Beta Tester. Security

Reply


Terms & Conditions

© 2004 - Webroot Inc.

We have recently updated our Privacy Policies. We encourage you to read the full terms here.