The Department of Justice has filed a motion to compel Apple to follow the FBI's orders.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/d...mply-with-fbi/
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/d...mply-with-fbi/
Apple and FBI
2 of 5
Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“The Department of Justice has filed a motion to compel Apple to follow the FBI's orders.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/d...mply-with-fbi/”
“The Department of Justice has filed a motion to compel Apple to follow the FBI's orders.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/d...mply-with-fbi/”
Well thats a turn up for the books, I wonder what the ramifications would be if Apple followed through with their requests.
Originally Posted by lightspeed2398:
“This is true, I can offer my perspective having worked in Civil Service security focusing formally on IT for a short term.
On the UK Government's scale of IL1-6 (being phased out) Blackberries are still very often used from IL3 and up because they offer a cheap way to meet the strict GCHQ/CESG guidelines.
The whole system is being reformed so that Official is replacing levels 1-3/4 which is up to about Confidential on the old system. The government is basically saying that departments operating than that should use similar security to a large enterprise. Anything up from that will be Secret/Top Secret for which I doubt many public network physical devices will be allowed. In fact looking at the guidelines Top Secret requires the use of a "bespoke architecture" for ICT Services. I do wonder how much use is made of the C&W managed Government network for stuff like that.”
“This is true, I can offer my perspective having worked in Civil Service security focusing formally on IT for a short term.
On the UK Government's scale of IL1-6 (being phased out) Blackberries are still very often used from IL3 and up because they offer a cheap way to meet the strict GCHQ/CESG guidelines.
The whole system is being reformed so that Official is replacing levels 1-3/4 which is up to about Confidential on the old system. The government is basically saying that departments operating than that should use similar security to a large enterprise. Anything up from that will be Secret/Top Secret for which I doubt many public network physical devices will be allowed. In fact looking at the guidelines Top Secret requires the use of a "bespoke architecture" for ICT Services. I do wonder how much use is made of the C&W managed Government network for stuff like that.”
My other half accesses information from work using a Blackberry, much of it is highly confidential or just below "secret level" as he puts it. The device won't work connected to any other wifi network, save the one where he works, it would rather use mobile data on the move. They are supposed to be recieving new Blackberrys in the next few weeks, believed to be the Priv along with a tablet, Windows 10 based. Its funny how derided some mobiles are when in fact they often offer the best possible security.
Originally Posted by Aye Up:
“My other half accesses information from work using a Blackberry, much of it is highly confidential or just below "secret level" as he puts it. The device won't work connected to any other wifi network, save the one where he works, it would rather use mobile data on the move. They are supposed to be recieving new Blackberrys in the next few weeks, believed to be the Priv along with a tablet, Windows 10 based. Its funny how derided some mobiles are when in fact they often offer the best possible security.”
“My other half accesses information from work using a Blackberry, much of it is highly confidential or just below "secret level" as he puts it. The device won't work connected to any other wifi network, save the one where he works, it would rather use mobile data on the move. They are supposed to be recieving new Blackberrys in the next few weeks, believed to be the Priv along with a tablet, Windows 10 based. Its funny how derided some mobiles are when in fact they often offer the best possible security.”
My work Blackberry won't do wifi or anything none work related once it's had the enterprise activation go through. When I was doing all this I made a rule that there was to be no external internet but the setting was never pushed or negotiated with our carrier but our new contractor decided to implement my outdated rule and now I can't check the bloody train times. Telling the help desk that I know the spirit of the rule because I decided it isn't enough haha.
We're also meant to be changing at some point because we want to go down a step in IL's to Windows Phone I believe. We did have a surface pro rollout but that's been given up on.
If the FBI are so keen to get the info, they should be the ones to try and gain access to the friggin phone. Who new to FBI were so useless?
Originally Posted by moox:
“Right, but even if you install that security suite, you won't get the level of security promised by an actual Blackberry OS device. Just as you won't if you install any competing solution onto a generic Android phone.
With their Priv they've put in special effort to ensure that the hardware is part of the security system, similar to Apple's attempts with the iPhone or Samsung's Knox. None of them would likely be approved as Obama's personal phone - he'd probably get a BBOS phone instead. If he went Android they'd probably get the NSA to sort out a specially hardened version
Don't forget that not every US government employee is looking at super top secret stuff on their phone - Knox/iOS/Blackberry (Android) will be perfectly fine for the rank and file”
“Right, but even if you install that security suite, you won't get the level of security promised by an actual Blackberry OS device. Just as you won't if you install any competing solution onto a generic Android phone.
With their Priv they've put in special effort to ensure that the hardware is part of the security system, similar to Apple's attempts with the iPhone or Samsung's Knox. None of them would likely be approved as Obama's personal phone - he'd probably get a BBOS phone instead. If he went Android they'd probably get the NSA to sort out a specially hardened version
Don't forget that not every US government employee is looking at super top secret stuff on their phone - Knox/iOS/Blackberry (Android) will be perfectly fine for the rank and file”
When the security suite is installed on an Android device it gives the same level of protection to that of the Priv.
What do you think they used as a starting base?
I agree Blackberry has went to some length to release a phone that can handle highly confidential routinely in respect of the Priv. It is still the same level of security on those where just the suite is installed. Enterprise and security have always been strong points for Blackberry, they work in partnership with Samsung developing Knox further and it complimenting their own suite.
http://www.androidcentral.com/us-dep...g-knox-devices
Knox supported devices began to be approved nearly 2 years ago by the DOD, I understand this has progressed to highly classified status, where DOD and Security agencies are using Samsung and Blackberry devices regularly. I also think Priv uses Knox as part of its package regarding security.
I know not every government employee will be looking at top secret information, yet they do insist on a basic level of strong security, most government agencies in the US and UK do. Most of the stuff my other half see's isn't top secret, just a bit below, yet the goverment and police insist on strong security that can withstand brute force attacks. If he enters his security code in wrongly 3 times he has to contact IT to unlock it, on other phones it would just lock for about 10 minutes.
I think we are both in agreement here, the Priv I have to say is a very strong product, probably the first Blackberry to actually be sought since the 9700.
Originally Posted by lightspeed2398:
“My work Blackberry won't do wifi or anything none work related once it's had the enterprise activation go through. When I was doing all this I made a rule that there was to be no external internet but the setting was never pushed or negotiated with our carrier but our new contractor decided to implement my outdated rule and now I can't check the bloody train times. Telling the help desk that I know the spirit of the rule because I decided it isn't enough haha.
We're also meant to be changing at some point because we want to go down a step in IL's to Windows Phone I believe. We did have a surface pro rollout but that's been given up on.”
“My work Blackberry won't do wifi or anything none work related once it's had the enterprise activation go through. When I was doing all this I made a rule that there was to be no external internet but the setting was never pushed or negotiated with our carrier but our new contractor decided to implement my outdated rule and now I can't check the bloody train times. Telling the help desk that I know the spirit of the rule because I decided it isn't enough haha.
We're also meant to be changing at some point because we want to go down a step in IL's to Windows Phone I believe. We did have a surface pro rollout but that's been given up on.”
He has access to PNC, local police databases, amongst two other things he can't tell me about
. He only uses it for work, given the device is personal issue he brings it home with him, yet his bloody emails come through 24/7 
. Apparently the new devices will reflect their shift pattern, when they "clock off" it will suspend emails to the device until they "clock on". Its a better way of doing it, although to be fair he doesn't have to much trouble switching the sodding thing off anyway
I seem to remember, I'm not sure if it was Jobs or Cook, saying they'd rather shut down or be carted out in boxes than be compelled to give away personal data to the government. I always wondered what would happen if that were actually tried...
The latest: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/...sword.1957246/
seems to be suggesting that the data would've been there if it'd been doing the iCloud backup. That's a very interesting point, and reinforces what I said about the security of the cloud vs. personal devices. It can be the most secure phone in the world, but if it's backing up to the cloud, you'd better not want to hide anything.
The latest: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/...sword.1957246/
seems to be suggesting that the data would've been there if it'd been doing the iCloud backup. That's a very interesting point, and reinforces what I said about the security of the cloud vs. personal devices. It can be the most secure phone in the world, but if it's backing up to the cloud, you'd better not want to hide anything.
http://www.imore.com/san-bernardino-...rnment-custody
San Bernardino shooter's iPhone Apple ID passcode was changed while in government custody via @iMore
So it seems that there was a simple way to access this information without breaking Apple's encryption. However the government has botched this (conveniently) and now need to break the encryption.
This will not end well.
San Bernardino shooter's iPhone Apple ID passcode was changed while in government custody via @iMore
So it seems that there was a simple way to access this information without breaking Apple's encryption. However the government has botched this (conveniently) and now need to break the encryption.
This will not end well.
How exactly do you use social engineering to find out a dead man's passcode?
That is a serious question, by the way, since presumably a "hacker" using social engineering to guess my passcode would use the same technique if they couldn't get the answer from me directly.
John McAfee is a total fruit loop these days.
Over indulgence of chemical compounds seems to have had a long term affect...
http://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john...es-last-stand/
One wonders if something like this happens again and the phone has fingerprint recognition then perhaps the cops are more likely to "persuade" someone to "volunteer" their fingerprint easier that forcing someone to give up a passcode they may have "forgotten".
Presumably a dead man's fingerprint will still work - maybe if you're planning to be naughty that's an option you shouldn't enable.
Presumably a dead man's fingerprint will still work - maybe if you're planning to be naughty that's an option you shouldn't enable.
Originally Posted by David_Stephens:
“One wonders if something like this happens again and the phone has fingerprint recognition then perhaps the cops are more likely to "persuade" someone to "volunteer" their fingerprint easier that forcing someone to give up a passcode they may have "forgotten".
Presumably a dead man's fingerprint will still work - maybe if you're planning to be naughty that's an option you shouldn't enable.”
“One wonders if something like this happens again and the phone has fingerprint recognition then perhaps the cops are more likely to "persuade" someone to "volunteer" their fingerprint easier that forcing someone to give up a passcode they may have "forgotten".
Presumably a dead man's fingerprint will still work - maybe if you're planning to be naughty that's an option you shouldn't enable.”
In American law under the constitution you can't be forced to give a password, but you can be forced to give your fingerprint.
Originally Posted by Inkblot:
“How exactly do you use social engineering to find out a dead man's passcode?
That is a serious question, by the way, since presumably a "hacker" using social engineering to guess my passcode would use the same technique if they couldn't get the answer from me directly.”
“How exactly do you use social engineering to find out a dead man's passcode?
That is a serious question, by the way, since presumably a "hacker" using social engineering to guess my passcode would use the same technique if they couldn't get the answer from me directly.”
Apple can decrypt the phone, but they refuse to. The reporter seemed to think that he meant social engineering a corpse, when I suspect what John Mcafee was referring to was going Kevin Mitnick at Apple.
Yes John Mcafee is maybe crackers, to what extent the jury is still out. Clearly still quite smart and capable in some circumstances.
I think Cook should show a good will and say 'Give us an order from a judge and the bloody phone and we will decrypt it for you' and not talk about software cancer and similar BS. If somebody is a serial killer they should have their rights removed, because they made a conscious decision to go against a society that guaranteed those rights.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“I think Cook should show a good will and say 'Give us an order from a judge and the bloody phone and we will decrypt it for you' and not talk about software cancer and similar BS. If somebody is a serial killer they should have their rights removed, because they made a conscious decision to go against a society that guaranteed those rights.”
“I think Cook should show a good will and say 'Give us an order from a judge and the bloody phone and we will decrypt it for you' and not talk about software cancer and similar BS. If somebody is a serial killer they should have their rights removed, because they made a conscious decision to go against a society that guaranteed those rights.”
No he can't, it would set a precedent, it has been inferred that the rest of silicon valley is behind Apple on this, potentially as an important test case.
Microsoft had a similar situation a few years back when US authorities wanted access to some data held on their databases in Ireland, this person was European. As a result they argued it was over reach on the part of the court as well. In effect they were trying to access the information of someone whom they had no legal basis in which to do so. I don't know what happened afterwards as it went quite, although I understand MS continued to resist, where as American authorities were leaning heavily on the Irish government.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“I think Cook should show a good will and say 'Give us an order from a judge and the bloody phone and we will decrypt it for you' and not talk about software cancer and similar BS. If somebody is a serial killer they should have their rights removed, because they made a conscious decision to go against a society that guaranteed those rights.”
“I think Cook should show a good will and say 'Give us an order from a judge and the bloody phone and we will decrypt it for you' and not talk about software cancer and similar BS. If somebody is a serial killer they should have their rights removed, because they made a conscious decision to go against a society that guaranteed those rights.”
So you're ok with serial killers? You might have a point there, but what if it's a human rights activist in North Korea or China or a gay rights activist in Russia, or a woman's rights activist in Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Once Apple roll over and decrypt (or build decryption into a future iOS) it's open season for everyone any government decides is a criminal.
Originally Posted by d123:
“So you're ok with serial killers? You might have a point there, but what if it's a human rights activist in North Korea or China or a gay rights activist in Russia, or a woman's rights activist in Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Once Apple roll over and decrypt (or build decryption into a future iOS) it's open season for everyone any government decides is a criminal.”
“So you're ok with serial killers? You might have a point there, but what if it's a human rights activist in North Korea or China or a gay rights activist in Russia, or a woman's rights activist in Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Once Apple roll over and decrypt (or build decryption into a future iOS) it's open season for everyone any government decides is a criminal.”
If it is an activist outside US local authorities would have no access to decryption, because it would be a service available from Apple with judge's order. For the midget in North Korea and other little dictators tough shit, no access.
The FBI should just have to take the L in this one.
Apple don't owe them anything. The fact there are 175 other cases of law enforcement wanting to decrypt a phone says it all. Once Apple do it once there is nothing to stop others asking a judge for Apple to decrypt.
Apple don't owe them anything. The fact there are 175 other cases of law enforcement wanting to decrypt a phone says it all. Once Apple do it once there is nothing to stop others asking a judge for Apple to decrypt.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“If it is an activist outside US local authorities would have no access to decryption, because it would be a service available from Apple with judge's order. For the midget in North Korea and other little dictators tough shit, no access.”
“If it is an activist outside US local authorities would have no access to decryption, because it would be a service available from Apple with judge's order. For the midget in North Korea and other little dictators tough shit, no access.”
So when China then threaten to prohibit the sale of the iPhone in China if they don't hand over the decryption program it's just tough shit for Apple? No further access to the Chinese market? And then Russia demand it, and then Iran demands it, and then...
The inclusion of any form of back door decryption program has far more ramifications to all manufacturers that just this one case you have decided Apple should just acquiesce to.
Originally Posted by d123:
“So when China then threaten to prohibit the sale of the iPhone in China if they don't hand over the decryption program it's just tough shit for Apple? No further access to the Chinese market? And then Russia demand it, and then Iran demands it, and then...
The inclusion of any form of back door decryption program has far more ramifications to all manufacturers that just this one case you have decided Apple should just acquiesce to.”
“So when China then threaten to prohibit the sale of the iPhone in China if they don't hand over the decryption program it's just tough shit for Apple? No further access to the Chinese market? And then Russia demand it, and then Iran demands it, and then...
The inclusion of any form of back door decryption program has far more ramifications to all manufacturers that just this one case you have decided Apple should just acquiesce to.”
This.
The FBI are trying to make it sound like it's just a one off and nothing will change but that's BS. The ramifications are huge and while its unfortunate that a killer's phone is locked that's just the way it is.
Originally Posted by d123:
“So when China then threaten to prohibit the sale of the iPhone in China if they don't hand over the decryption program it's just tough shit for Apple? No further access to the Chinese market? And then Russia demand it, and then Iran demands it, and then...
The inclusion of any form of back door decryption program has far more ramifications to all manufacturers that just this one case you have decided Apple should just acquiesce to.”
“So when China then threaten to prohibit the sale of the iPhone in China if they don't hand over the decryption program it's just tough shit for Apple? No further access to the Chinese market? And then Russia demand it, and then Iran demands it, and then...
The inclusion of any form of back door decryption program has far more ramifications to all manufacturers that just this one case you have decided Apple should just acquiesce to.”
You have made the case emphatically clear, furthering my earlier points.
It seems Apple as scored a small little victory in the battle of two American Goliaths.
http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-scor...-in-fbi-fight/
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“So it's not a cancerous software and worries about peoples' privacy, it's worries about profits.”
“So it's not a cancerous software and worries about peoples' privacy, it's worries about profits.”
You come to some strange conclusions, while arguably the end result for any capitalist society or company is profit, in this case it's more a matter of keeping their system as secure as possible and using that security as a selling point.
How many people, companies or governments would use an OS that was inherently insecure?
Tell me, I could probably guess, but what is your favourite mobile operating system?
2 of 5
