"After nearly six hours, the device cracked the code 3298 – and started beeping and lighting up the iPhone screen to signify a successful hack. With the code we were able to access all the data on the device, as well as change its passcode to one of our choosing. As each entry takes six seconds to input, an iPhone can be cracked within seconds ranging up to 17 hours."
Apple and FBI
5 of 5
Originally Posted by Anika Hanson:
“The phone is still more secure than a Windows or android phone. It took a third party from a foreign country to hack into it. It was not something straight forward that the FBI could do themselves from the outset.”
“The phone is still more secure than a Windows or android phone. It took a third party from a foreign country to hack into it. It was not something straight forward that the FBI could do themselves from the outset.”
Yes, because they are known for saying the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We only know what they tell us, I would not take that at a face value. What does this have to do with Windows and Android phones, BTW? I was not comparing.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“As I see it, what was proven here is that the phone isn't that secure after all. FBI can do it by themselves quietly from now on. And there's a solution out there for anybody. Unless this 3rd party was Apple themselves.”
“As I see it, what was proven here is that the phone isn't that secure after all. FBI can do it by themselves quietly from now on. And there's a solution out there for anybody. Unless this 3rd party was Apple themselves.”
I don't think it proves any such thing.
Given that it was only accessed after the FBI went to extraordinary lengths to get into the phone, I'd say it was actually pretty secure.
If this somehow now gets spun that the iPhone is comparatively insecure compared to other devices, that would be a complete misrepresentation.
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“"After nearly six hours, the device cracked the code 3298 – and started beeping and lighting up the iPhone screen to signify a successful hack. With the code we were able to access all the data on the device, as well as change its passcode to one of our choosing. As each entry takes six seconds to input, an iPhone can be cracked within seconds ranging up to 17 hours."”
“"After nearly six hours, the device cracked the code 3298 – and started beeping and lighting up the iPhone screen to signify a successful hack. With the code we were able to access all the data on the device, as well as change its passcode to one of our choosing. As each entry takes six seconds to input, an iPhone can be cracked within seconds ranging up to 17 hours."”
Yes but only if the phone is not set it erase itself after 10 incorrect password attempts. You are conveniently ignoring that fact.
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“If this somehow now gets spun that the iPhone is comparatively insecure compared to other devices, that would be a complete misrepresentation.”
“If this somehow now gets spun that the iPhone is comparatively insecure compared to other devices, that would be a complete misrepresentation.”
You people have chips on your shoulders. I repeat, I wrote "... that the phone isn't that secure after all". I did not write "that the phone isn't that secure as Android or Windows phones after all". They made it look like it is impossible to break into the phone. Apparently it is possible. Thus not as secure as believed.
I'm not sure anyone thought it was literally impossible to break into it.
Chip or no chip, I'm just disagreeing that "not impossible" is quite the same as anything implied by "isn't that secure after all".
Chip or no chip, I'm just disagreeing that "not impossible" is quite the same as anything implied by "isn't that secure after all".
Originally Posted by Anika Hanson:
“Yes but only if the phone is not set it erase itself after 10 incorrect password attempts. You are conveniently ignoring that fact.”
“Yes but only if the phone is not set it erase itself after 10 incorrect password attempts. You are conveniently ignoring that fact.”
I am quoting what was said, the jounalist possibly not knowing or choosing not to mention self erase settings.
I, for one, was not quoting anything differing from their story willy nilly. And lets face it, from the very beginning of all this, we were simply getting a story front.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...bi-james-comey
Sounds like they bought their hack at the same place the DailyMail bought theirs!
I bet they cant they ask the courts to force the NSA to hack the newer models for them.
Sounds like they bought their hack at the same place the DailyMail bought theirs!
I bet they cant they ask the courts to force the NSA to hack the newer models for them.
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...bi-james-comey
Sounds like they bought their hack at the same place the DailyMail bought theirs!
I bet they cant they ask the courts to force the NSA to hack the newer models for them.”
“https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...bi-james-comey
Sounds like they bought their hack at the same place the DailyMail bought theirs!
I bet they cant they ask the courts to force the NSA to hack the newer models for them.”
They are lying. Last week they were offering to hack into an iPhone 6.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...330-story.html
"The FBI has agreed to help prosecutors gain access to an iPhone 6 and an iPod that might hold evidence in an Arkansas murder trial, just days after the agency managed to hack an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terror attacks, a local prosecutor said Wednesday"
So now the FBI want a drug dealers phone unlocked, you see it starts with terrorists, and then why not do it for suspected drug dealers? and then suspected shoplifters, and then suspected motoring offences....
The stupid thing is... the man has already pleaded guilty. The FBI are not doing themselves any popularity favours here, if anything they are causing more and more people to want to protect their privacy and back the technology companies.
http://news.sky.com/story/1675431/fb...dealers-iphone
The stupid thing is... the man has already pleaded guilty. The FBI are not doing themselves any popularity favours here, if anything they are causing more and more people to want to protect their privacy and back the technology companies.
http://news.sky.com/story/1675431/fb...dealers-iphone
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“So now the FBI want a drug dealers phone unlocked, you see it starts with terrorists, and then why not do it for suspected drug dealers? and then suspected shoplifters, and then suspected motoring offences....
The stupid thing is... the man has already pleaded guilty. The FBI are not doing themselves any popularity favours here, if anything they are causing more and more people to want to protect their privacy and back the technology companies.
http://news.sky.com/story/1675431/fb...dealers-iphone”
“So now the FBI want a drug dealers phone unlocked, you see it starts with terrorists, and then why not do it for suspected drug dealers? and then suspected shoplifters, and then suspected motoring offences....
The stupid thing is... the man has already pleaded guilty. The FBI are not doing themselves any popularity favours here, if anything they are causing more and more people to want to protect their privacy and back the technology companies.
http://news.sky.com/story/1675431/fb...dealers-iphone”
Exactly right, goal posts moved right off the playing field
.I suppose those who have something against Apple will have some sort of excuse for the FBI (again).
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“So now the FBI want a drug dealers phone unlocked, you see it starts with terrorists, and then why not do it for suspected drug dealers? and then suspected shoplifters, and then suspected motoring offences....”
“So now the FBI want a drug dealers phone unlocked, you see it starts with terrorists, and then why not do it for suspected drug dealers? and then suspected shoplifters, and then suspected motoring offences....”
The FBI's application to compel Apple in the New York drugs case was filed 2 months before the San Bernardino killings happened.
Is that really what the whole debate on people's privacy is about?
For what its worth, do you also think the FBI should be able to install CCTV in everyone's homes? Presumably human lives are more important than whatever anyone gets up to in the privacy of their own home after all.
For what its worth, do you also think the FBI should be able to install CCTV in everyone's homes? Presumably human lives are more important than whatever anyone gets up to in the privacy of their own home after all.
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Is that really what the whole debate on people's privacy is about?
For what its worth, do you also think the FBI should be able to install CCTV in everyone's homes? Presumably human lives are more important than whatever anyone gets up to in the privacy of their own home after all.”
“Is that really what the whole debate on people's privacy is about?
For what its worth, do you also think the FBI should be able to install CCTV in everyone's homes? Presumably human lives are more important than whatever anyone gets up to in the privacy of their own home after all.”
Its the incompetency of law in enforcement that i'm more worried about!
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“For what it's worth I think human lives should be worth more than somebody's porn stash.”
“For what it's worth I think human lives should be worth more than somebody's porn stash.”
Being human is about fallibility though, learning from mistakes, having personal thoughts and feelings, being embarrassed about something, don't dehumanise people.
The security services can trace, follow, intercept as much as they want for anti-terrorist operations, and other US 'agencies' were likely to have been able to unlock the terrorist phone all along.
The notion of the FBI forcing a company to weaken security for everyone just seems wrong. There are other ways for the FBI to gather information without forcing weaker security on the world, surely the hundreds of other law enforcement agencies around the world are managing just fine.
Everybody has things that they would rather not 'let out' even our PM as been demonstrated this week. That's not an argument to go around weakening security everywhere, and if you weaken it so that the FBI can crack it, then criminals or data thieves stand a good chance too.
Originally Posted by Thine Wonk:
“Being human is about fallibility though, learning from mistakes, having personal thoughts and feelings, being embarrassed about something, don't dehumanise people.”
“Being human is about fallibility though, learning from mistakes, having personal thoughts and feelings, being embarrassed about something, don't dehumanise people.”
Some of them won't be able to learn, because they will be dead. I think there will be cases in the future when being able to react quickly will be a difference between life and death. That's where it's leading at the moment. If there could be laws that limit human rights in certain contexts (terrorism etc.), extending them to IT is only logical, IMO.
Originally Posted by whoever,hey:
“Its the incompetency of law in enforcement that i'm more worried about!”
“Its the incompetency of law in enforcement that i'm more worried about!”
I am not convinced that they are not playing with their cards close to their chest, they tell you what they want you to think. I don't think that FBI is a bunch of losers that have no clue about possibilities.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“I am not convinced that they are not playing with their cards close to their chest, they tell you what they want you to think. I don't think that FBI is a bunch of losers that have no clue about possibilities.”
“I am not convinced that they are not playing with their cards close to their chest, they tell you what they want you to think. I don't think that FBI is a bunch of losers that have no clue about possibilities.”
You didn't answer the question I asked you.
Do you think the FBI should be able to bug and install cameras in everyone's home?
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“You didn't answer the question I asked you.
Do you think the FBI should be able to bug and install cameras in everyone's home?”
“You didn't answer the question I asked you.
Do you think the FBI should be able to bug and install cameras in everyone's home?”
That's not the right analogy. That would be that they can come with a search warrant and have a look. That's what they tried to do. They were not let in, so they got a copy of the key to the flat. They did not get any cameras installed.
Fair enough, but only up to a point.
But what they are asking companies to do, is create encryption which is flawed - this potentially opens up everyone's private data to anyone who can crack that flawed encryption, with or without a warrant.
Also, if your argument is that 'saving lives' is paramount then would you not agree that, if it saved lives, then bugging everyone's home and installing cameras would be the way to go, without the potentially life threatening red tape of a warrant?
Or is your argument that the formality of a search warrant is more important than saving the lives of innocent children?
But what they are asking companies to do, is create encryption which is flawed - this potentially opens up everyone's private data to anyone who can crack that flawed encryption, with or without a warrant.
Also, if your argument is that 'saving lives' is paramount then would you not agree that, if it saved lives, then bugging everyone's home and installing cameras would be the way to go, without the potentially life threatening red tape of a warrant?
Or is your argument that the formality of a search warrant is more important than saving the lives of innocent children?
5 of 5
