The Natural Outcome Of The Encryption Wars In The U.S.

Mugato

Muh Feelz!
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
933
I read and hear this slippery slope stuff about pretty much everything "If you let a woman have a job, soon penises will be illegal." or "If you elect somebody that isn't like me it will be illegal to be like me in no time."

I don't even know if this is a slippery slope. We may have long gone over the cliff way back in 1948 when our own governments established our status as the enemy. Maybe even before that with anti-communist witch hunts, privacy was never a barrier then. A few words of fabrication and an enemy of the state's life was thrown open to scrutiny both private and public. Maybe the only difference now is that it might actually happen to "us" as opposed to just people that are pointed out as enemies to be destroyed.

In this case the information the authorities want is from the dead, people who can't be coerced (no matter how long you submerge them) into giving up their rights. Thus giving up their contacts and friends in order to extend the witch hunt. The only real difference is that now a subversive government, can wield it's weaponry against much larger numbers of people much faster. Privacy has never been an issue during a good ol' witch hunt, it's an illusion, or it was. It's only now that we can make it next to impossible for our enemies to use our own information to hurt us.

It's just a thought, but privacy is really a new thing. These obstacles to authority are new. Maybe this is a slippery slope we're climbing?

Mentally SICK. According to you, this was all a witch hunt? I'm guessing the SB shootings didn't take place then? Fabricated like 9/11 and the moon landing? Absolutely speechless right now. You've given UncleCreepyFoolgle a run for the money with the most tasteless post I've seen short of someone praising these monsters.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
632
There are some things that are private between the people communicating. The government is trying to protect their secrets for national security. What about our individual security and privacy? I have nothing to hide, but I'm not giving up my privacy for the sake of the Motherland, Comrade.
View attachment 358

The problem with everyone talking about how they have nothing to hide is... yes.. we all do. Otherwise starting listing your sexual preferences, dont wear clothes at all, videotape yourself 24/7, including taking a dump and spankin the monkey, stop talking to your friends about someone and just tell people on a daily basis to their face what you honestly think of them, dont hold back, tell your boss what you think of him....etc. etc..

There is a reason you should never..EVER.. talk to the police/feds if you are arrested or questioned. Anything you say... ANYTHING.. can be used against you in a court of law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakk
like this

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,634
The problem with everyone talking about how they have nothing to hide is... yes.. we all do. Otherwise starting listing your sexual preferences, dont wear clothes at all, videotape yourself 24/7, including taking a dump and spankin the monkey, stop talking to your friends about someone and just tell people on a daily basis to their face what you honestly think of them, dont hold back, tell your boss what you think of him....etc. etc..

There is a reason you should never..EVER.. talk to the police/feds if you are arrested or questioned. Anything you say... ANYTHING.. can be used against you in a court of law.

I don't have to hide that. If you want to look, take a look. I just like my privacy. So, I shut my curtains at night. I close the door to take a shit. But, if the Director of the FBI really wanted to watch me spank it, I wouldn't let him. Privacy. Nothing to hide - I like chicks, I spank it, I've done it doggy style last week... But, I like my privacy. He can either take my word for it or not. He can't watch.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
No, my point is that you can't legislate math. You can pass a law saying 2+2=5, but math doesn't give a fuck what law you pass. 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact, there is no room for negotiation. Encryption algorithms are just [exceptionally complicated] math. Furthermore these encryption routines are already freely available and public knowledge. The genie is already out of the bottle. Want an example? Here you go https://engineering.purdue.edu/kak/compsec/NewLectures/Lecture8.pdf




In terms of this, what if I as a Norwegian citizen personally write a formula and give it away (not as a company, just free for anyone to use)? What if an American uses it on his own to encrypt his items? You have a right to the 5th to not witness against yourself. This has been tried in the courts in the past (see: Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Applies to Act of Decrypting Data).



But then you have to keep this in mind or you will likely be involved in some legislation yourself.


http://export.gov/webinars/eg_main_046622.asp
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
No, my point is that you can't legislate math. You can pass a law saying 2+2=5, but math doesn't give a fuck what law you pass. 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact, there is no room for negotiation. Encryption algorithms are just [exceptionally complicated] math. Furthermore these encryption routines are already freely available and public knowledge. The genie is already out of the bottle. Want an example? Here you go https://engineering.purdue.edu/kak/compsec/NewLectures/Lecture8.pdf




In terms of this, what if I as a Norwegian citizen personally write a formula and give it away (not as a company, just free for anyone to use)? What if an American uses it on his own to encrypt his items? You have a right to the 5th to not witness against yourself. This has been tried in the courts in the past (see: Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Applies to Act of Decrypting Data).

That's all good. But when you use a company or government owned phone as in this case, your rights regards the disposition of that phone start looking slim, and they get slimmer when your dead :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
632
I don't have to hide that. If you want to look, take a look. I just like my privacy. So, I shut my curtains at night. I close the door to take a shit. But, if the Director of the FBI really wanted to watch me spank it, I wouldn't let him. Privacy. Nothing to hide - I like chicks, I spank it, I've done it doggy style last week... But, I like my privacy. He can either take my word for it or not. He can't watch.

He cant watch? But you have nothing to hide. Open your curtains... put the toilet on your front porch...spank it in the street while watching balloon porn! You got nothing to hide! let him look... he may learn something...lol
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Geez, all this stuff just to read Hillary's email,

What this article doesn't seem to even ..........when the "back door" code for them gets leaked? Notice I said "when" and not "if". I'm not paranoid, but we must assume that IF it IS possible, then it WILL happen someday... its just a matter of when.


Umm, the real secrets are kept on systems that are physically isolated. There is no connection. It's impossible without a connection to hack a top secret system from the internet cause they don't have any common equipment.

So your worry is pretty slim chance of coming true in any case. now your bad guy has to have access to the "one ring", and he has to have a clearance to the other networks, and then, now that they follow all us cleared guys all the time at work and at home, he has to avoid creating any suspicion online. Not impossible, just not probable.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The keys do have to exist for people to use the RSA tokens, but a large list of keys does not have to exist.

I was trying to make the point that if there is a known way to break a system, it exposes the system to unauthorized users breaking the system in the same way.



From my understanding, the unlocking of the phone is not what is at issue. The FBI would like a signed version of iOS that removes passphrase entry protections where the phone could be wiped after 10 tries and an artificial delay between tries. They would also like to be able to use a computer to automatically enter passphrases. The would like this version of iOS installed onto the subject phone.

Risky Business #399 -- Apple vs the Government of the United States | Risky Business


This is what they are asking for since Apple refused to just unlock the phone and extract the data, which was the courts first demand. Now they want the phone installed with a customer version so they can brute force it. Apple is making it harder for themselves and riskier for us because in the beginning the demand was not unreasonable.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The problem with everyone talking about how they have nothing to hide is... yes.. we all do. Otherwise starting listing your sexual preferences, dont wear clothes at all, videotape yourself 24/7, including taking a dump and spankin the monkey, stop talking to your friends about someone and just tell people on a daily basis to their face what you honestly think of them, dont hold back, tell your boss what you think of him....etc. etc..

There is a reason you should never..EVER.. talk to the police/feds if you are arrested or questioned. Anything you say... ANYTHING.. can be used against you in a court of law.

So, I come from a city where my graduation class was 60 kids. The Cops kid was in my class. We called the cop by his first name, he went to church with us. Not everyone's reality and experience with the cops is the same. Perhaps your advice is sound for many people, but not for all because a few days after I treat him like a leper I'll be bowling with him and having a brew.

Feel me?
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
So, I come from a city where my graduation class was 60 kids. The Cops kid was in my class. We called the cop by his first name, he went to church with us. Not everyone's reality and experience with the cops is the same. Perhaps your advice is sound for many people, but not for all because a few days after I treat him like a leper I'll be bowling with him and having a brew.

Feel me?

I know some great cops. Great people. Great honest hard working deep in faith kind people.

Doesn't mean I have to trust all those in law enforcement.

You would think that I would be an anarchist by the way I throw profanities at our intelligence agencies. Thing is I'm not. I believe in order. I believe in peace. But I don't believe in giving others unlimited power to protect me. Not everyone in government has a halo either piper. It's nice to think that but politicians are self serving. It's a matter of fact. They have their own goals and agendas and act like a bunch of fucking children when they don't get their way. They seem to forget that they aren't there to serve republicans, or capitalist, or socialist ,or democrats. They are there to serve and represent everybody. And that hasn't happened in a long long time.

That is why I don't believe in handing over absolute power. It has too much potential for abuse.
 

KENNYB

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
3,147
This is what they are asking for since Apple refused to just unlock the phone and extract the data, which was the courts first demand. Now they want the phone installed with a customer version so they can brute force it. Apple is making it harder for themselves and riskier for us because in the beginning the demand was not unreasonable.

LOL... Apple just refused to unlock the phone and extract the data? Apple doesn't have a tool that can unlock that phone. IIRC, Apple hasn't claimed that creating such a tool is impossible. If you have proof post it. If you have any linkbait that states that Apple already has a custom image that can turn off X amount of security protections post that too. Now back on topic.

The FBI's assertion that the process would never leave Apple is ridiculous. Any evidence gained from the phone could not be used in court unless Apple released its tool to 3rd parties for validation. Any competent defense attorney would surely ask for a copy for independent review. Once that is outside of Apple it's only a matter of time before every bad actor has a copy.

But I'm just some guy on the internet that doesn't have any experience in forensics. But this guy Jonathan Zdziarski seems pretty knowledgeable.
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
I think it bears repeating (quite frequently it seems) that Apple is not being asked to decrypt this iPhone, that is not part of the order/request from the DOJ/FBI/Courts - they're being asked to comply and provide a tool (the custom firmware) which simply bypasses the typical lockout/wipe procedure that happens when a passcode is entered incorrectly 10 times, that's it.

I still stand with Apple in their stance, however, and even in spite of this situation having absolutely nothing to do with encryption at all (because that's not what Apple is being asked to do) I do firmly believe that this type of action from the FBI/DOJ/Courts sets yet another dangerous precedent overall with the way they're using the All Writs Act to just make shit up whenever they feel they can provide justification for it.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I know some great cops. Great people. Great honest hard working deep in faith kind people.

Doesn't mean I have to trust all those in law enforcement.

You would think that I would be an anarchist by the way I throw profanities at our intelligence agencies. Thing is I'm not. I believe in order. I believe in peace. But I don't believe in giving others unlimited power to protect me. Not everyone in government has a halo either piper. It's nice to think that but politicians are self serving. It's a matter of fact. They have their own goals and agendas and act like a bunch of fucking children when they don't get their way. They seem to forget that they aren't there to serve republicans, or capitalist, or socialist ,or democrats. They are there to serve and represent everybody. And that hasn't happened in a long long time.

That is why I don't believe in handing over absolute power. It has too much potential for abuse.


Well that's terrific but the NSA and the other Intelligence Agencies are far from having absolute power. So many of you have this Hollywood concept in your heads about them being able to do whatever they want. too much Borne Identity and Enemy of the State I guess. They have extremely strict processes they must follow. I've said it before, William Binney is more of the norm then he is a defect. All you have to do to get a pretty clear indication of what most NSA people are like is to watch those videos with Binney and then picture this guy as he must have been on the job. Then take one more step, picture him as one of many all with very similar beliefs and ethics.

Following 9/11 President Bush called over the Director of the NSA and asked him if he thought their was more we could do. The best way to explain it is, there is a line that marks how far the NSA would currently go, there was a line that marked how far they could go, and a line that marked how far they could not go. The president was asking, how much farther can you go between what you do now, and what you can do. The President was asking the NSA to push it right to the edge and it was farther than the NSA had gone in a very long time. Far enough that people like Binney were confused and willing to challenge what they thought was going on because as they saw it, the NSA was overstepping their own line and they did not know the President had asked and authorized them to redraw that line.

Now not everyone is going to see this whole thing the same way. We have been around and around it enough to know this. But this wasn't an exercise in unlimited power. To claim that is an overstatement of the facts.

As for the halos, you are right, that's why the lines are there to begin with.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
LOL... Apple just refused to unlock the phone and extract the data? Apple doesn't have a tool that can unlock that phone. IIRC, Apple hasn't claimed that creating such a tool is impossible. If you have proof post it. If you have any linkbait that states that Apple already has a custom image that can turn off X amount of security protections post that too. Now back on topic.

The FBI's assertion that the process would never leave Apple is ridiculous. Any evidence gained from the phone could not be used in court unless Apple released its tool to 3rd parties for validation. Any competent defense attorney would surely ask for a copy for independent review. Once that is outside of Apple it's only a matter of time before every bad actor has a copy.

But I'm just some guy on the internet that doesn't have any experience in forensics. But this guy Jonathan Zdziarski seems pretty knowledgeable.

Ahh, but they do.

I said earlier that it's easy to get all these cases mixed up, there is one that is a "sealed" case so we don't know what's happening in that one. There is this case in New York under Judge Orenstein. The Judge was debating whether to order Apple to unlock that phone and he has expressed a concern that, in that case, the All Writs Act may be an over reach of his judicial authority. The phone is an iPhone and the OS is iOS7 and can be unlocked because Apple still retains the keys for that version of iOS.
Apple tells judge it's "impossible" to unlock a device running iOS 8 or higher


This is the actual Court document containing Apple's reply.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Apple_Brief_10192015.pdf

From this brief I pulled this for you;
For devices running iOS 8 or higher, Apple would not have the technical ability to do what the government requests — take possession of a password protected device from the government and extract unencrypted user data from that device for the government.

But this is what I find as the most important and telling part of this document;

CONCLUSION
The questions this Court raised in its Memorandum and Order are both vital and timely. Application of the All Writs Act in this case imposes a real burden on Apple—commercial and reputational. Should the Court determine that the law does not support the government’s reliance on the All Writs Act for the reasons the Court identified, Apple respectfully requests that the Court deny the government’s application for an order requiring Apple to perform extraction services on the Apple-manufactured device in the government’s custody.

In short, Apple is holding out because this Judge has given them hope that they will be able to refuse all future requests if Judge Orenstein from New York rules that the All Writs Act can't be used to compel Apple to unlock the phones. Apple will save time and money on these requests, their reputation will stand not only as a company that's a rgeat defender but also that they have a product that lives up to their claims. I believe Apple is pulling every dodge they can in California hoping for a win in New York regarding the All Writs Act.

The case concerning a phone owned by San Bernadino County, an iPhone 5C with iOS8.
As for Apple's ability to unlock the phone, I call on this court document.
http://documents.latimes.com/doj-motion-apple-comply-fbi/
And call your attention to line 24, where Apple basically says, "We know we told you before that we can't unlock a phone running iOS8 or above, but yes, we actually can." So Apple has indeed told the Court that they have the technical ability to unlock the phone.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I think it bears repeating (quite frequently it seems) that Apple is not being asked to decrypt this iPhone, that is not part of the order/request from the DOJ/FBI/Courts - they're being asked to comply and provide a tool (the custom firmware) which simply bypasses the typical lockout/wipe procedure that happens when a passcode is entered incorrectly 10 times, that's it.

I still stand with Apple in their stance, however, and even in spite of this situation having absolutely nothing to do with encryption at all (because that's not what Apple is being asked to do) I do firmly believe that this type of action from the FBI/DOJ/Courts sets yet another dangerous precedent overall with the way they're using the All Writs Act to just make shit up whenever they feel they can provide justification for it.

Well, the All Writs Act is pretty broad and it basically says the government can force companies to help them do things for them when they can't do it themselves and need the company's help. They can't unlock this phone, they have every justification in the world to want to open it. Only Apple can do it, Apple has said they have the technical ability to do it, but they don't want to. The government is insisting they do it anyway under the All Writs Act and in this case it comes down to one real issue. Will it be too burdensome to the company. Apple says it will, the FBI claims it won't. It doesn't help Apple's case that Tim Cook is throwing up all the smoke he can dig up making every unsubstantiated claim he can think of like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

I saw some news statements earlier and can't find them now, basically the FBI is saying all they really care about is the data, and they don't even need the phone back and they don't need any software or the modified OS from Apple if they can just get the data.
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
Apple has said they might be able to do it in this instance because it's an iPhone 5C but until they get their hands and hardware on it for forensics to find out what the current condition of the device happens to be they can't (and haven't) say with any level of absolute certainty that yes they can actually do what's being requested/ordered of them.

The All Writs Act is a problem when it and any such law can be pulled out as a Hail Mary type tool where the courts can order any individual or entity (as Apple is) to do anything they choose as long as they - meaning the court issuing the order - can justify doing so in a manner which they (again meaning the court) consider reasonable and there's really no type of oversight in the entire process.

Make up laws at will to justify any given situation, that's some pretty extreme stuff right there.

For all those people that are worried about terrorists "winning" don't worry, they read Sun-Tzu apparently because this was all over before it ever even began because they've managed to do precisely whatever they claim to have wanted in the first place.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Apple has said they might be able to do it in this instance because it's an iPhone 5C but until they get their hands and hardware on it for forensics to find out what the current condition of the device happens to be they can't (and haven't) say with any level of absolute certainty that yes they can actually do what's being requested/ordered of them.

The All Writs Act is a problem when it and any such law can be pulled out as a Hail Mary type tool where the courts can order any individual or entity (as Apple is) to do anything they choose as long as they - meaning the court issuing the order - can justify doing so in a manner which they (again meaning the court) consider reasonable and there's really no type of oversight in the entire process.

Make up laws at will to justify any given situation, that's some pretty extreme stuff right there.

For all those people that are worried about terrorists "winning" don't worry, they read Sun-Tzu apparently because this was all over before it ever even began because they've managed to do precisely whatever they claim to have wanted in the first place.
That is not what they told the government here;
http://documents.latimes.com/doj-motion-apple-comply-fbi/
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
That is not what they told the government here;
http://documents.latimes.com/doj-motion-apple-comply-fbi/

The All Writs Act isn't a Hail Mary. It's a Law that's specific purpose is to compel a Company or Person to provide assistance when they have a reasonable need for it. It's up to the judge to determine each case and whether the Law is being properly applied, as in the New York case being presided by judge Orenstein. It would seem the Judge in California, Prym, has no issue with it's applicability in this case.

As for the terrorists winning. The object of terrorism is to achieve their political goals through the use of terror. I haven't seen the USA, or it's principles being destroyed yet. You seem to see all this as the destruction of privacy and freedom. I see it as the never ending struggle that our system was built to allow.

All these court cases are not the end, they are symptoms of process working as designed. It's supposed to be a continuously evolving and challenging thing. Not a rock set in stone. Court cases like this are good, they are healthy, we need them so that we can continue to redefine what we need as our needs change.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
As for the terrorists winning. The object of terrorism is to achieve their political goals through the use of terror. I haven't seen the USA, or it's principles being destroyed yet. You seem to see all this as the destruction of privacy and freedom. I see it as the never ending struggle that our system was built to allow.

Then you're simply not paying attention.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Then you're simply not paying attention.

Let's see who's not paying attention. What is the most intrusive and all encompassing government surveillance program ever developed and who is it targeted against?
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
I'm sure I'll get myself in trouble here for this but off the top of my head I'd say it's the program that William Binney started at the NSA in the 1980s called Stellar Wind which was originally targeted towards specific individuals or entities but then after 2001 happened and Bush created that "Just get it fucking done" Executive Order which the NSA decided to use as a justification for their infamous "grab it all" program which evolved into X-KEYSCORE and other subsidiary/tertiary programs.

As for targeting, well, I'm happy to say this post (and yours, and others) will live on for at least the next 100 years in the Bluffdale datacenter still under construction (but fully operational as of March 2014 to various degrees). ;)
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Actually no, it's this one.
‘Insider Threat’ Program: Hundred Thousand Pentagon Personnel Under Total Surveillance

As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has previously described, the system of “continuous evaluation” is designed to monitor “electronic behavior on the job as well as off the job.”

Where you and many other buy into the idea that X-Keystore and other programs were used to track Americans, the fact is, they are not specifically used for that purpose. And the NSA does not target US Persons without a real legal reason to do so. And I know people who work at Bluffdale and I understand how someone who already believes that these new data capture capabilities the NSA developed over the last few decades would also believe that data center was needed for all us American's stuff. The NSA applies those techniques and collects that data on the rest of the world so if BluffDale was needed to house US Persons' data, where is the megolopolous that would have needed to be built to hold all the rest of the worlds shit?

As for our posts here living on, it's fuck all worse than you realize. I'm your digital "Typhoid Mary".
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
100,000+ Federal employees that work in fields and areas and facilities that basically are already under surveillance 24/7, that sure is a redundancy that doesn't need to exist. If William Binney says the NSA has been targeting everyone with what became of his creation I have zero reason to believe he's being untruthful and he sure as hell knows a lot more about that stuff than anyone around these parts does. As for the "legal reason to do so" BS that went out the window with Bush's Executive Order and is still being questioned to this day.

But some things just can't be discussed in a public forum. Well, at least not for another 47 years. ;)
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
100,000+ Federal employees that work in fields and areas and facilities that basically are already under surveillance 24/7, that sure is a redundancy that doesn't need to exist. If William Binney says the NSA has been targeting everyone with what became of his creation I have zero reason to believe he's being untruthful and he sure as hell knows a lot more about that stuff than anyone around these parts does. As for the "legal reason to do so" BS that went out the window with Bush's Executive Order and is still being questioned to this day.

But some things just can't be discussed in a public forum. Well, at least not for another 47 years. ;)


Now read again, 100,000+ employees being individually tracked not just at work, at home, their financial records medical records, social media, all online activity at work, and at home.

The programs still running, they just don't have the providers deliver them the data, they have another way to do it now, but it's still there and the data is still in that database.

Except that William Binney wasn't read onto and cleared for that program which means he didn't recieve the briefing one always get's when they get read onto a new program. You get briefed, you get to have the justification, and the authority for the program explained to you which includes the legal authority behind it. Because Binney wasn't part of that program, he didn't get read on, he didn't get this info. And that's how it works in that world.

No you might be able to just gloss this over in your own mind, justify it for yourself that "they deserve it". But don't miss out on what it is. It's the most complete surveillance program ever developed, it's not a secret, and it targets law abiding citizens of the USA that are sworn to defend the nation. It's State Department, Legislature, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen. It's Government Civilian workers and employees of Defense Contractors. And no one has said if they will drop them from this program should they decide to leave and no longer have an active clearance with access.

And in 20 years, after a generation of employees have lived the majority of their lives under this program, will you ever see another William Binney or Ed Snowden again? When they decide this program was good for "all of us", it will be good for all the rest, will any of them raise a stink? Where will you get your next whistleblower from then?
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
And in 20 years, after a generation of employees have lived the majority of their lives under this program, will you ever see another William Binney or Ed Snowden again? When they decide this program was good for "all of us", it will be good for all the rest, will any of them raise a stink? Where will you get your next whistleblower from then?
Is this the same group that leaked all that information on all classified employees about a year ago? Interestingly I haven't really heard about any fallout from the incident. Also, it almost seems like you are railing against government spying -- or are you trying to say that because a bunch of DoD employees have little privacy, nobody else should have any either?
 

undertheradar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
1,792
Umm, the real secrets are kept on systems that are physically isolated. There is no connection. It's impossible without a connection to hack a top secret system from the internet cause they don't have any common equipment.

So your worry is pretty slim chance of coming true in any case. now your bad guy has to have access to the "one ring", and he has to have a clearance to the other networks, and then, now that they follow all us cleared guys all the time at work and at home, he has to avoid creating any suspicion online. Not impossible, just not probable.

In order to use a "back-door key", the agency would have to gain access to the phone somehow. Other than physically obtaining the phone, the next best method would be via a data connection. So at some point, that physically isolated code would have to be connected to the internet. Also, if code that powerful were to exist, the will of other nations to obtain it (or destroy it) would be pretty high. Getting the information via the "old fashioned way" wouldn't be out of the question. Or, another Snowden could make a copy and distribute it. Not to mention, there would have to be copies somewhere... at Apple (if they are to develop it in the first place), and at backup locations for redundancy.

While I don't believe anyone without physical access to the system would easily be able to obtain the information, I do believe an employee with outside backing would be able to obtain the information. And who might want this information? Well... China, Russia, Iran... and if these countries want it, then you can believe other countries like Germany, France, UK, and so on will want it just to "keep up".

I think the fact that there already may be a "back-door" (if there really is already or not seems up for debate) is somewhat alarming. I bet that if it exists, the Chinese are already working on cracking that one.
 

undertheradar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
1,792
Is this the same group that leaked all that information on all classified employees about a year ago? Interestingly I haven't really heard about any fallout from the incident. Also, it almost seems like you are railing against government spying -- or are you trying to say that because a bunch of DoD employees have little privacy, nobody else should have any either?

You aren't going to see the fallout at the public level. The information doesn't have anything to do with say, your internet gaming habits or weekly grocery trips. The fallout is at the national security and military level where names, dates, operations, targets, outcomes and agendas are now public. It tarnishes the reputations of our ambassadors and representatives in other countries and has alerted the world to the methods of the NSA to gather information, which allows our enemies to counter those methods. Most of the fallout that we can currently quantify is in the tech industry, where fears that the US government may have access to information handled through products by Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, etc... have caused foreign customers to look elsewhere.

I would also keep in mind that Snowden simply released DETAILS and INFORMATION ABOUT what was really going on in the NSA. What if he had (or someone like him will) actually provided the tools (as in, software code) that could cause the damage. If a "back-door pass" were to be made public, the damage inflicted would be far greater than any potential terrorist activity that might have been prevented by the government's use of the tools. I think that should be the greater concern: creation of these tools may help national security in one way if used by our government, but if those with malicious intent were to gain access; our great tools could become greater weapons.

Snowden fallout still echoes across cyber industry

David Ignatius: Fallout from Snowden’s sharing of NSA secrets

The Snowden Fallout: Two Years Later

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/b...rting-bottom-line-of-tech-companies.html?_r=0
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Is this the same group that leaked all that information on all classified employees about a year ago? Interestingly I haven't really heard about any fallout from the incident. Also, it almost seems like you are railing against government spying -- or are you trying to say that because a bunch of DoD employees have little privacy, nobody else should have any either?

EDITED to try and reduce the size of the book:

Doc, what I am trying to say is that after of few years of living without any privacy, worrying about protecting American's privacy might not look like such a shiny ideal anymore.

Take it to a more personal level. They have stripped me of my privacy rights at work and at home. I'm not a bad guy, I follow all the rules. I've served in the Army and been to war zones and risked my ass and my family's future.

If you don't care about me, why should I care about you? And even if the ideals still mean something to me now, will they in ten or twenty years? Where will you get your next William Binney from then?
 
Last edited:

KENNYB

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
3,147
EDITED to try and reduce the size of the book:

Doc, what I am trying to say is that after of few years of living without any privacy, worrying about protecting American's privacy might not look like such a shiny ideal anymore.

Take it to a more personal level. They have stripped me of my privacy rights at work and at home. I'm not a bad guy, I follow all the rules. I've served in the Army and been to war zones and risked my ass and my family's future.

If you don't care about me, why should I care about you? And even if the ideals still mean something to me now, will they in ten or twenty years? Where will you get your next William Binney from then?

I love the legalese in that document you posted.
Look at page 2 lines 14-15. For any evidence extracted from that device wouldn't Apple have to disclose how it lowered the operating systems' defenses to allow an unlimited number of unlock attempts? Wouldn't the defense team ask for an independent review of the tool to make sure it does what it says it does? On older operating systems where Apple has the encryption key, Apple could argue that the key must be kept secret. On iOS 8 and above, Apple doesn't have to disclose any keys, but it will have to disclose to an outside party how the tool works. I'll argue for the defense that the defense has a right to know how this information was collected.

Back to the legalese, Apple can argue that it doesn't have the technical capability to do this because it currently doesn't have a team in place to do this. I find Apple's explanation (about the schedule required, I'm also a software engineer) far more credible than the FBI's on what complying with this request would entail. If you have links proving that Apple has a forensic team in place already please that can handle this workload ASAP let us know. I don't think Apple using its key to unlock older versions of iOS is comparable with creating a new tool that updates X amount of features, validating that the tool works as described and documenting its features is nearly the same thing. The filing is saying well Apple complied in the past. Well yeah, it was much easier to comply. Apple probably stopped complying with recent requests so we can see the AWA put to the test.

As for stripping your privacy at work, I don't agree with your complaints. I was also in the military and I understood that anything I did on the network is probably monitored. As it should be.
In the private sector, I shouldn't be using my employer's network or workstation for personal business. At work I can be fired or layed off at any time without warning and I'm not walking out with anything not work related. I may not even be able to log back into my workstation. I don't object to any of this since it's my employer's network and workstation.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
632
So, I come from a city where my graduation class was 60 kids. The Cops kid was in my class. We called the cop by his first name, he went to church with us. Not everyone's reality and experience with the cops is the same. Perhaps your advice is sound for many people, but not for all because a few days after I treat him like a leper I'll be bowling with him and having a brew.

Feel me?

My whole family is law enforcement of some kind or another, including myself. No one loves privacy more than law enforcement, especially now... but too many of them put the hats and uniforms on and feel they have a need to know things they dont want anyone else to know when their hat is off... its quite common... Law Enforcement is a tight knit group, and with good reason, but to many do not have a clue about the constitutionality of a lot of actions they undertake at the direction of the policies which govern them...

Look at most of the people they deal with... when you are arrested or incarcerated, you LOSE certain rights.... you dont get to just leave and you are required to follow all lawful orders which in essence causes a lot of problems outside of work... some people expect you to follow them regardless, hell i've done it with my wife a few times without realizing it when we were first married! (you can guess how that shit turned out LOL)...

The public cannot expect someone to be 100% perfect at every instance, especially when the public in most cases are dumber than shit about what their rights indeed are... tell your mom to shut her mouth when she talks about how someone else raises their kids, or how you raise your kids! It wont go over well, but maybe she will realize what shes doing, being a mom when she not that persons mom... its natural to take your work or expereiences and use it in your day to day life, regardless of what it is... we all do it...

You can get along with anyone if you want too... that decision is up to you... but your business is never their business if you dont want it to be...
 
Top