Mark Minasi's Tech Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 913
Reply with quote  #31 
And now all the noise starts - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0VW0BM

Anyone know where a court report/ court doc for any of these is available for viewing? 

__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #32 
We have a new possible solution, to the problem. John McAfee, from McAfee AV has offered to crack the iphone, for free.
0
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 913
Reply with quote  #33 
The problem is that while the white hats, black hats, hackers and crackers could get in, the chain of evidence that the FBI is trying to follow for a criminal investigation would not be there.

They would not be able to follow up with any information they receive or acquired and that would ruin the whole point of the process.

There are bound to be other methods that other government departments have to access information and the same rules would be broken or worse potential evidence of how they operate would be released, so that won't be publicly used or known about.

But on a positive Apple now claim to be working on a newer device/ better security to stop people hacking the devices.



__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #34 
Apple developing iPhone and iCloud encryption that counters FBI-requested workaround

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/25/apple-developing-iphone-and-icloud-encryption-that-counters-fbi-requested-workaround-reports-say
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
The problem is that while the white hats, black hats, hackers and crackers could get in, the chain of evidence that the FBI is trying to follow for a criminal investigation would not be there.


Well, they can't have it both ways especially when they are investigating a criminal who is dead.  If it's so important to know what's inside that phone, they can't be so picky. It's becoming obvious that the Feds want more than just that phone.
0
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 913
Reply with quote  #36 
Sorry Dude, I disagree.

They can't have it both ways - it has to be the right way, so it stands up in front of our Peers, in Court.
So when you look at it or look back at a distance, you have no doubt.

If I am going to fight a corner for the legal authorities then they (The FBI) need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, how they got the information, why they wanted the information and what they intend to do with the information.

While using third parties may be quicker, it won't stand up in Court, therefore it can't be used against someone publicly, therefore the FBI can't use it.

And if you want to deal with people, who try to subvert our desired state of freedom and ability to rant, rave, argue, give out, abuse and listen freely and tell them our way is better, then we better as sure as the sky is blue, use our standards of no doubt to prosecute them.

I look forward to the next gen devices that can't be attacked by the current methods.
I know that the next gen of devices will be attacked another way, and we'll be back dealing with the issue then.







__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #37 
The Feds use 3rd party contractors & expert witnesses all the time.  Why should it be any different now, if it's documented properly?  McAfee even worked for one of them, Booz Allen Hamilton.
0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #38 
I agree with Joe, there has to be a chain of evidence or it will be thrown out of court. Plus John McAfee isn't the most reliable of sources, considering the issues he had a few years ago with the drugs and hiding out from the government and all that ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/john-mcafee-blog-belize_n_2425516.html  [wink]. So doubt the FBI would want to go that route anyway.


0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #39 
Apple spells out what it would take to comply with government's iPhone order

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3039115/security/apple-spells-out-what-it-would-take-to-comply-with-governments-iphone-order.html


0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
I agree with Joe, there has to be a chain of evidence or it will be thrown out of court.


There may not be a court.  They might just send a drone to kill whomever they want, in the mid east.  It won't be the first time.  Even if there is a court, the evidence will still be there.

Quote:
Plus John McAfee isn't the most reliable of sources, ....


He is a bit of a sleaze but he certainly could guide the FBI to their goal.

Edit: A hearing just ended at 6PM EST & is being rerun now & again at 9PM EST on CSPN2 or at anytime on c-span.org

0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #41 
I watched the first 1 1/4 hr. of the Apple/FBI hearing.  Here are the highlights:

The FBI told San Bernadino County to change the password on the cloud backup, of the phone in question.  That password change killed future backups stopping access.  That was a big mistake.

Representative Darrel Issa, (He knows his stuff.) a Republican from California asked the same question that I asked about cloning the phone & attempting to crack the clones since it would provide unlimited attempts as opposed to the current 10. FBI Director James Comey couldn't answer the question. Darrel Issa also asked if they had requested the source code from Apple, so that a 3rd party could be hired to crack it.  Comey didn't know about that either a didn't say anything about "evidence standing up in court".  Apparently, that's not an issue as some of you had suggested.

FBI Director Comey admitted that there were other uncrackable phones in their possession.  He didn't have an exact #.

_____________
If I see Apple's testimony when it's transmitted, I will post the highlights of that too.
0
Mark Minasi

Avatar / Picture

Humble Proprietor
Registered:
Posts: 175
Reply with quote  #42 
This is (sadly) such an old story.  I remember when LANs first appeared that the FBI pushed HARD to force us all to put a tap on our networks for them.  Ugh.  Or remember that Clipper abortion during the Clinton administration?  Or, God save us all, the DMCA, another Clinton doing. 

I hate that I mistrust my government so much that I hope Apple wins.
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #43 
Here are a few more highlights from the 4 hour hearing that took place on March 1st.  The entire hearing can be seen on c-span.org. 

FBI Director Comey said that Apple can have the phone & keep it.  Just crack it. He also said that the iphone in question is the 5C, IOS 9 & has already been replaced by 6. Therefore, if Apple cracks the 5C, it won't affect future hardware.  

Bruce Sewell, attorney for Apple denied that.  He said that if Apple were to create a tool, it would affect all versions.

When asked about the possibility that there could be secondary layers of encryption, Bruce Sewell said yes & they have nothing to do with Apple. Someone else said that there are over 100.

Susan Landau, former Google Analyst & current professer said in her opening statement said the FBI needs to develop better surveillance techniques instead, of asking that anything to be cracked.

Republican Jim Sensenbrenner asked Bruce Sewell, what proposal do you have for Congress since you say it's our job to solve the problem? He had none. Sensenbrenner said "I don't think that you will like the results".

Darell Issa asked Bruce Sewell, Susan Landau & Cyrus Vance, Manhattan DA if they ever knew of a shredder company that was asked to provide a way to reassemble shredded material. LOL Darrell Issa also mentioned cloning/mirroring again.  

Suzan DelBene (It should be DelMalo) mentioned a scenario, of a printer being set on fire remotely by a hacker.  What she failed to say was that she saw that on CSI Cyber.  How that woman be in Congress when she actually believed that were true?  That comes under incompetency

David Ciciline asked Susan Landau about Comey's quote that he has asked everyone possible if a crack is available without writing new software. She said, the the NSA may have a tool but may not want to make the tool public.

Democrat Cedric Richmond asked Bruce Sewell does anyone anywhere have the ability to brute force the phone, right now.  The answer was no.  He also asked, if the FBI could crack the phone, is that a problem?  Sewell said yes & Susan Landau said no, that they should be doing exactly that.

Democrat Hekeem Jeffries noted that Apple has been cooperating with the FBI even though that they refuse to create software to disable the 10 attempt feature.









0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #44 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-prevails-in-forced-iphone-unlock-case-in-new-york-court/

I just wanted to add that ruling.
0
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 913
Reply with quote  #45 
Thanks.
I'm in the middle of a migration and kinda keeping my head down

__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.