Mobile

2/24/2016
03:50 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail

FBI Vs. Apple: Privacy Syllabus

Some of the very best articles, blogs, and other opinions on the issue of government meddling in encryption technology.
1 of 9

1 of 9
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Luongo
50%
50%
Luongo,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/25/2016 | 2:39:37 AM
Re: There is a way out
nice great
Grands-mamans
50%
50%
Grands-mamans,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/9/2016 | 2:35:01 AM
Re: There is a way out
The FBI have probably already cracked it :(
wedgetail
50%
50%
wedgetail,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/1/2016 | 12:06:54 PM
Re: Apple vs FBI
The FBI have probably already cracked it.  If not, then they are not utilizing their available resources very well.

Apple know that their encryption is not infallible, however they must defend their position otherwise the public will lose faith, purely a marketing decision.

Cracking any encryption takes too much time and every time the FBI attempt to crack an iPhone, they start at zero, even if they have a preferred method.  If the FBI identify a faster way to penetrate iPhones then of course they will try to get it, and set legal precedent along the way.
KeithM986
0%
100%
KeithM986,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/1/2016 | 11:56:58 AM
I guess I am in the minority in being unclear how your phone becomes so protected...
So if you commit a crime, the police/FBI, with a warrent, are allowed to search your house and/or buisness, get access to your accounts and computer, they can impound your car, check phone records, get access to safes or anything else that you might have. They even might get access to search friends and neighbors to an extent, but god forbid they have access to your phone...that is sacred.

 

Clearly your phone, as well as the rest of your privacy, needs to be protected...so no unwarrented search and seizure...of anything, but if you are suspected of a crime...suspected enough that a specific warrent is made out for your arrest, then I don't see how your phone suddenly becomes civil rights hollowed ground.

 

Now if this is the case that Apple simply cannot do it from a tech stand point (cause really, if they are saying they can load an OS that allows the phone to be brute forced that means anyone could do that) then that is something else...
cyberpink
50%
50%
cyberpink,
User Rank: Strategist
3/1/2016 | 10:45:41 AM
Re: David against Goliath ?
I share your concern for the common good of our country.  Privacy is not the real issue at stake.  But it is being used to sideline the public.  Safety and security of the American public is at stake.  The question I ask, "Is there ever a situation where the safety of America trumps the privacy of a cell phone?"  Does a 9/11 event ever rank as important enough?  Or a Pearl Harbor attack?  It is obvious that cell phones and the internet are used to coordinate attacks - their primary purpose is to communicate no matter where your location is.  Everyone involved wants the privacy of America preserved.  But at what cost?
audrey-privateblog
50%
50%
audrey-privateblog,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/28/2016 | 4:31:54 AM
David against Goliath ?

I don't know what will happen with this "Apple vs government story", but i think it won't be very good for users...  as ever :(

Dr.T
100%
0%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 5:00:00 PM
The information in iPhone
Another point I would like to make, there should not be any information in iPhone that is not somewhere else. The only think that can be in iPhone are the pictures most likely, there rest is always somewhere else too.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:56:57 PM
Re: Apple vs FBI
Obviously they could not. The government does not really have resources and skills that Apple has.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:54:39 PM
Re: Dark Reading's Primer on FBI vs Apple
For me is it an easy choice, both FPI and Apple should stop scaring public with the terrorism stick and get back to work and do this in a way that that can only wok on that phone. They have been working on all other cases, this is not any different.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:48:26 PM
Re: Solid Support
That is how our laws are getting very complex and eventually costing regular hard working population. Apple and FBI is going to be just fine. They do not care about us.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Russia Hacked Clinton's Computers Five Hours After Trump's Call
Robert Lemos, Technology Journalist/Data Researcher,  4/19/2019
Tips for the Aftermath of a Cyberattack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/17/2019
Why We Need a 'Cleaner Internet'
Darren Anstee, Chief Technology Officer at Arbor Networks,  4/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-11486
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
The Siemens R3964 line discipline driver in drivers/tty/n_r3964.c in the Linux kernel before 5.0.8 has multiple race conditions.
CVE-2019-11487
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
The Linux kernel before 5.1-rc5 allows page->_refcount reference count overflow, with resultant use-after-free issues, if about 140 GiB of RAM exists. This is related to fs/fuse/dev.c, fs/pipe.c, fs/splice.c, include/linux/mm.h, include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h, kernel/trace/trace.c, mm/gup.c, and mm/hu...
CVE-2018-7576
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
Google TensorFlow 1.6.x and earlier is affected by: Null Pointer Dereference. The type of exploitation is: context-dependent.
CVE-2018-8825
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
Google TensorFlow 1.7 and below is affected by: Buffer Overflow. The impact is: execute arbitrary code (local).
CVE-2019-10688
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
VVX products using UCS software version 5.8.0 and earlier with Better Together over Ethernet Connector (BToE) application version 3.8.0 and earlier uses hard-coded credentials to establish a connection between the host application and device.