Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
FBI Vs. Apple: Privacy Syllabus
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
hewenthatway
100%
0%
hewenthatway,
User Rank: Strategist
2/24/2016 | 5:29:01 PM
yay
Great!  Another multi-click adventure! /s
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:46:01 PM
Re: yay
Personally I like is a slide mode better than an article with bunch of paragraphs.
Whoopty
100%
0%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 7:01:06 AM
Solid Support
It's really heatening to see so many individuals and companies stand up in defence of Apple's actions and that Apple/Tim Cook are willing to go so hard to defend their position. The latest rumor I read is that it will be citing the first and fifth amendments in its defence, which suggests to me that it's really digging its heels in.

I think this case will set a lot of precedents, so I have my fingers crossed. 
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.
cyclepro
100%
0%
cyclepro,
User Rank: Strategist
2/25/2016 | 9:28:19 AM
Apple vs FBI
You would think that with all of the resources available to the federal goverment that they should be able to crack it (or be able to bypass it).

I think that it is wrong for the goverment to force a company to reveal it's secrets. Let the goverment go out. buy an iphone and crack it themselves..

 
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.
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.
ANON1251553927262
50%
50%
ANON1251553927262,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/25/2016 | 10:54:04 AM
Dark Reading's Primer on FBI vs Apple
I am surprised that you have not 1 opinion from the other side.  I am sure that there are reasoned, intelligent opionions in the opposite direction.

 

I am having serious trouble with this issue.  The part of me that works for / with the Government says, "Damn straight, open that box here is the warrant."  The part of me that is still a hippi of the 60s says, "Hold on there cowboy."


I want to believe that organizations (private and public) have for the most part honorable intentions.  It just doesn't seem that way.  Once the tool is there some Apple employee will take the 50,000 bribe to sell it to Mr. Terroristsky.  If not at Apple, the at some government branch where it was just laying around.

Tough choices all around.  Good luck, America.
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 | 4:44:50 PM
There is a way out
Since FBI asks for a modification in the firmware, Apple can do this with a cost that can only work on that phone. Anything that goes beyond that is just a show. I love apple and using all their products, reality is they are for profit company, when they say I want to secure you data they mean I want to make more profit, this is not about my security or privacy.
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 :(
Luongo
50%
50%
Luongo,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/25/2016 | 2:39:37 AM
Re: There is a way out
nice great
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.
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 :(

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?
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...


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 11/19/2020
New Proposed DNS Security Features Released
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  11/19/2020
How to Identify Cobalt Strike on Your Network
Zohar Buber, Security Analyst,  11/18/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: He hits the gong anytime he sees someone click on an email link.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-29071
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
An XSS issue was found in the Shares feature of LiquidFiles before 3.3.19. The issue arises from the insecure rendering of HTML files uploaded to the platform as attachments, when the -htmlview URL is directly accessed. The impact ranges from executing commands as root on the server to retrieving se...
CVE-2020-29072
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
A Cross-Site Script Inclusion vulnerability was found on LiquidFiles before 3.3.19. This client-side attack requires user interaction (opening a link) and successful exploitation could lead to encrypted e-mail content leakage via messages/sent?format=js and popup?format=js.
CVE-2020-26241
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. This is a Consensus vulnerability in Geth before version 1.9.17 which can be used to cause a chain-split where vulnerable nodes reject the canonical chain. Geth's pre-compiled dataCopy (at 0x00...04) co...
CVE-2020-26242
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. In Geth before version 1.9.18, there is a Denial-of-service (crash) during block processing. This is fixed in 1.9.18.
CVE-2020-26240
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. An ethash mining DAG generation flaw in Geth before version 1.9.24 could cause miners to erroneously calculate PoW in an upcoming epoch (estimated early January, 2021). This happened on the ETC chain on...