News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by pdabbadabba on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @09:53AM (#11297261)
There is an extremely significant fact that this line of argument ignores: the FBI only seeks the ability to unlock a phone if it either has a warrant or (in this case) has the consent of the phone's owner. This is a capability that it already has for virtually every other type of phone--the only difference here is the amount of technical effort required to make it happen. I have a very hard time seeing how the FBI's ability to unlock a phone under these limited circumstances means they are an "Authoritarian Surveillance Regime."

They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any reason.

Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by givinguflac on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @11:15AM (#11297962)
"They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any reason."

When he was asked by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Director of National Intelligence and Admiral James Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

^These are the people you're saying "aren't asking" for the ability. They are asking for a universal lock picking kit and the legal authority to strong-arm any manufacturer into allowing access to the keys for their devices as well. If you honestly believe that they wouldn't use these tools for other cases beyond this one phone, I've got this amazing bridge you may be interested in.

Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by pdabbadabba on Thursday March 17, 2016 @10:02AM (#11304362)
That's the beginning of a perfectly good argument that the activities of the NSA make the U.S. a surveillance state. (Though I don't, ultimately, agree with it.) But it has nothing to do at all with the topic under discussion which is whether the capability that the FBI seeks to unlock iPhones would turn the U.S. into a surveillance state.

And I never said anything about a single phone. I fully expect that the FBI would use this capability to unlock lots of other phones either with the owner's permission, or with a warrant. (Just as they do today, with every other type of phone.)

Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by einarvollset on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @11:52PM (#11302469)
You are willfully conflating the NSA and the FBI. You are willfully conflating the illegal dragnets by the NSA with a legally obtained search warrant by the FBI. You seem to have decided because the NSA did what they did, no govt agency under any circumstances should ever be granted any request like this. If that's your case, then a) we disagree, and b) your position is extremely hard to defend in a historical context.
Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by wooter on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @04:09PM (#11300293)
Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by the_ancient on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @10:03AM (#11297345)
>I have a very hard time seeing how the FBI's ability to unlock a phone under these limited circumstances means they are an "Authoritarian Surveillance Regime."

Then you do not understand the security model of the phone, and should take the time the learn the actual issue before making statements in support of the FBI.

Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by pdabbadabba on Thursday March 17, 2016 @09:30AM (#11304174)
Nope. I know it well. Perhaps if you would actually make your point, instead of merely assuming that those who agree with you are misinformed, there would be something more we could talk about...
Re:Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case by einarvollset on Thursday March 17, 2016 @12:00AM (#11302492)
Sorry, but I do understand the security model of the phone well, and I would love you to elaborate your point.