Bam! Precedent.
29/3/16 14:09![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFBI Drops iPhone Case Against Apple After Outside Hack Succeeds
"A mysterious method suggested by a third party appears to have allowed the FBI to hack into the iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the attackers in last year’s shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., prompting the agency to withdraw its legal case against Apple."
LOL. Witnessing the whole debate unravel about how they "broke in", I couldn't help but smirk. Makes you wonder how come some of the biggest smartheads in the industry could've missed the whole point of this exercise.
For starters, this reeks of the classic abusive relationship: the FBI gets caught time after time in lies, and we're still somehow sitting here at the edge of our seats taking their words at face value. Come on. Why shouldn't Occam's Razor apply here as well as anywhere else? The simplest answer is often the truth, so let's look a bit closer into this, shall we?
This was an obvious attempt to set a precedent - and a successful one, ultimately. And everyone has fallen for it, starting with the media. It was admitted no critical data likely existed on the phone. That makes you wonder why all the "effort" and resources spent to go after this "encrypted data"? Well, precedent. That's why.
And secondly, why would an actual "third party" be even necessary at all? Couldn't this have simply been the back-up plan all along, in case the legal or public battles failed? (Which they were about to). Why wouldn't the FBI set up a back-up plan for the sake of saving face? We know how these things happen, don't we. The legal case gets blurred, the prospects start to look grim - but then, BAM! In less than a fortnight they're in? Riiiight.
Of course the Feds wouldn't just give up, pack the tents and go home with their tail between their legs. Letting a corporation, be it even Apple, have the final say? LOL, hell no. They'd never miss the opportunity to have one final "jab", with no one able to prove them otherwise. Here. The case is sealed. Take your legal battles somewhere that the sun doth not shine. We did it for national security, freedom and all that. Oh, btw your security sucks and we got in anyway, and no, we ain't telling ya how we did it, neener, neener! That's so very responsible.
Conversely, did anyone expect that their personal data that was stored on an actual communication device that was actually... you know, connected to the communication network, was ever safe? Come on, you know better than that.
"A mysterious method suggested by a third party appears to have allowed the FBI to hack into the iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the attackers in last year’s shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., prompting the agency to withdraw its legal case against Apple."
LOL. Witnessing the whole debate unravel about how they "broke in", I couldn't help but smirk. Makes you wonder how come some of the biggest smartheads in the industry could've missed the whole point of this exercise.
For starters, this reeks of the classic abusive relationship: the FBI gets caught time after time in lies, and we're still somehow sitting here at the edge of our seats taking their words at face value. Come on. Why shouldn't Occam's Razor apply here as well as anywhere else? The simplest answer is often the truth, so let's look a bit closer into this, shall we?
This was an obvious attempt to set a precedent - and a successful one, ultimately. And everyone has fallen for it, starting with the media. It was admitted no critical data likely existed on the phone. That makes you wonder why all the "effort" and resources spent to go after this "encrypted data"? Well, precedent. That's why.
And secondly, why would an actual "third party" be even necessary at all? Couldn't this have simply been the back-up plan all along, in case the legal or public battles failed? (Which they were about to). Why wouldn't the FBI set up a back-up plan for the sake of saving face? We know how these things happen, don't we. The legal case gets blurred, the prospects start to look grim - but then, BAM! In less than a fortnight they're in? Riiiight.
Of course the Feds wouldn't just give up, pack the tents and go home with their tail between their legs. Letting a corporation, be it even Apple, have the final say? LOL, hell no. They'd never miss the opportunity to have one final "jab", with no one able to prove them otherwise. Here. The case is sealed. Take your legal battles somewhere that the sun doth not shine. We did it for national security, freedom and all that. Oh, btw your security sucks and we got in anyway, and no, we ain't telling ya how we did it, neener, neener! That's so very responsible.
Conversely, did anyone expect that their personal data that was stored on an actual communication device that was actually... you know, connected to the communication network, was ever safe? Come on, you know better than that.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 14:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 15:47 (UTC)If the Feds have a warrant, then it seems to me they have a right to access your encrypted data, just like they have a right to enter and search your car, house, safe or person.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 19:58 (UTC)Somewhere in the case law is the answer to this question: If the feds break into your house with a warrant and find a cipher written on the walls, you are obligated to provide them with the password that decodes it. Yes or no? And if yes, how does this not collide with the fifth amendment?
I understand that the current situation is more complicated than this, with more holes than this, but I'd at least like this question settled.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 22:01 (UTC)That is pretty clear and unambiguous.
So, if the Feds have a warrant to search my house and find a diary with coded entries, I am under no obligation to supply them with the key. However, if they break the code themselves, that seems like it is simply discovery. Suppose I bury incriminating evidence in my back yard in a locked case. The police, under warrant, can dig up my yard without violating my rights. They can use all manner of tools (ground penetrating radar, backhoes, etc) to find where the case is buried. Then, when they've found the case, they can't force me to provide a key to the lock. But they can, under warrant, bust off the lock or employ a locksmith to crack it. However, if they went to the case's manufacturer and said, "open this case" I don't think the manufacturer is obligated to comply, especially if they believe doing so will damage their business.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 22:10 (UTC)But if the case is protected with a retina scanner, can law enforcement drag me into a chair, tape my eyes open, and shove the scanner up against my eye?
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 22:29 (UTC)They can defeat the scanner in any other way they wish, however. If they could obtain an image of your eye, for example, from some open source, assuming one exists, they could use that to trick the scanner. Or, more simply, they could just find a way to bypass the entire system using some other means, like a sledgehammer and a chisel. They could also induce you to comply by offering some sort of deal.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 23:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/3/16 23:28 (UTC)Although, as with any technology, it is only as good as the next good hack.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/16 00:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/16 01:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/16 06:14 (UTC)Yeah, good luck with that.