End to end encryption under threat

[Amp34]

It's the precedent it sets though. If Apple roll over and acquiesce to this request then they'll have to do it for any future requests. It can and will get abused by government/law agencies. The FBI have wanted access to encrypted phones for a while, they're making a huge deal out of this one as they want to play on the whole ISIS/terrorism angle. If they'd really wanted to get access to the phone then they might have been better off not executing the couple on sight.

Exactly. Unfortunately companies introduced these measures because it became apparent after the Snowdon release that the government couldn't be trusted. In the U.S. Much of what the security services were doing was found to be illegal or wrong, and as a result laws were changed and initiatives reigned in (as opposed to the UK where we brushed it under the carpet and changed laws if what the security services were doing was found to be unlawful).

As much as its a shame the FBI cannot access the woman's phone they have only the government to blame unfortunately.

 

[scorza]

But they really aren't.

The paris attackers just used normal sms text on prepaid phones.

No fancy encryption nothing

So the investigating authorities were able to read those text messages and may have gathered useful intelligence from their phones. Why shouldn't the FBI investigating the San Bernardino massacre be able to do the same? It's technically possible...

 

[Rroff]

So the investigating authorities were able to read those text messages and may have gathered useful intelligence from their phones. Why shouldn't the FBI investigating the San Bernardino massacre be able to do the same? It's technically possible...

You really have to be trolling if you've read the past few pages and still asking that...

 

[scorza]

You really have to be trolling if you've read the past few pages and still asking that...

I've read the past few pages, I just haven't read any reasonable justifications for Apple's non-compliance with the court order.

 

[Rroff]

I've read the past few pages, I just haven't read any reasonable justifications for Apple's non-compliance with the court order.

I dunno how hard it is to understand that once you set a precedent for weakening encryption its the law abiding people who suffer and does nothing to stop the bad people doing stuff in the future.

 

[scorza]

I dunno how hard it is to understand that once you set a precedent for weakening encryption its the law abiding people who suffer and does nothing to stop the bad people doing stuff in the future.

Not good enough I'm afraid. I think there should be a precedent set that the authorities can lawfully hack into phones used by terrorists. I don't see how Apple helping the authorities in this case as required by the law affects law-abiding people in any way. Completing a full, thorough investigation of all terror attacks is pretty much the only way you can stop future attacks - hacking Farook's phone might yield nothing, or it might yield some very useful intelligence. After all, it was by compromising a relatively low level Al-Queda messenger that the location of Osama bin Laden was eventually discovered.

 

[Rroff]

Not good enough I'm afraid. I think there should be a precedent set that the authorities can lawfully hack into phones used by terrorists. I don't see how Apple helping the authorities in this case as required by the law affects law-abiding people in any way. Completing a full, thorough investigation of all terror attacks is pretty much the only way you can stop future attacks - hacking Farook's phone might yield nothing, or it might yield some very useful intelligence. After all, it was by compromising a relatively low level Al-Queda messenger that the location of Osama bin Laden was eventually discovered.

I have no problem with (after the appropriate warrant and with the appropriate oversight etc.) the authorities hacking into phones of someone they have strong reason to believe is upto no good - you need to separate that from the consequences of having to weaken encryption mechanisms to facilitate that.

The reason Apple helping the authorities in this case causes a problem for normal law abiding people it that it sets a precedent that can be used to justify increasing levels of providing ways to break into secure devices rendering the protection of that security less and less effective but also defeats some of the systems in place for these type of devices and once it is developed you can't "undevelop" it.

 

[UTmaniac]

If only the iPhone used Windows 10.

 

[scorza]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35611763

A bit of light relief, our old friend John McAfee has offered to break into the iPhone for the FBI using social engineering (yes, social engineering on a dead person) because he doesn't want Apple to implement a back door either. Totally bonkers.

I also just found out that McAfee is running for President

 

[asim18]

Firstly because you won't be able to sell phones with E2E encryption in the UK, getting hold of one will be more difficult.

Ahahaha. Genuine LOL . You've used up almost every single straw, give up mate

These guys have no trouble getting hold of sub machine guns and you think it's difficult for them to "get hold of a phone that supports encryption"

Do you honestly have no clue whatsoever? You seem to be oblivious to the fact that even a piece of PAPER and a BIRO supports encryption.

 

[scorza]

These guys have no trouble getting hold of sub machine guns and you think it's difficult for them to "get hold of a phone that supports encryption"

Do you honestly have no clue whatsoever? You seem to be oblivious to the fact that even a piece of PAPER and a BIRO supports encryption.

Do you not agree that encrypting with a paper and a biro makes it significantly more difficult to operate than buying an iPhone off the shelf and then sending an iMessage to Jamal in Libya?

 

[Rroff]

Ahahaha. Genuine LOL . You've used up almost every single straw, give up mate

These guys have no trouble getting hold of sub machine guns and you think it's difficult for them to "get hold of a phone that supports encryption"

Do you honestly have no clue whatsoever? You seem to be oblivious to the fact that even a piece of PAPER and a BIRO supports encryption.

*waits for inevitable reply*

 

[asim18]

Do you not agree that encrypting with a paper and a biro makes it significantly more difficult to operate than buying an iPhone off the shelf and then sending an iMessage to Jamal in Libya?

Erm absolutely not. Again, you're not understanding if you think a biro is significantly more difficult to operate. Another genuine LOL

There are loads of software pieces which can encrypt a string of text within milliseconds. Then you can separate the key and simply write it down on a piece of paper, send it via plain text, do whatever you want.

I'm not saying anyone is going to have to invent a whole new algorithm or something.

Your argument that a "phone supports encryption" is absolute nonsense in it's own right, because anything which supports plain text also supports encrypted text, that is why I used the paper and Biro as the most simplest example of a medium which supports encryption.



"34b534b5hb4g7nu4niy8y4tn34t-348t3bef"

There. OcUK supports encryption now. Ban it or go away please.

 

[scorza]

Erm absolutely not. Again, you're not understanding if you think a biro is significantly more difficult to operate. Another genuine LOL

(pointless drivel snipped)

I didn't ask if you thought a biro was difficult to operate, I asked if encrypting with a pen and paper was more difficult to operate than texting with an iPhone. I've done both and let me assure you that the correct answer is yes.

 

[asim18]

I didn't ask if you thought a biro was difficult to operate, I asked if encrypting with a pen and paper was more difficult to operate than texting with an iPhone. I've done both and let me assure you that the correct answer is yes.

But what has the fact that it takes a little longer to manually write a string on a peice of paper got to do with your completely ridiculous assumption that banning encryption on an iPhone is magically going to stop paedophilia, terrorism, and whatnot?


"Pointless drivel snipped" seriously?

So you're openly admitting you have selective cognition? You refuse to acknowledge the reason why I used the Pen and Paper as an example and you're now using it as another strawman? And you honestly believe I was asking if a biro is difficult to operate. Thanks for the lols

Thanks for being honest I guess.

 

[Errol]

weakening encryption

Just to make it clear, there is no such thing as 'weakening encryption'. Something is either encrypted or it isn't. If there are backdoors or inbuilt weaknesses then by definition it isn't encrypted.

 

[asim18]

End-to-end encryption is a terrorist's wet dream and we know they're using it against us.

I wasn't even the first to suspect you of being a paid misinformation troll.

This has pretty much cemented the idea for me.

 

[Rroff]

Just to make it clear, there is no such thing as 'weakening encryption'. Something is either encrypted or it isn't. If there are backdoors or inbuilt weaknesses then by definition it isn't encrypted.

Its a bit more complex than that really if we get into specific distinctions.

Comes down to the old weak and strong cypher thing and a weak cypher isn't particularly useful hence Apple's opposition to these kind of moves that could lead to that end.

 

[scorza]

But what has the fact that it takes a little longer to manually write a string on a peice of paper got to do with your completely ridiculous assumption that banning encryption on an iPhone is magically going to stop paedophilia, terrorism, and whatnot?


"Pointless drivel snipped" seriously?

So you're openly admitting you have selective cognition? You refuse to acknowledge the reason why I used the Pen and Paper as an example and you're now using it as another strawman? And you honestly believe I was asking if a biro is difficult to operate. Thanks for the lols

Thanks for being honest I guess.

Where did I say that it would stop any of those things? Classic strawman fallacy, really boring. You're welcome, I honestly really do find your posts tiresome, facile and hardly worth replying too

 

[asim18]

Where did I say that it would stop any of those things? Classic strawman fallacy, really boring. You're welcome, I honestly really do find your posts tiresome, facile and hardly worth replying too

You said those things right here mate:

Fraudsters, terrorists and paedophiles using an iPhone? Sorry Mr Policeman there's nothing we can do to help you catch these people or stop these sort of crimes from happening in future.

Sorry you're right. You mentioned stopping Fraudsters as well as terrorists and peados. Not just terrorists and peados.

My bad.

I honestly really do find your posts tiresome, facile and hardly worth replying too

But but,

You seem to think banning encryption is going to magically stop someone who actually needs it from using it.

You seem to think that someone who doesn't care about using banned firearms to commit banned crimes is suddenly going to stop being a criminal once it gets to using banned encryption techniques? lol.

Criminal : "oh **** Davey has banned encryption, better not use it".
Criminal : "oh **** Apple stopped using built in encryption we better not use one of infinite other methods to encrypt our messages"

Do you honestly believe the above is what a criminal is going to do when faced with the bannage of encryption?

Therefore I'm assuming you don't know much about encryption, nor anything to do with criminality. Almost everyone in the thread seems to understand that banning anything doesn't stop criminals who need it from using it (that's why we call them criminals ), and that it only actually affects the innocent people, In fact the only person who cannot grasp this concept is you!

hardly worth replying too

You don't have to reply to me, because it's clearly not "worth" it for you is it? Nice choice of word though. "Worth" shows the underlying motivation behind your argument. Your argument is not for the truth, it's for what is worth it to your agenda. Thanks for being honest, yet again.

But as long as you keep spouting emotionally loaded misinformation like this:

End-to-end encryption is a terrorist's wet dream and we know they're using it against us.

I'm going to keep saying you're wrong.

That very statement is actually insane and borderline contradiction and proof that you are pure misinformation spreader. If something is someone's "wet-dream" then they already know encryption is important for them. Therefore they will continue to use it even if it means blowing up their iPhones and using an application based encoder instead and manually writing down the output using a biro!!!

Your assumption that a terrorist is going to give up their "wet-dream" of encryption and agree to use unencrypted communication just because Dave said so is pretty funny.