Y2HH

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 05:15 PM) Understood, but people always ask for advice. Rarely do they actually follow it. I guess the point is not to react harshly because he pushes back on advice that says something like "walk away." He's not going to say "you know what, you're right." He doesn't need someone to tell him not to do this. He knows that already. He is a smart person. What he wants is someone to justify why he SHOULD do that, so that he can go against his better judgment. For. The. Win.

It's a stupid idea unless you bind it to a bunch of rules limiting freedom...which we don't do here. We sell dreams. The only way this would work is if it's tied to a culture in which we only pay for degrees and skills society actually needs. And yes, we need artists, but not nearly in the numbers that attend art schools. You need a ROI with such programs, not just a blanket "college is free"...even for the totally useless degrees most of you want, because it's your dream to learn about . I know, I'm vicious...but stupid degree denied. If you want "free" college, you'll study X, Y or Z, with these performance requirements bound to the "free". Fall behind, you're done. Want to study something useless? Pay for it yourself.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 23, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) A dad really can't have an open mind in this situation for one reason -- she's in high school. Society says no way That's like saying Doogie Hawser was in college, so it's perfectly fine.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 23, 2016 -> 12:31 PM) Isn't it time we stop pretending that Planned Parenthood is the only organization in the country that provides health services to women? Get the f*** out of here with your facts...this is a political forum, we run on words like "rhetoric" and "divisive".

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 23, 2016 -> 12:17 PM) I don't think anyone here is saying an abusive 18 yr old is better than a mature and perfectly fine 25 yr old. That said, I have other reasons for the age difference. I would want my daughter to not feel limited in her choices after high school, and while a similar aged boyfriend can limit that I think there would be a much bigger chance in an older boyfriend limiting her more. If they're being limited by the other person, that would fall into the "treating them well" category. Just because one is older doesn't mean they should be limiting them or forcing them into life changes they don't want to make.

As a parent, I'd hope the lessons I taught my daughters (I have 2) would instill something in them that regardless who they're with, so long as they're being treated well and with respect, I wouldn't care about age difference, so long as both are adults (18+). I'd MUCH rather my daughters be with someone much older than them that respects them and treats them well, versus a person their own age that treats them like s*** and abuses them, mentally or otherwise. And I believe this applies here, too. She's 18 years old, a legal adult, and if he's treating her well, I don't see an issue -- would you rather her be with another 18 year old that beats the s*** out of her simply because they're the same age? No.

Seeing as that I've posted quite a bit on this subject, and in the interest of disclosing my full opinion on the matter, it's not that I'm against helping the FBI or other governing bodies in cases such as this, but I'd be much more open to such assistance in special cases ONLY when the following conditions are met: NEW laws are drafted/voted on and passed that apply to modern technology (with some future proofing) limiting when, how, and why such a request for assistance can be made, and furthermore, strict limitations as to what end they can force companies in making changes fundamental to the security of their products. As it stands, there is a reason the government is literally leaning on laws and acts passed in the 1800's 1700's (yes, you read that right), in order to make these requests. I want some updated laws on the books with STRICT limits BEFORE we continue down this rabbit hole. IF, and only IF that happens would I be open to such requests. Edit: All Writs Act is from 1789, even earlier than I thought.

It's a good thing they only want access to this one specific phone, this one specific time... Oh, wait... http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/23/justice...hone-backdoors/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justic...4b0ec6725e3cd78

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 12:20 PM) You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The complexity of the technology does not matter. It's the government forcing a company to assist with its investigations by utilizing expertise on the company's own product. Be it a landline telephone or a cellphone, it doesn't matter. Incorrect. It's MORE than the government simply asking for assistance. The government is literally asking a private company to re-code it's operating system, sign it, and install it on a device while setting the legal precedent that they could do the same, in the future, without limits. Apple is under no obligation to work for the government, for free, in recoding their technology in a way in which they didn't design it to be coded. And worse, the government is trying to lean on an act passed in 1789 in order to do so. Unless/until there are laws on the books limiting where and when this power can be leveraged, I want no part of it, for any reason. I see there is no point talking to you about this further. It's a floating man in the sky to you...you know it's there...even when it's not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 12:07 PM) Then Apple should have led with that argument. Instead they're going the privacy route, which means it's not a burden to them at all. And like I said, whether it's more difficult to do or not, the same concerns were made or could have been made with phone companies or ISP's, but it's not much of an issue now. The order was extremely limited and it was still provided by a judge. It's not like the FBI called up Apple and told them to do it. They went through the justice system. Yeah, again, slippery slope on a very specific, limited case is not a good argument. You still have privacy rights. The government still has to obtain a warrant or something similar in order to access the data. I don't see how it's any different than the process of obtaining a wire tap. All you're doing is asking Apple to create a key versus just opening the door they already have a key for. In the end it's still the same - hey company X, help me look into Y. Sure they could, they can pass a law tomorrow. They can threaten to ban Apple from the country. Apple still has to abide by Chinese law, so if the Chinese really wanted to do this, they could. That doesn't force apple to recode it's operating system. That's a choice. That's the difference. The US Government is trying to strip Apple of that choice...because that's very American. The rest of what you said I already addressed. Now, stop comparing this to a technology from the 1800's in wired communications. It's different because the underlying technology is entirely different. It's a horse and buggy analogy vs a stealth fighter. Not the same.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 12:09 PM) It's not "everyone." It's a dead terrorist operating within the US. The subject phone being his employer phone. He had no privacy expectations on it anyway. No, today it's a dead terrorist. Tomorrow it's you, because you MIGHT have pirated music on your phone. The next day, it's your buddy, because he got pulled over for speeding and he MIGHT be a drug dealer. It's a slippery slope specifically BECAUSE there are no laws limiting when, how and why they can use the courts for this. You may be ok with that, because 'OMG TERRORISTS', but I'm not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) (1) I feel like telephone companies could have made these arguments (and probably did) decades ago, and yet wiretaps and surveillance via phone and phone records are absolutely key to our justice system. Same with ISP's and internet search histories and data. It all works without a big "OMG it's 1984!" reaction. Just because it's more difficult to do than plugging in a wire (or checking computer records), the concept and privacy concerns are the exact same. Nope, the phone company does not have to modify anything in order to tap a line, that's how the technology was built from the ground up. There were also strict rules in place on taps, which do not exist in this case. You can't just tap a line and listen to every conversation, you can listen in for a few seconds, and unless the conversation pertains to the court order, you have to turn it back off. Keep in mind, they're leveraging the all writs act in order to compel Apple here, and that act specifically states it cannot place undue burden...having to recode an OS to function exactly how they do not want it function is pretty burdensome. It's not the governments place to tell Apple how it can code it's operating system. Period. Apple has these safeguards in place, because without them, the OS isn't secure. Once again, Apple isn't fighting the fact that something could be done, it's that that's NOT how they designed it work, AND once a company can be forced to do what the government wants in one instance, the government can continue to compel companies to do so in future cases...and to what end? Since there are no laws/limits on what they can tell a company to do, there are no limits to this power. See response 2. It's not within the governments right or power to be able to tell a company how they can code software, or the security therein. The way the phone company works over copper wire is NOT the same way communication works over the internet. And for wiretaps, again, the government DOES NOT have the right to 24/7 monitor you even with a tap in place, which is part of the telecommunications act. The issue is, this act which was written for a different technology, and is now applied to Internet communications and computers (for which it was not written), therefore everything lands in a grey area where they're applying these same laws. No, China cannot. Apple has the ability to simply say no to any demand China has. And that's what you seem to be missing. Apple is telling the US government, "we don't want to write our OS, or any version of our OS, to do what you're asking, it wasn't designed to work that way"...and the government is trying to force them to do so via an act written in 1789.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 22, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) So I have a question. If some average Joe forgets his pin and tries multiple times to get into his phone and ends up locking himself out of it, how do they deal with that? It depends, by default, the action allows you to try a certain amount of times (I believe 6?) before it locks the phone into a delay mode where you can only try guessing the PIN once per minute. This prevents brute forcing the phone open by continuously trying until you guess right. THEN, the next level of security would kick in after a series of more incorrect attempts, which is disable mode. After the phone is in disable mode, it requires you to plug it into iTunes to unlock OR restores it in DFU mode (restore mode), which basically formats the phone, which would clear the PIN, etc. If the phone has "find my iPhone enabled" this requires an additional step, because if find my iPhone is on, the phone CANNOT be formatted regardless of DFU mode. This prevents thieves from restoring stolen iPhone's, which is why stealing a properly configured iPhone basically means you've stolen a brick. In such a case, the user can login to icloud.com and REMOVE the phone from their iCloud configuration, allowing them to fully wipe the phone via DFU. There is, however, an even MORE secure option, which is disabled by default. This option allows just 10 attempts to unlock the PIN or the phone completely wipes itself. And to answer your question, they don't deal with it. If you forget your pin, you have the option of wiping the phone via DFU, or remembering the PIN.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 21, 2016 -> 07:47 PM) Thanks man! Honestly, I don't need it. The simple solution you gave me gets me all I need. I appreciate the tips. Go Sox! Wasn't the one that gave you that suggestion.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 21, 2016 -> 04:13 PM) Thanks for the additional color - I appreciate it. Social media sites remain blocked under https, so I suspect you're assumption is correct. Furthermore, I can still get on fantasy hockey and basketball, but for some reason baseball is blocked without using https. If you have access to a "UNIX shell", there is a very easy way around all of this. If you had a Mac at home (which runs UNIX) you could even use that to do it. You basically create an SSH tunnel to a destination computer and configure SOCKS proxy in Windows (or Firefox) to push all of your traffic across that tunnel, and the computer it pushes it too is actually what goes out to the Internet allowing fully open access. As a bonus, it's all all encrypted because your doing it over a secure tunnel to the destination computer, so they wouldn't really know what you were doing. If you have access to a UNIX shell, I can easily show you how to configure this.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 21, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) So the company goes through the effort to block certain websites, an employee finds a way around the initial block, and you don't think it goes against what the company wants? If the company wasn't trying to stop employees from visiting those websites, why the initial block? Could have just been accidental, a feature of the new firewall they installed that they forgot to disable or didn't know was enabled. I find that scenario more likely than one where they enabled it for http but not https, when the majority of the world runs https these days. And the "effort" you speak of amounts too checking a box.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 21, 2016 -> 06:24 AM) Or they believe that by paying someone a salary they will follow workplace rules. Technically, he's not breaking any workplace rules. If they wanted to block said websites, they should know you have to block both http AND https (default ports 80 and 443, respectively). Those are the only two standard web ports, one is for standard communication, and one is for encrypted communication. The fact they left one of the two wide open means they don't really care. There are also other ways for the company to prevent such access, such as using a proxy that only allows certain classifications of websites, and social media (including all social media type sites) could be blacklisted regardless of port. You can also block proxy, etc...and none of this is all that difficult for even an unexperienced IT team.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 20, 2016 -> 11:32 AM) Everyone needs a little humility now and again. It was a good time for you to provide that. The problem, in this instance, is the government is playing fast and loose with the terms of what it's requesting. That way, technically speaking, what they want isn't a "backdoor", but it is a method to skirt security protocols which would enable them access to kick the front door in via an unlimited number of attempts. Such a method doesn't exist, as safeguards are built in to prevent exactly that behavior. Worse than that, is in addition to requesting the ability to kick at the front door until it fails, they want to automate the process, so a computer could, via physical access, over wifi or over Bluetooth, automate the pin process (i.e., kick the door until they guess right and it opens), which is a brute force. Any security system that allows unlimited brute force attempts is NOT secure. Apple was just all over the news of overlooking this very measure with iCloud leading the the nude picture hack. By allowing unlimited password attempts against iCloud, hackers were able to brute force their way into celebrity accounts and leak information online. Apple was roasted over the coals for this...and now the government wants them to basically create a method of doing exactly that to their OS. The danger comes in, because if allowed, there are no laws that restrict when they can make such requests. Today it's cool because they're targeting terrorism, but what if they decide to start unlocking phones because they "think you're a drug dealer", or because of something they make illegal in the future that isn't illegal now...or perhaps because they think you're pirating music, and they should be allowed to unlock your device and check. That's the danger... They've been waiting to make such a court ordered request for some time now...this case just happens to be the perfect storm for their argument...it's about terrorists...and they know they can leverage American fears over this specific subject and get the public on their side. And, as you can see...it's working.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 20, 2016 -> 11:52 AM) So the company that is paying your salary doesn't want you to access those sites using their equipment and resources. So you're looking for ways around their restriction. Is it really worth risking your job over? To be honest, if their protections cannot even stop a simple web port change, then the company doesn't care that much anyway.

This, in a nutshell (from a staff attorney of the ACLU) is why this is dangerous for the future...and it has a lot to do with today it's just a phone...tomorrow it's your refrigerator, your media hub, your television, etc...all possible (and probable) surveillance devices. It may be 2016, but welcome to 1984.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 07:00 PM) Bravo! Bravo! Meh, this is a touchy subject to me...it's infuriating how the Government leverages incidents and/or uses fear tactics and misinformation in order to pass laws like the Patriot act, and now this...I'm pretty over the top passionate about it. Bmags is a good guy, so I had to tweak my post down, because he commands a certain amount of respect around here, and deservedly so. Instead of getting angry, I need to try to show people why this isn't the same as in the past...so I'm collecting information and posting it here, instead.

I'll just leave this here for futher reading. I implore you all to educate yourself on why this is a NEW precedent, and WHY it's important. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016...ple-against-fbi http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-34...ed-devices.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/19/...i-on-encryption

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 04:48 PM) No, they weren't asked to make it easier. They were asked to help allow the FBI gain access to the data in this specific phone. The court order does not ask they make it easier on all other phones that they produce. What happens if they need access to a phone again? Why, they do what they just did, get a court order to do this and if the court deems it narrow and acceptable, provide the necessary resources to help with the law. None of this compliance is new. There is ample, ample precedent here. Yes, they're absolutely asking to make it easier, so again, I repeat -- you do not know what you're talking about. You can't create software for "that specific phone", that cannot be altered to work on a host of others. If it's created it can be used and reused/tweaked/altered to work on ANY other iPhone. Would it be easy? Nope. Could it be done? Yes. And that's the problem. There is no "this specific device" when it comes to software, because it can be recoded, VERY easily. With a proper crack/tweak, you can install Windows on ANY PC...but how is this possible?! I KNOW that at some point in your life, you've installed Windows on a computer it wasn't made for...because when altered, it's THAT easy to do. This precedent, which you claim exists (it doesn't), which is exactly why Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, the ACLU, Amnesty International, and a HOST of others stepped forward to publicly back Apple BECAUSE the precedent the government is trying to establish does not exist. ALLLLLLL those companies, and the legal experts working for those companies disagree with you, because if said precedent existed, you wouldn't be reading about it in the news. This isn't the government asking Apple to open a door to which they have the keys to open. This is the government asking Apple to take the locks on that iPhone, to which they DO NOT have the keys, and make them incredibly easy to pick by removing or circumventing the security measures in place that stop them from being picked in the first place. The problem is, Apple used that SAME lock mechanism on ALLLLLLL the doors on every iPhone with iOS 9 installed on it...which is hundreds of millions of them. So stop talking about what you don't understand.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 19, 2016 -> 03:28 PM) I blame them for saying no. They are full of crap. Any time you see a silicon valley CEO grandstanding about privacy it's b.s. This is a remarkably narrow court order, I don't believe for a second that they could open up this specific phone. Slippery slope arguments are terrible. Uh, no. Incorrect in every way imaginable. The issue at hand isn't whether Apple can do it or not. What's being asked is that Apple make it easier, thus creating methods to circumvent protections. A 4 digit code (which is what we're talking about in this case), only has 10000 possible combinations, from 0000 to 9999, and this simple math applies to ALL 4 digit pins. If you go in sequence, from 0000, 0001, 0002 ... 9999, you WILL eventually guess the password. What the FBI wants is unlimited password attempts, AND the ability to render these attempts from software (bypassing the need to actually slide to unlock and type the 4 digits). This would allow them to break the code with ease. If you give a person unlimited password attempts at a 4, or even 6 digit passcode, you may as well not bother with encryption or any sort of protection...because it's now entirely (and easily) hackable. What is ACTUALLY at hand here, is the legal precedent being set. IF Apple complies, this case can (and will) be used as reference for ALL future cases in which any government agency, from the FBI to the LAPD, to leverage a company in the same regard. I think we can all agree that we'd like any and all information possible from these terrorists... ...so what about next month when the Detroit PD cites this case when it compels Apple to unlock the iPhone of a petty pot dealer? Or what about when the CPD wants to unlock the phone of a guy who had the audacity to drive 35mph through Rham's neighborhood where the speed limit is 20 (or whatever Rham decides that day)? Oh, I know...we can trust our government...they'd NEVER do that. Right. They [the FBI] are trying to claim -- and leaning on peoples fears and lack of knowledge on the subject -- that they SWEAR TO GOD THEY ONLY WANT TO DO IT THIS ONCE...when that's not how it works. And they know that's not how it works. If they can do it this once...they can and WILL do it again. So yes...slippery slope indeed. Edit: Bottom line, if the FBI wants to hack that phone, THEY should hack it. Compelling a private company to rewrite software so it's weaker and easier for them to do so is an outlandish abuse of power. The fact anyone sides with the FBI on this is f***ing insane. Any of you that back the FBI on this need to re-evaulate the Patriot Act, because that clearly means you also back the Patriot Act...and if you back the Patriot Act, I have no problems telling you that you're a f***ing idiot, whether it gets me suspended from here or not.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 09:46 AM) This seems to be along the lines of the Scandanavian socialist model. It won't work here. Scandanavia didn't have over a century of slavery followed by a century of segregation that created a massive underclass. You can't just instantly legislate social equality the way that Scandanavia has. There needs to be a lot of incremental progress in dealing with America's problems. Of course not, since Scandinavia is about 95% white.