Technology catch-all thread

[RockRaines]

I've never not had spotify premium and am shocked how useless the free version is. Being able to use it on mobile off wifi is hard not to have.

You can still use it on mobile without wifi but it shuffles, which is what I do anyway. It's pandora with being able to choose the songs and playlists.

[Panerista]

I've never not had spotify premium and am shocked how useless the free version is. Being able to use it on mobile off wifi is hard not to have.

Now Apple is preparing to follow with Apple Music, essentially disabling all the radio stations for non-subscribers. I don't like Apple Music, but it sucks our options are decreasing.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

^ Speaking of Apple...

Tim Cook says Apple will fight US gov’t over court-ordered iPhone Backdoor.

 

Cook's letter to customers.

 

Good.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't see the issue with it. This is a pretty narrow case - terrorists that are already dead. I think the government has a reasonable need to look at that phone and look for other would-be terrorists out there. From that link, here's what the order says:

 

Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

 

It's all tailored to that one specific phone, so it's not like Apple has to post the instructions to the internet for all to see.

 

 

[iamshack]

I don't see the issue with it. This is a pretty narrow case - terrorists that are already dead. I think the government has a reasonable need to look at that phone and look for other would-be terrorists out there. From that link, here's what the order says:

 

 

 

It's all tailored to that one specific phone, so it's not like Apple has to post the instructions to the internet for all to see.

So what is your response to this?

 

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

 

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

 

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

[Jenksismyhero]

So what is your response to this?

 

The government is asking Apple to do it. I haven't read anywhere that the FBI wants to be present or the FBI wants to get the key after it has been completed. They want to make sure that once they start trying to break into the phone the phone isn't going to do an auto-delete and/or that some data isn't encrypted.

 

 

[iamshack]

The government is asking Apple to do it. I haven't read anywhere that the FBI wants to be present or the FBI wants to get the key after it has been completed. They want to make sure that once they start trying to break into the phone the phone isn't going to do an auto-delete and/or that some data isn't encrypted.

I mean I can't even begin to have the expertise to talk intelligently about this, but what do you say to the argument that once the backdoor is created, that it will be exploited by others?

[Jenksismyhero]

I mean I can't even begin to have the expertise to talk intelligently about this, but what do you say to the argument that once the backdoor is created, that it will be exploited by others?

 

I'm in the same boat as you, obviously we're talking in layman terms here.

 

But I don't see it as being any different than any other security protocol that big companies like Apple create. I'm sure hackers already try to exploit this stuff. They either have or haven't thus far. I'd rather Apple crack the code than Dimitri in the Ukraine. According to Cook the FBI wants Apple to create a different operating system and put it on this one phone. If we can't trust Apple with keeping this new OS safe, how can we feel secure that the private data they do have isn't safe?

 

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Reading through the comment sections of that article and others, there isn't really anything more that FBI needs from the phone itself. This is being looked at as more of a setting the bar for the future kind of deal.

[bigruss]

What Apple/Tim Cook is saying is that they need to create some method to access it, essentially a backdoor. You then have to protect that connection, most likely via a cert based encryption. While this would be very secure (and I'm sure they would do everything they could to protect it), once it's built it would then be target #1 for almost all hackers. Nothing is 100% safe, given enough time anything can be hacked.

 

As someone who works in IT Security, and working for a company that publically announced a breach, it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a hacker out once they are in.

[bigruss]

I'm in the same boat as you, obviously we're talking in layman terms here.

 

But I don't see it as being any different than any other security protocol that big companies like Apple create. I'm sure hackers already try to exploit this stuff. They either have or haven't thus far. I'd rather Apple crack the code than Dimitri in the Ukraine. According to Cook the FBI wants Apple to create a different operating system and put it on this one phone. If we can't trust Apple with keeping this new OS safe, how can we feel secure that the private data they do have isn't safe?

That's the thing, there is no current capability to hack, the FBI is saying to create this method for the future.

[Jenksismyhero]

Reading through the comment sections of that article and others, there isn't really anything more that FBI needs from the phone itself. This is being looked at as more of a setting the bar for the future kind of deal.

 

That doesn't seem to be accurate. The whole point is they haven't yet gotten into the phone. They want to make sure it doesn't auto-delete once they start trying a billion passwords to open it.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That's the thing, there is no current capability to hack, the FBI is saying to create this method for the future.

 

I still don't see the problem. If Apple can do it, and it's important, why not have them do it? Again, if we can't expect them to keep some software they're installing on a single device out of hacker's hands, then we shouldn't be confident they can keep other personal data secure.

 

Gizmodo's article also brought up that his phone was an older iphone. If it had been a new iphone, this wouldn't even be a possibility. So i'm not sure if the "going forward" argument works.

[Jenksismyhero]

Isn't there a way that Apple could write this OS specifically for this one phone, via a device ID or something, that would prevent its use on other phones? Or would that be a simple hack - "replace device ID" in the coding

[iamshack]

Isn't there a way that Apple could write this OS specifically for this one phone, via a device ID or something, that would prevent its use on other phones? Or would that be a simple hack - "replace device ID" in the coding

I don't know...I guess I trust this language from Apple:

 

But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.

[bigruss]

I still don't see the problem. If Apple can do it, and it's important, why not have them do it? Again, if we can't expect them to keep some software they're installing on a single device out of hacker's hands, then we shouldn't be confident they can keep other personal data secure.

 

Gizmodo's article also brought up that his phone was an older iphone. If it had been a new iphone, this wouldn't even be a possibility. So i'm not sure if the "going forward" argument works.

Every time you put information on anything digital you are taking a risk that information will be breached. You need to understand that first, if you don't like that risk then you shouldn't place that information out there (and lose the functionality it provides).

 

Are the odds high that this would get breached? Nope. Is there a chance it could be? Absolutely. What would the impacts be if it does get breached? According to Apple it would be astronomical.

 

So, is the risk worth the results?

[Balta1701]

Every time you put information on anything digital you are taking a risk that information will be breached. You need to understand that first, if you don't like that risk then you shouldn't place that information out there (and lose the functionality it provides).

 

Are the odds high that this would get breached? Nope. Is there a chance it could be? Absolutely. What would the impacts be if it does get breached? According to Apple it would be astronomical.

 

So, is the risk worth the results?

It's not just "get breached". What happens when the Chinese government starts sending in subpoenas for access to data from phones in that country? And they allege someone is a murderer but then just want access to a phone for a political reason?

[Kyyle23]

Isn't there a way that Apple could write this OS specifically for this one phone, via a device ID or something, that would prevent its use on other phones? Or would that be a simple hack - "replace device ID" in the coding

 

Come on man, you are making this out to be such a minor thing when we both know that if Apple actually created this backdoor iOS, it would be something hackers would hunt for and pay big money for. This has the potential of destroying the iOS as we know it and forcing apple to start from scratch. I dont blame them for saying no

[bmags]

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Y2HH

[bmags]

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

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.

Bravo! Bravo!

[Y2HH]

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

Edited February 20, 2016 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Y2HH