Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor
-
@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.
Exactly.
-
@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.
Wait - What? Say it isn't so!!!
-
@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.
But they already have that? The smurf toolset gives all of that anyways doesn't it...?
-
This post is deleted! -
This is nothing new. Government often sends off ridiculous balloons to see if they fly in the public arena. If the populace isn't desensitized enough to let them get away with whatever crazy thing it is, they go back to the drawing board and try again after a bit, in a less obvious way. Eventually, historically, the public opinion softens or the presentation is tweaked in a less-offensive way, and then something that everyone knew was wrong a couple of years ago becomes an allowable precedent. Wait, it will come back around... and your freedoms will be eroded just a little bit more.
-
@art_of_shred The erosion of freedoms here isn't what happened though. Poor programming methods, and a lack of physical control to the device allowed the phone to be hacked.
Sure the government is always attempting to find more ways to monitor more, but the matter of the discussion is that not having physical security of the device allows as many attempts as desired to crack security.
It's bruteforce 101. Physical access wins eventually..
-
@DustinB3403 said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
@art_of_shred The erosion of freedoms here isn't what happened though. Poor programming methods, and a lack of physical control to the device allowed the phone to be hacked.
Sure the government is always attempting to find more ways to monitor more, but the matter of the discussion is that not having physical security of the device allows as many attempts as desired to crack security.
It's bruteforce 101. Physical access wins eventually..
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm stating that while it's obvious that the backdoor wasn't required, the FBI pushed for it anyway. That's not an argument against what you're pointing out. It's an argument that the government uses opportunities like this to push against the public for broader power, to see if they can get it. If you think they did it solely for that investigation, that's a dangerously myopic view.
-
@dafyre said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
Just goes to show you... with physical access, your device is easily pwned.
Yup, just as I had described. Yank the chip and do anything you want with it.
-
@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.
Yup, that's the point
-
@NattNatt said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.
But they already have that? The smurf toolset gives all of that anyways doesn't it...?
Yes, but they'd have to admit having it. So mostly this was probably an attempt to get people to think (And it worked too) that they didn't have a capability that they already clearly have. It wasn't just about getting legal power, it was about trying to hide their actual toolsets.
It's not called Smurf in the US, but we buy Smurf from the UK and rebrand it, I'm told.
-
@art_of_shred said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
This is nothing new. Government often sends off ridiculous balloons to see if they fly in the public arena. If the populace isn't desensitized enough to let them get away with whatever crazy thing it is, they go back to the drawing board and try again after a bit, in a less obvious way. Eventually, historically, the public opinion softens or the presentation is tweaked in a less-offensive way, and then something that everyone knew was wrong a couple of years ago becomes an allowable precedent. Wait, it will come back around... and your freedoms will be eroded just a little bit more.
It's like the Brexit vote. They set it up so that only one outcome would actually happen. Test public opinion, if they want to stay, it just delays to another vote in a year or two. If they want to leave, they leave. Given how the vote worked, it was just a loop that would run until the pre-determined outcome was reached. But the public would think that they voted and determined the outcome.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
@NattNatt said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
@pchiodo said in Cambridge Proves FBI Lied About Needing iPhone Backdoor:
The goal was never to get into just one phone. They wanted a legal precedent that would allow them to force a manufacturer to assist in breaking any phone, along with the potential to use the same case to force manufacturers to provide an encryption back door.
But they already have that? The smurf toolset gives all of that anyways doesn't it...?
Yes, but they'd have to admit having it. So mostly this was probably an attempt to get people to think (And it worked too) that they didn't have a capability that they already clearly have. It wasn't just about getting legal power, it was about trying to hide their actual toolsets.
It's not called Smurf in the US, but we buy Smurf from the UK and rebrand it, I'm told.
Yeah, the good old Snowden leak gave away far more than they ever wanted to be known...
Yeah, I knew it's a joint op between GCHQ and the NSA, wasn't sure as to which side "made" more of it etc
