Apple is fighting the FBI
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The All Writs Act only authorizes a federal court. The FBI attempting to use it appears to be an attempt to openly inform the US public that the FBI is now seeing itself as both the executor AND the creator of laws. This looks like a fundamental subjugation of the US legal system. It would mean that the police have more authority than the law.
In practice anymore they do.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/apple-fbi-hearing-unlock-iphone.html
U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhoneSeems like someone else is helping FBI unlocking the phone!
-
I've heard suppositions where some people believe that the government can already do this, and that this whole case is a smoke screen to have people believe their devices are secure.
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
-
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
-
@Jason said:
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
If there is a backdoor of any sort, this would be the thing that would catch them.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Seems like someone else is helping FBI unlocking the phone!
John McAfee? http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
In any case, let's assume that they have the key from an ex employee - Apple now knows it's compromised... remediation would have to start ASAP, because no one is safe any more as long as that key is usable.
-
@aaronstuder said:
@Ambarishrh said:
Seems like someone else is helping FBI unlocking the phone!
John McAfee? http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2
Um... yeah.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
I clearly didn't give enough information. If the ex employee stole the key before this case even started, with no influences from the FBI (or any government branch) - and let's assume that to be true - now what?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
But the US government has made themselves above the law and has Sovereign immunity from being sued in most cases..
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
I clearly didn't give enough information. If the ex employee stole the key before this case even started, with no influences from the FBI (or any government branch) - and let's assume that to be true - now what?
Can you , under any circumstances, legally pay someone to use stolen goods for you? Not in the US you can't. Does the FBI play by the law, no. So if you assume that they are a criminal organization happy to get into piracy, extortion and theft then sure, but at that point their are just a mafia organization and no law matters at all.
-
Who said anything about paying someone? Did I miss that in the article that the FBI was paying someone?
-
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
But the US government has made themselves above the law and has Sovereign immunity from being sued in most cases..
Yes, but it is not about being sued, it's about being able to use it in court. The FBI is, without a doubt, going to act like a common criminal given the chance and their total immunity to the law (read: they have suspended all pretence of law.) but even thought they themselves are immune, they can't use that in court as the court still has to use the law.
-
@Dashrender said:
Who said anything about paying someone? Did I miss that in the article that the FBI was paying someone?
Unless the ex-Apple employee that someone imagined was going to risk their own freedom (because what we are assuming that this imaginary person must have done is enough to send them to Guantanamo Bay for life, way beyond Mitnik level hacking here) just to aid the FBI, we have to assume a lot of money being paid for this imagined crime.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
But the US government has made themselves above the law and has Sovereign immunity from being sued in most cases..
Yes, but it is not about being sued, it's about being able to use it in court. The FBI is, without a doubt, going to act like a common criminal given the chance and their total immunity to the law (read: they have suspended all pretence of law.) but even thought they themselves are immune, they can't use that in court as the court still has to use the law.
Yeah I just meant they won't be legally held responsible like they should be.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Who said anything about paying someone? Did I miss that in the article that the FBI was paying someone?
Unless the ex-Apple employee that someone imagined was going to risk their own freedom (because what we are assuming that this imaginary person must have done is enough to send them to Guantanamo Bay for life, way beyond Mitnik level hacking here) just to aid the FBI, we have to assume a lot of money being paid for this imagined crime.
you're reading to much into it.
You've assumed the employee did it to help the FBI. What is they stole it for their own reasons, whatever those might be.. and now for whatever reason, is stickin' to Apple by giving it to the FBI for free.
Granted way worse than Mitnik level here...
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Personally, it feels like the FBI's backing off with a claim of a third party is every bit as likely that they feel they are loosing the case and want to back away from this before precedent is set.
I would not be surprised if there is a programmer.. maybe one who left apple or was terminated and has it out for the company that can do this.
Interesting - If that's true, I have serious doubts about their entire security model!
Yes, for sure. The question would be.. is there a back door, a known weakness or did someone steal the key. If the later, the FBI can't use it and the evidence would be useless.
Actually is that true? I don't know the law, but if the FBI themselves weren't involved in the theft, are you sure they can't use it?
If they pay someone to steal, they are very much involved in the theft. If you hire a hitman, you still go to jail.
I clearly didn't give enough information. If the ex employee stole the key before this case even started, with no influences from the FBI (or any government branch) - and let's assume that to be true - now what?
Same thing, if the evidence wasn't obtained lawfully, and it is brought to light, then the evidence is admissible (certainly in the UK legal system)...hence why they might not ask many questions then they can say "well we didn't know, so it still counts" kind of thing...
But not sure how this would work when it's not a court case (I presume since they're dead they can't be tried...)
