Contents:
Wait, what? To the extent police work is someone's religion, I'd submit that these are exactly the police I'm talking about. Got it. At least you're consistent.
The sensor contains a microphone that detects the acoustic properties of the object to create note. I am not saying "Tim Cook can not possibly be lying. Especially interesting is how often they repeat the need to keep the practice secret, including having a hour hotline local police can use to get advice on how to hide the source even if they have to immediately give testimony in court. Yeah, that's how I see it. If it isn't a crime then they aren't criminals. I do believe in that claim. Oh, it gets better.
Yes, my simplistic worldview often gets me into trouble. But this will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure. I agree that her uniform is largely irrelevant to the discussion. She also likely has no choice in it. I'm trigger happy pointing out police militarization, which manifests in overt "tanks" and subtle ways military dress.
Perhaps it's a stretch, but I believe that militarization doesn't ease the tendency of the police to desire and acquire powers they shouldn't have. Zigurd on Sept 30, Dress uniform for police? That's not quite as bad as the paramilitary BDUs, but, really? Police do have official events to attend. In my state capital there is a yearly event to honor fallen officers where representatives from every police force in the state show up in their dress uniforms for a mass memorial service.
Zigurd on Oct 1, They could wear suits. That might remind them they are of the people, and their first priority is to serve the people. They might also consider attending the memorial service for Mike Brown. In suits. They'd have to only attend if off-duty then wouldn't they? One point of police uniform is to identify a person as being a warranted police officer on duty then there's the appearance of officialdom and the sense of inferiority it breeds in others, the camaraderie, You'd probably need to change the law if you want to allow regular warranted officers to be on duty in civilian clothing, jurisdiction dependent of course.
I don't really understand why you don't want to be able to identify your police officers though - even the UPS drivers wear uniform. Thank you for making this point. The very last thing we need is to have police disguise themselves as regular folks. It creates a number of dangerous conditions for both the police and the public.
OTOH, her uniform is very "Aladeen" and while fussing about her uniform is a mostly trivial distraction, having a uniform that is a bit less "Aladeen" would probably short-circuit such criticism. If there weren't more important problems with this person, I would fully support mocking her ridiculous uniform.
I don't think they are reminded of who they are and what their priorities are, by it. I wish this argument would stop. Oh, it gets better. Perhaps one would call this sort of exotic and nefarious contraption a "safe"? Well we all know that law enforcement gets a copy of every safe key made.
They are going straight into "think of the children mode" What else would they say? If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists? You're reading a paint-by-numbers article about government impotence and corporate supremacy like it's finely crafted pro-government propaganda. You and most HN commenters didn't.
Why should they? Not exactly a controversial opinion among the commentariat. If anything I'm more prone to believe this is disinformation meant to allay our fears and draw us into a false sense of security when using our smartphones. Is there any evidence that smartphone purchasing or use has dropped significantly as a symptom of widespread fear of government spying and overreach?
From what I can tell, the only thing most Americans are concerned about at the moment is whether the iPhone will bend if you keep it in your pocket for too long. Disinformation is a plausible strategy, but most Americans simply do not, and have never, cared and a significant portion of those who do, think it's perfectly justifiable and would tell you Edward Snowden needs to swing from a rope, once you reminded them of who he is. Would it even be necessary? The average consumer isn't who they are trying to convince, it's the security conscious who take measures to protect their privacy.
They are the people who need to be tricked into thinking the iphone's passkey is bulletproof. Hmm sounds to me like they are trying to convince people to use their phones for illegal doings.
Also, all of the comments in this thread not this one specifically make me wish HN threads root comments defaulted to collapsed so people might avoid duplicate root comments. That's an interesting idea. It's not often that people in law enforcement or military intelligence will come out publicly and say "if such-and-such adversary were to use this widely-available technology we'd be stymied!
Possibly reminiscent of the Freakonomics suggestion for terrorists to buy life insurance from their bank. I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't law enforcement still be allowed to access phone records unecrypted if they have an actual suspect and court order? Yes but they want the data on the mobile device.
For example, I use textsecure when texting my friends.
Its encrypted locally and over the wire so the records would only help them show who not what I was talking about. With end-to-end encryption where the messages are encrypted and decrypted on the client it would not be possible for anyone with access to phone records or central servers to read what was said.
They would need to obtain the private keys that are generated on the client devices themselves.
You are using the application processor the "computer" to do that work, but there are two other computers inside your phone - the baseband processor and the SIM card. Depending on the SOC your phone is based on, the baseband processor can have DMA access to your application processor.
What that means is, the baseband processor which you have no control over whatsoever can read your RAM directly. Your cryptosystem that you describe probably works quite well on a desktop or laptop computer, but your carrier completely and totally owns your phone and everything on it. It seems like what we need to do is separate the damn things. Build the phone as two independent machines that only communicate with each other over ethernet.
Then the user controls the one that runs Android and the other one never sees plaintext. Don't expect to see that architecture on the floor of a retailer near you anytime soon. Maybe in the EU??? NOT in the US. But they'd still be able to do that given a warrant? Or is this unwarrantable protection, for lack of a better word?
They could use a warrant to compel the sender or the recipient of the messages to unlock them or face jail time. But Apple doesn't have the keys. I think the most important thing here is that law enforcement must approach the individual. What happens next may end up a complicate web of legal acrobatics, but the individual at least knows the law is after them.
That's a good thing, IMHO. If your privacy is being violated by police forcing you to open your phone to them I'm also pretty sure you'd at least have a strong suspicion on the "why" it's happening to you as well - fair or otherwise. CHY on Oct 1, I read it somewhere on the internet and it sounded credible at the time.
Assuming they can get the client device s before they are destroyed. Probably harder and takes longer than searching through a confiscated phone from a suspect. You can, as far as I know, confiscate and search a suspect just based on probable cause, whereas you'd need to have at least a subpoena if not a warrant to get wiretap authorization or phone records.
A recent Supreme Court ruling[0] makes it unlawful for authorities to search confiscated cell phones without a warrant. They could, theoretically, confiscate your phone based on probable cause, but searching it would be a different matter. Oh, excellent! At least that prevents overt searches. They talk about a balancing act and a criminal underworld free for all but I haven't seen too many complaints from the FBI about the millions of Americans whose constitutional rights are infringed upon every day during the NSA's total government free for all as well as the wide variety of stories pertaining to other agencies and local law enforcement which are abusing various forms of intelligence gathering.
These guys typically make the "think of the children" arguments. Keep an eye on the names of the agencies involved. Remember how iOS 6 stopped all child pornography? What a great operating system. This seems like one of the most obvious media presses I've ever seen. I can't decide whether it's good to see the press that security is getting, and have the same terrible LE quotes show up, or bad that there is such widespread dissemination that LE is unhappy about this and hey if you're a good citizen you will buy a phone we can more easily unlock.
AJ on Sept 30, Whether or not its a coordinated media blitz or just journalists piggybacking on each other for content I don't know. That it is coming out at the same time new iPhones could go either way.
Nothing prevents backdooring of a phone or someone spying as the user enters their simple password. Local law enforcement doesn't have these resources and has gotten used to access to all kinds of evidence that never existed.