Hacker News Reader

Comment by notthegov | Hacker News Reader

He is suggesting that the FBI sees this as an opportunity to set a precedent and doesn't care about the data?

If so, in FBI logic, in the future there could be a more legitimate need for Apple to comply because a suspect could have a WMD. But so far no such threat exists.

However, let's distort the issue and exploit this opportunity now knowing few will go against law enforcement tactics against the San Bernardino killers?

Because they will need the power in the future but the public has to be scared into acting now to prevent the real hypothetical future attack?

View on HN

No, the public has to be scared into standing by while the courts force Apple to unlock a phone for the FBI, so there will be adequate precedent for doing so later in in more mundane cases, like drug dealers, gangs, and so on.

The thing that scares law enforcement is that in recent years, they've been handed piles of easy evidence that is recorded permanently and easy to access. While before you actually had to do an active man-in-the-middle attack, known as "wiretapping", and that required a court order with good evidence, now there's a ton of communication that is already recorded on persistent media, and all they have to do is find some excuse for taking a look at it to get a lot of extra information without much trouble.

This is the most reasonable explanation I have read so far.

Especially given that surveillance tools tend to "trickle down" wrt the severity of the alleged crimes required to use them.

Perfect description of how we "just" need to see a return of "good-old police work" combined with modern high-level training.

This stuff is hard and should be hard - apropos jobs and automation: it's also a great opportunity for politicians to align income levels with the private sector to attract only the best of the best (humans vs. "high-tech" toys).

This was raised and discussed in another thread and I believe this to be the case. Walt Mossberg, a pretty well known verge reporter who wrote one of the articles that was circulating a few weeks ago about the decline in Apple software, was discussing this on his podcast.

The idea that actors move forward with a specific case was new to me, but I obviousloy never thought much about it and it seems pretty intuitive when considered. Roe v. Wade and the Rosa Parks case were raised in the other thread as well as, IIRC the Brown v. Board of Edu.

What happens is that the prosecution or another actor can Appeal to the supreme court (or choose what case to prosecute etc.) with the ultimate goal of timing sentiment, finding the perfect array of facts and discovery, and having everything align perfectly. They then push up to the supreme court with the best chance of getting a binding ruling that would become defacto law.

In this scenario (and from here forward is my non-expert opinion) the data is probably in a best case scenario for the FBI slightly useful. However, not getting this data is pretty much meaningless. So they are likely to:

* Use public sentiment and the recent terrorist attacks as a catalyst for their demand (you quite correctly raised this point).

* The suspects are dead. So while they may not be guilty in the court of law, it is pretty obvious that they did it thus there is no risk of them being acquitted.

* Most evidence suggests a fairly lone wolf attack scenario, so if they were working with anyone the data would likely be on a computer or in call logs. Thus the minimal gov't gain which would be maybe mapping a name to some of the numbers.

* They have a successful narrative to frame and this coincided with a bill to limit encryption.

So yes. This was a strategic move. If John McAfee is to be believed, and on one hand he sort of fucking isn't, but on the other hand I actually do but mostly on faith, he and his team can successfully decrypt the phone.

He has publicly offered (possibly taking out an editorial but I did see the article at least) that he would unlock the phone for free if they would drop the case. Now, even if they gov can't get in (and they can), it isn't unreasonable to not give the phone to a suspected murder.

That said I think John McAfee and probably a few people on here could get in, so the tl;dr is ya they coming for that secure enclave.

That said I think John McAfee and probably a few people on here could get in, so the tl;dr is ya they coming for that secure enclave.

Small note - in the case of this particular phone it doesn’t have a secure enclave. But yes, I’m sure parts of the US government want to use this case as a stepping stone to gaining access to the secure enclave via legally mandated means.

Once they have a legally enforced backdoor, that’s a mechanism that the security services can use worldwide to compromise any phone they’re interested in, as we’ve seen with the mandated wiretap accesses built in to phone switches.

> Small note - in the case of this particular phone it doesn’t have a secure enclave.

Correct. Should have said this explicitly. They could use the precedent of bypass functionality in this instance to have it ship with new phones bypassing SE.

I think the enclave is probably an enclave, but if it is secure they are going to want access to it. Picking a 5c in this instance and getting the Supreme Court to grant this would be a good way to make a defacto law that applies to a markedly different set of technology sets.

the logical extension is that the government passes a law forbidding encrypted devices that don't have a backdoor from access to cell and wireless networks. This would include the sale of any encrypted devices within its borders and bringing one in would be illegal.

Once they convince the American public that encryption is a threat to both their security and privacy they will have it in the bag. How will the convince that encryption is dangerous to their privacy? Some FUD attack that public behavior studies government wonks will come up with. For the children might work.

This could also be an act to regain trust and make us less paranoid.

Why was this downvoted? I'm sure this is exactly the thinking? Man HN can be weird sometimes.

well now it's top comment. funny how that happens.

Whether it is true or not, I dunno, but I was told that the native Americans thought that immediate responses/reactions were disrespectful.

Regardless of the historical truth of my folk-tale, I find the idea interesting.

Nowadays, slow == bad (or forgotten/disregarded). The recent Springer "publications greater than 10 years old are free" comes to mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com