Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikpukinskis | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't something like that be encrypted and have a neural password?

What makes you think the government couldn't demand the maker of the neural connectors exfiltrate the neural password?

The fact that this is already a solved problem for iPhones via the Secure Enclave?

I'm not convinced it is entirely solved though. Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted?

I think at the end of the day, software has bugs. And if you have an extremely well funded and intelligent group (e.g. Equation Group) looking for these holes and keeping them secret for personal use and exploitation rather than fixing them, there are going to be ways for your data to be compromised.

> Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted?

The phone in the San Bernardino case was an iPhone 5C, with the A6 processor. Secure Enclave was introduced in the A7.

https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure...

Ah yes, I forgot this detail. Thanks!

No, the model of the iPhone the FBI wanted to access didn't have the Secure Enclave.

I agree with you, although you were wrong about that specific Apple case. I don't trust "secure enclave" because it would be too easy for a TLA to infiltrate the chip foundry and backdoor the silicon. they can literally print money, circumvent the constitution using secret courts/NSL's, their resources are infinite. what would stop them from doing this ?

Even if you couldn't infiltrate the chip foundry, you could order a bunch of the chips, reverse engineer them, and in a few months, ship a duplicate with a neutered "enclave". Then interdict the shipment to the phone manufacturer (this isn't tinfoil, it's been done) and "supply" them with your version of the "secure enclave". There's no limit to this cat and mouse game.

That's not really an argument against a neural lace, though. You're just as fucked if you don't get one - they drop child porn on your laptop, or just disappear you.

There is a even easier way to get somebody finished off.. drop a noisy true crypt container on there cellphone or notebook - if they get searched- they will be held in contempt indefinably for a white noise treasure trove they can not open.

Easy to defend, they have to prove you created said file consciously if the device was ever in the possession of someone else other than police. If they are likely to break the law to tamper with evidence, you've already lost.

It's a solved problem the way the laws are currently written. It's not a solved problem if the laws are rewritten to require manufacturers to support a backdoor.

How would the maker of the neural connectors get your neural password?

There have been several court cases where the government has compelled people to give up encryption keys in court, I assume this will be no different.

If you have something, a court can order you to give it up. If you know something which might incriminate you (e.g. a password), your testimony is protected by the 5th.

Passwords have only been protected by the 5th amendment when ownership of the electronic account/device is unproven.

For international laws, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law

Specifically for the US, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Fricosu

Important to note that this is a legal theory, that is not yet backed up by precedent or statute! The police have successfully compelled password disclosure many times.

There has been tons of precedent, on both sides: http://www.zdnet.com/article/florida-court-says-password-dis...

This is the only sane interpretation, though, as people have more and more encrypted devices, it's unreasonable to punish someone for not remembering a password.

unless you're that police officer from pennsylvania who they just locked up without due process until he coughs up the password.

Source? I'm from PA and haven't heard about this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/2...

apparently the "All Writs Act" of 1789 is the "constitution doesn't apply to you" trump card.

  they just locked up

That wording implies that this "just" happened, even perhaps during the current administration. The court order was 18 months ago, and he's been "locked up" for the past 16 months.

I think he meant 'just' in the 'simply' sense.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeals disagrees with you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

My iPhone is set to passcode unlock instead of fingerprint because of the reasoning you say, but if other courts start agreeing with this one, I'm inclined to change to Touch ID for simplicity :(

There is still the argument that you can be physically coerced to unlock your phone against your will by someone pressing it against your finger, but you can't type in a passcode against your will.

What if you have a self destruct code? (engineered in a way that makes it indistinguishable that it has been activated instead of normal description)

Or better yet, a dead man switch.

Cannot be really held in contempt for having features to prevent coercion.

Call me when a circuit court makes a decision, at the least. SCOTUS will almost certainly decide on "forgetting your password is not a crime".

The keys are derived from the password which can't be compelled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com