Posted on 03/08/2017 8:20:08 AM PST by Swordmaker
I don't know why but I don't believe them...
I’d mentioned a long time ago, anything can be compromised and hacked. Including Apple phones. To believe otherwise, is foolish.
A realistic evaluation of the situation is in order too.
We are humans after all, and wireless communication is just too tempting.
In the end the Fat Lady has sung, and digital communication is compromised for the foreseeable future. The real problem is basically undetectable and easily copied.
One counter is to send text messages that have been encrypted using one-time pads. They can find out with whom you're communicating, but they can't break the message without figuring out the one-time pads, which is why you never re-use them.
The big problem with one-time pads is distributing them. This problem still exists even with text messages.
Real old school stuff. Reasonable sized one time pads can be beaten by brute force. I guess you would need a one time pad on a roll of TP stretching to the moon.
Yes, Apple does offer a substantial bounty for reporting vulnerabilities found in iOS, MacOS, and any of its hardware. Ironically, that bounty resulted in the iPhone 911 exploit being released into the wild last October and its author now being under two felony indictments for accidentally releasing the toxic version of what he thought was a more innocuous version of his vulnerability and exploit malware he posted in hopes of getting one of those bounties. He posted his malware sample on Reddit instead of just submitting it to Apple, the proper method of trying to get a bounty. Ignorance of proper procedure resulted in a lot of grief for him and the 911 emergency centers who were inundated with repeated calls.
And dishonorable Tyrants feel free to ignore those rules. . . indeed they feel free to spread the entire Constitution.
The evidence is all against your position and on Apple's side on this. Apple has fought the government tooth and nail to keep customer data private and secure. They could make a lot of money by selling the customer data they hold, but they don't. In fact, Apple has put a lot of their money toward that customer privacy and security. So, tell us, why don't you believe Apple when their corporate policy, statements, and long term behavior shows just the opposite of what you say you don't believe?
Absolutely agree. People are acting like sheep. They should be making a f’n fuss!
There is no problem. You use a publicly available book. . . one that is the same regardless of where you look at it. There is just an agreed on schedule of when a specific book is the "one-time pad" being used. This can be as granular as down to a day, an hour, or even a specific time of day, just as long as sender and receiver (or their sending/receiving devices) know that schedule. Problem solved.
In my situation, I’m far more leery of criminals than the current administration.
No, they cannot. Even simple, small, one time pads using random sources are unbeatable. Each letter, space, number, or character, can come from an entirely different location in the one time pad so the transmitted data appears to be totally random as well. Nothing repeats so there is literally nothing to get a handle on to look for a pattern.
The only holdup in that was the fact that Apple refused to help the FBI (Apple doesn't like the Feds catching terrorists I guess). Once the FBI hired an outside firm to do it, it was done pretty quickly.
Sure it can. Just run all possibilities against a dictionary of all words. It’s Trivial.
No, Okie. You don't know what you are talking about. A dictionary will not find a pad's coding for page, line, word, character location in word. It's impossible. That data will change for EVERY SINGLE LETTER IN THE CODE. It changes for every letter, space, number, period, comma, colon, apostrophe, etc. There is no way on earth that anyone can tell what code sequence is which character. No single word is ever represented. All the decoder has is a series of numbers and may not even know where a specific character definition starts and stops. There may be nonsense numbers between characters for all he knows. I would set it up that way. That's what is trivial if you program the devices to handle it all.
Here's an example using just one reply from one thread and one reply from an unknown FreeRepublic Thread as the one-time pad:
BEGIN
16302902120303003020303103090103203010203302190303404050
2035040104036020505037031702038020710039032103040046100504102130
304202160604303100104404100204504070504110204603220304703110104
802130704904110305002090205102130905201040205301010105403130
4055010509056011102057021905
END
(line breaks are purely random and represent nothing pertinent to the code or the sense of the message. Consider the code as one continuous line.)
I will tell you that your name, Okie, occurs once, and the string "code" may occur more than once in this encryption. I am using a one-time pad. Someone who knows the key and the one-time pad thread could easily decipher it. I took some time and honestly constructed this message. However, no amount of brute force with a dictionary will ever make a dent in trying to decipher it. . . because not one letter, character, punctuation mark, word, etc. is repeated in the encryption above, nor do any of the code groups (if there are any) represent any particular words that might be found any any language's dictionary.
No, it wasn't. The FBI was seeking a third party to unlock the iPhone 5c from February until June. Many companies were working on hacks to do it and in June one came forward with a solution. That was NOT quickly.
Apple had no problem with the Feds catching terrorists. There were other, far more important Constitutional and Federal Law issues in play.
Apple refused to unlock the iPhone 5c because it had no duty to do so and because the All Writs court order was expanding the governments power FAR BEYOND what the power of the courts had been allowed to go. It was not a search warrant at all (Apple had complied with all proper search warrants presented and provided every bit of evidence they had in their possession) but rather an order to essentially sabotage their own business model. . . and to do work that would create a backdoor into their own proprietary operating system and hand it over to the Government for its use. There is NOTHING in the law that allows the government or courts to compel such a thing. On fact a 1995 Federal Law absolutely PROHIBITED IT. That is why Apple refused.
Incidentally, the appellate courts agreed with Apple and quashed the All Writs court orders.
I've heard that line from Apple, but it doesn't pass the smell test with me. They could have unlocked that one phone for the Feds in order to help catch the terrorist's co-conspirators... and they could have done it without a court order. That would have been the patriotic thing to do given the extreme circumstances.
So... the Feds finally got someone else to unlock it for them.
How? Apple did not have the passcode to the iPhone, the FBI changed the AppleID, and the court order specifically ordered Apple to develop a new version of iOS without the safeguards that would unlock that model of iPhones and hand it over to the government! There was NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT GAVE THAT JUDGE THE POWER TO ORDER THAT! It would have turned two hundred years of case law and jurisprudence on its head. The appellate courts agreed in two instances and sided with Apple. The 1995 law passed by Congress LIMITED the demands that law enforcement could make on telecommunications manufacturers and providing a backdoor to a telecommunications device or a means to defeat built in encryption was SPECIFICALLY forbidden to law enforcement and the courts!
Apple was following the law but the FBI and the magistrate law judge were NOT! The rule of law trumps their flouting of it attempt to bully Apple in the court of public opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.