We desperately need change! Continuing down the path we are on will eventually lead to totalitarianism.
Now you admitted that this was a very academic problem, that is the storing of electronic data and the government wanting companies to supply that data when a proper warrant has been issued. And you slam Hillary because she also admits this is a problem and says it needs to be looked into and resolved. So on the one hand you admit difficulties and on the other you slam Hillary for looking for a solution. Then you launch into a diatribe against the government and previously you cited abuse of the 4th Amendment, due process, and so on. So let me posit a hypothetical. Let us say that a terrorist attack has been launched in a foreign country, any country. The terrorists are killed but a smart phone is recovered and due to whatever circumstances, the U.S knows for certain that the phone contains information about a forthcoming attack on the U.S. A devastating attack, they know a major U.S. city will be taken out, they know how...but they don't know when, which city, or the details of the attack but they know for sure that all that data is on the phone and if they can access that data they can stop that attack. Now this phone was involved in a terrorist attack, was used by a terrorist in the execution of that attack and the terrorist is not a U.S. citizen. The phone is not in the U.S. nor was any of the data on the phone ever on any U.S. server or processed through any U.S. company (other than Apple's OS), so the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, nor do U.S. due process laws, nor freedom of speech or any other U.S. law that I can think of, I could be wrong. What would the U.S. government be in violation of if they presented Apple with a Warrant asking for access to that information? Would it be ethical, would it be moral as thousands of lives will be saved, and would it be legal? More importantly, is this something that Hillary Clinton should not express concern over, should she ignore a dilemma such as this, or should she be thinking of possible ramifications of terrorists being able to lock data away that could be recovered, if needed? Should she just throw up her hands and neglect one of the primary functions of a Democratic Republic, that is the protection of its citizens with a minimal invasion of privacy whenever possible? I content that this is something that needs to be addressed, as it will keep appearing over and over again until we as a country decide what we should do about it and I applauded our elected (or to be elected) representatives who have the foresight to recognize problems such as this in advance.
You're still not getting the core issue. If I don't have the encryption key, you can serve me a hundred million warrants, waterboard me and threaten me with death and there's still no way that I can perform what you are asking, and that is the decryption of ciphertext, even if I wished that I could. Can you factor 274207281-1 * 257885161-1 .. if my math is correct that product is 2132092442-1? Well, I just gave you the only factors (both mersenne primes)... but assume I hadn't? It'd certainly take you a while. You're also missing something else also, that I've mentioned several times above but it most likely goes over the head of 99% of people. People seem to think that terrorists and other criminals, black hat crackers etc depend on corporations like apple, microsoft etc to provide them with the tools they need for adequate opsec. This is bullshit. People are capable of coming up with their own tools and solutions to their problems ya know? And yes I'm slamming her hard, not only is she a fascist, I see her as a bully .. picking on and manipulating the technically illiterate.
The order is not to break the encryption but to disable the feature that wipes the data after ten incorrect passwords are entered and it will be coded so that it only operates on that particular device. The FBI would then attempt to use brute force to find the password. Now you claim above that a brute force remedy is an impossible task, so why is Apple so afraid? Then you tell me that terrorists, criminals, and black hat crackers, and I assume others, can come up with their own encryption. If so why is Apple so worried, we'll just use another form of encryption. So the task is impossible and many others can come up with their own encryption, so I'll ask again, why is Apple resisting when the FBI can't crack the data anyway and virtually anyone can come up with their own encryption? Next, Fascist? Simplistic statements like that really bore me.
These are two separate issues, one being Mrs. Clinton's claim regarding encryption, the other being the issue between Apple the the FBI. What's described in your quote above is not a brute force attack, not even close. You would have to ask Apple themselves if you really want to know why they are concerned about this. I have have more than once above in previous posts pointed out why a tech company such as Apple might have concerns about this sort of issue. I can respond to this. Yes it's possible to use additional layers of encryption, take your pick of the numerous crypto systems out there. The reason Apple may be concerned about this is the fact that most people aren't computing field majors (probably less than 1%) and might not even know that this is a possibility to do. Other's may not wish to void their warranty or risk bricking their phone (which would suck after you just voided the warranty) by doing so either. However, any organization, criminal or otherwise with high opsec requirements is going to have significant resources and isn't going to give a damn about voiding the warranty by flashing custom firmware, or whatever, and who cares how many devices get bricked before they get it right, they have funds allocated to R&D I'm sure. It is possible to make an iPhone (or whatever) really secure, but at that point it couldn't be properly called an iPhone anymore so if you did some shit like that your warranty would be void, and your service provider won't be giving you anymore free upgrades. Of course only the most paranoid are going to see it worth it to go to the most extreme measures, and those people are probably some of the ones we should be most concerned about. Hell, screw an iPhone .. the terrorists can just get a gsm modem, rebrand it and set up a pbx box. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice (meaning very low yield for law enforcement). This may not be that relevant but have you ever seen the sticker on ISP leased routers, or router/modem combo boxes that basically says, "Tampering with this equipment is a Federal crime and you can go to prison for it"? Why the fuck is that sticker there, and what the fuck is tampering exactly, changing the config, changing the SSID, the password. I've done my share of poking and peeking around on some of these POS boxes and some of them are damn hard to change the WPA passphrase, like they really don't want you to and you have to perform various tricks to get any configuration changes to stick, after you've managed to get admin privilages on the thing. Never did I go to prison though. But this is a box in MY HOME .. i should be able to do whatever the fuck I want to it. If i want to put it in the microwave I ought to be able to do that if I want, of course I'll have to pay for it since that's obviously going to destroy the device. Yeah, I get it, its because you're leasing this shit from the ISP, so it's not really yours. This is why I don't use ISP leased routers, real routers give you a lot more capabilities, and its not a pain in the ass to coerce the thing into taking the config you want. It's like they think everyone is the same and has the same use case, why the fuck would the default config not be suitable for everyone (hint: the default config in almost any context which routers and such are only a subset of is the most insecure config ... because being the default ... everyone knows what the default is and it tends to be common and easy to exploit). Where this does become relevant is the fact that most smartphones are actually leased, you sign a contract with the service provider and don't have to pay the $600 that you would if you actually right out purchased the device, and every so often you can trade in the phone for an upgrade. So you can't do whatever you want to the phone, if you do some shit like using jailbreak tools or installing apps obtained somewhere other than the app store then you're probably breaking the terms of the contract, and nullifying any benefits of said contract. Criminals and terrorists though are willing to spend more, since opsec is pretty important to them, the benefit is well worth the extra cost. There's so many ways someone determined could get around this shit ... I can think of many myself, too many to go into and it doesn't really matter what they are. iPhone is not the only phone around ... when we were kids we used to open up those little green telco cans that have the punchdown blocks where the big cables with like 100 pairs come in and split off, easy way to get a temporary anonymous phone number and anonymous dialup internet too. We weren't really criminals, we did it for the lulz (and occasionally because we needed "opsec"). You will catch very few terrorists with such implementations, you'll only catch the dumb ones, and they are especially dumb if they do the same shit knowing damn well what the implications are and how some other terrorists got in trouble that way ya know. Even if you catch 100 terrorists ... that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of terrorists out there. Also a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people using devices with especially compromised security, which ironically could very well be exploited by the very terrorists themselves. Any procedure the FBI can do, can be done by anyone else with the right skillset and motivation to do so.
Yeah and we used to cheat payphones for free calls. Are you going to answer my questions ? I believe you are the one that linked them in this thread (if memory serves). The questions: 1. If no U.S. laws are broken can the FBI issue a warrant to Apple or any other entities requiring them to bypass or disable an auto erase function of one particular device used in a terrorist attack? 2. Related to the above, if the court rules in the FBI's favor will it be Hillary Clinton's fault? 3. Is this an issue we as a nation should be addressing? 4. Is any one particular politician Draconian for addressing this issue? 5. Why is Hillary Clinton Draconian and a Fascist for addressing this issue, and are there others? 6. What is your solution to my hypothetical? Let me make it clear that I don't have an answer and I'm not picking sides. But what about my hypothetical, and why specially do you hate Clinton so much? Specifically means citations.
How many times can people ask for specifics on why we hate Hillary. We're not lying to you. She does this shit. There are two forms of totalitarianism really. Violent repression and repression of the soul, or repressive desublimation. Both are abhorrent, and I would say both are already a part of our society. I think the most efficient form of totalitarianism is the form that can establish itself and have the subjugated people still believe they are free. Brainwashed zombies is all we are.
Just read something saying Hillary now supports free college. Shocking! I can hear her cackling laugh in my head as I imagine her saying "See kids? I'm just like Bernie now!!" If she isn't careful, she might just flipflop her position on Wall St. too. Oh....wait.....
1: This isn't actually a warrant by definition. This is the request of a change in policy. 2: The executive branch doesn't run the courts, so I would say that in this particular case, it would not directly be her fault, though I doubt she would provide any help of any sort to stand up for the rights of citizens. 3: Absolutely, nationwide, academics should continue what it's doing, researching encryption technology and privacy, and ways to improve it / thwart any type of surveillance. In academics they don't go for half ass, and you won't gain much credibility for developing a weak crypto system .. you'll more likely be known as an idiot and this surely will not help in the pursuit of tenure. 4: George W. Bush introduced the USA PATRIOT ACT ... so I tend to place the most blame on him, but I also place blame on American citizens for not learning from this shit. Whether the politician is "left" or "right", it doesn't matter so much when they have the same policy on issues related to this context.\ 5: Because laws to restrict the use of encryption are harsh. Writing laws against what code I can run on my own computing equipment is draconian, and as you surely know, violates my ethics. Weakening computer security is the real isssue, with potentially far reaching implications. 6: I hate Clinton because her ethics don't align with my own. Not because of her party (I identify as left if anything), but because I understand the implications of what she wants to propose. If you consult the source that I cited in one of my previous posts, specifically post #589, you will have a god description of my ethics in this context, good old fashioned hacker ethic that I had long before ever purchasing the book. Computer security IS a problem, and weakening it isn't going to help mitigate that problem. You want a works cited page, on what? Hillary Clinton's claim on the subject. I believe I've cited this before, so forgive me this time as I've pulled an all nighter, though I'm sure that if I actually were to spend the time to write a formal paper on this the works cited page could be quite long.
I get the chart. What I am asking is if Bernie doesn't get the nomination why would you not support Clinton, warts and all, considering the alternative, to vote Republican or to not vote at all and give the advantage to whatever Republican gets nominated. Looking at the Republicans, and not having Bernie available, Clinton is like a gift from God.
I'm not a democrat, but I can understand why some would rather wait 4 more years for another chance to put in a better candidate than get 8 miserable years of Hillary.
Because I think if you support someone then you support their ideology, and I can't support Hillary's ideology. In my eyes, she is the last nail in the coffin of democracy. If she wins now, we can't ever expect to have a real vote in any election ever again. Citizens United will become a cornerstone of this oligarchy that everyone just takes for granted as being the law of the land. It will be over. I would prefer Trump, because I think if he gets in office people are mostly just going to be confused for the next four years. But I don't see him as the tyrant everybody else seems to see him as. I don't think he has a penchant for cruelty. I think he does have a set of ethics he follows. I don't think Hillary does. I think she will do anything to attain power, even kill. But it's still early, and the Republicans are talking about not giving the nod to Trump even if he wins the most delegates. In which case he might run as a third party candidate. In which case I also wish Bernie would run as a fourth party candidate. It's really too early to tell what's going to happen. But I really think our republic is over if Hillary wins. It'll be in bad shape if Rubio, or whoever they nominate instead of Trump wins, too. But I'm not worried about that happening.
Thanks for replying to the questions. 1. It is not the actual warrant but it is a Writ, specifically 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651 that is being used to help execute the warrant. It has been around since 1789 and was applied in 2014 to a cell phone. But all that doesn't matter. The question is, if no U.S. laws are being broken (as in my hypothetical) why can't the government compel Apple or any other company to aid in the disclosure, not to actually disclose, but to facilitate the government in the execution of a legal warrant? 2. So Clinton is not to blame, therefore in this instance she is not being Draconian or Fascist. 3. I'm sorry, I was not clear. My question is, should we be addressing the balance of security and prevention of terror against individual freedoms as in a hypothetical case such as I presented or even in a case involving U.S. laws. 4. So it is not any one politician, it is all of us. 5. I don't believe Clinton has proposed any laws about restricting encryption, if you know of any please cite them. I believe there are certain types of code that should absolutely be outlawed from running on your computer. Can you think of any? I agree with the problem of weakening computer security, that's why I feel the need to address the issue. 6. What does Hillary want to propose that is against your ethics and how do you know she wants to propose it if she hasn't proposed it yet? I have a basic understanding of your ethics but as a moderator my post numbers differ from yours so my #589 is a post from Meliai. Could you describe your hacker ethics? Yes I need a citation as to what you are upset about with Hillary in regards to the FBI's writ in regard to Apple and the cell phone in question. And let's remember that this is not a private cell phone but one owned by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Heath who have given consent to search the cell phone and to request Apple's help in doing so. And let's not forget the the FBI maintains that Apple has the capacity to write code that would be applicable to this device only and the code may be destroyed after it has executed.
I can only assume you are not being serious. Trump is more moderate than Hillary? The guy that just backed off his vow to allow torture and to murder innocent women, children, and other family members of terrorists? LOL :dizzy2:
I am being serious. Yeah Trump has said all that. "Is he serious?" is the question, and I think the answer is no. He knows his base and is playing off people's fears and prejudices in order to get elected president. Which is dangerous, granted, but he can't just make these things happen and he won't. If the establishment feels it's good for their agenda, to dehumanize us all, to make beasts of us, then the establishment will tell us that we torture. When it feels it has to tell us that no, America doesn't torture, because of the innate goodness of human beings, so that we will all be good human beings, then it tells us that it doesn't. Have you heard of the CIA's secret detainment program? You can bet your bottom dollar that they're torturing. From wikipedia: Hillary supported the (illegal) war in Iraq. So in my mind, she is complicit in murder already. And she supports regime changes that result in things like ISIS, which causes more violence. But I guess it's all about what you say to people's faces for some people. Hillary can be complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, but as long as she says she wants love, we believe her, right? And Donald Trump can be a savvy businessman who knows how to persuade people using whatever means necessary, and we all believe him when he says he's going to use waterboarding. It's all just a knee jerk reaction and has little to do with the reality of the situation.
By that reasoning 96% of the Republican and 39% of the Democratic House of Representatives, 98% of the Republican and 58% of the Democratic Senators, and 75% of the American people at the time were complicit in murder besides Hillary. Speculation on your part. That seems to be your reasoning, not mine. A savvy business man who knows how to lie and manipulate people using whatever means possible to reach his own ends, like getting elected to the most powerful position in the world so that he can continue to lie and manipulate people using whatever means possible to reach his own ends! (gee sounds like a Fascist dictator) And you prefer him!
Maybe they were complicit. I expect Senators to know better. Bernie knew better than to trust the Bush administration. So did I at the time. The American people, maybe it's just stupidity that causes them to trust their government and support an illegal war and not outright murderous wrath. Senators ought to know better, though, so yes they were all complicit. What are you saying, that regime changes don't give rise to things like Isis? You don't think the toppling of Saddam Hussein helped give rise to Isis? Really, you're the one who has pledged his/her immortal soul to Hillary Clinton, not me. What, you mean a president who lies and manipulates to achieve their own ends? So gee, I get to pick between Hillary who will lie and manipulate to achieve her own ends and Trump who will lie and manipulate to achieve his own ends and is a savvy businessman. I think I'll go with the businessman over the war hawk, thank you very much.
I agree. I was also against the Iraq war. My point is Hillary was wrong, but so were all the others. I was against the regime change in Iraq, I'm still undecided about Gaddafi as I don't know if the turmoil resulted from his demise or the abandonment of the people by NATO after it happened. I'm leaning toward helping the people of Syria with the overthrow of Assad, but I'm not completely sure. So I have questions about overthrowing regimes and feel it is not a good thing in general, but it must be considered on a case by case basis. I am never in favor of a unilateral U.S. overthrow of any regime... but North Korea gives me pause. So I said speculation, because we can never know what the outcome of a regime overthrow will be for sure. There are different ways for regimes to be overthrown, for example if the people of North Korea were to rise up against Kim Jong-un I would seriously consider supporting them through U.S. aid. I seldom see these types of things in black and white as many people do. First I don't believe in an immortal soul, and second I never said I unconditionally support Hillary Clinton. I would much rather see Bernie Sanders get the nomination, but I did say that considering the other choices for President, sans Sanders, I would defiantly support Hillary Clinton. Now if something comes up to change my mind I would look elsewhere, but not at a Republican unless they pull someone out of the air that I felt I could support. But I don't see that happening. Probably the last Republican I could have supported would have been Teddy Roosevelt and they threw him out of the party. No, read what I said. We were talking about Donald Trump's efforts to achieve his own ends as a businessman and his election campaign, not Hillary Clinton. Are you talking about the present President? If so examples please. Are you talking about a past President? As Hillary Clinton is not President you can't be talking about her. Well, it's a free country, if you think Trump would make a better President than Hillary Clinton I'll never be able to convince you otherwise as Trump himself said: Nice to see you're in such good company. Have fun.
Yes I can 25% weren't fooled. See the post above. Whatever. Do you mean his 277 executive orders? Compared to the thousands issued over the history of the U.S.? FDR, 3,721, Coolidge 1,203, Wilson 1,803 etc. etc. Even George Washington had 8!!! I'm tired of taking to you people....do some research.
