We spend a lot of time blasting our planet-melting, employee-hazing, and buzzword-creating Corporate People. But like Aerosmith songs, they're not all bad. Isn't it about time we gave out some gold stars? Expanded Access To Abortion Pill Somehow Punishing Poor Right To Lifers
Isn't that a bit disingenuous, call it an industry and a market? Do we talk about a heart transplant industry? A bone-setting market? That kind of intellectual dishonesty is what is eroding this country.
Ed Snowden. We need you dude. Oh, and Anonymous? We need you to get seriously involved. We've gone global in the combing through of every little mundane fact of our lives and now its gone all George Orwellian Terriorist notwithstanding we've crossed into 1984.
Yeah, I don't see him using his employer's phone (employer gets all the bills, sees all the calls.) He'd have used a "burner" if he was going to use a phone at all, and based on what's been revealed to date, he had no need of it. The FBI, of course, wants to leave no stone unturned, and this is a big fucking rock in the middle of their crime scene.
I'm pretty confident the iPhone can be defeated, at least to the extent of allowing unlimited password attempts on the model 5C that they're dealing with. All they need to do is trick the phone into accepting a bogus iOS "update" that lacks the security features of the real iOS. That's probably what the FBI is crowing about. (The contents of an iPhone are only semi-seriously encrypted, because the actual key is stored in hardware. Guess the passcode, and it hands you the key.)Newer models are tougher to crack - they have a separate computer (not under control of iOS) that's in charge of security features.
Every SINGLE crime show I've seen on TV in the past 10 years shows criminals using multiple, disposable, pay-as-you-go "untrackable" cell phones to conduct their nefarious business. I have often wondered how accurate this was - you never know with TV crime shows, they are often total fantasy, particularly with some of the forensic stuff they depict. This terrorist guy was not stupid.
Are there places that don't have security cams? Not in my town. Actually, I also see on TV crime shows and news articles that stores overwrite their tapes or disks quite often, so if you bought such a phone a few weeks or months before you used it, there would be no footage. I filed three forged check claims against a cousin 2 years ago, in three different towns, one of which was a major metro area, and the police in all 3 towns did not go to the store to examine the camera footage for 2 or 3 months, by which time it had been overwritten. On TV shows they always look for the camera footage immediately, but this isn't how it works in real life.
In fact this particular phone was Farook's work phone. He worked as a health inspector for the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. It was found in his company car that was parked in his garage at his home. Farook and Malik were carrying other cell phones with them when they were killed in the shootout on San Bernardino Avenue. And yet another phone was found in the SUV that they were driving. The corporate accountability associated with company phone use and the casual manner in which he left the phone strongly suggests that he did not use it in plotting the attack and that he did not fear having it discovered.
I don't have an iPhone. I don't even have a Smart Phone. Just an old AT&T flip phone. Do you need a password just to access a contacts list and call log on an iPhone???? I should read up on this or else I don't understand all the ins-and-outs of this controversy.
I just love how on TV crime shows the detectives manage to extract absolutely everything from everyone's cell phones with apparent effortlessness.
Yes. Smartphones have a lock screen, which is a splash screen that comes on when they are turned on/woken up. Their original purpose was to prevent functions of the phone from being initiated by accident when the the screen is touched during incidental handling (e.g., when pulling it out of a pocket). So when you wake up the phone, you first get the lock screen, and touching it doesn't do anything; you have to dismiss it with a specific touch gesture (swiping up on an Android phone, for example). But for extra security, the owner has the option of setting a code (such as a PIN number) that has to be entered first in order to unlock the screen.
Most Practically all users set this feature up. This level of security isn't uncrackable though. Normally a determined differently-ethical person can crack it via "brute force," meaning that they use a computer program to generate and enter every possible combination of four numbers, or four letters, or four numbers and letters, one after another after another, again and again and again, until it hits the right one and unlocks the screen. It is a very crude and unsophisticated (hence "brute force") but effective technique if the cracker has the time to implement it. The FBI wouldn't have had any problem doing this to unlock the phone.
But newer Apple phones have an extra level of security that users have the option of setting as well that protects the phone from brute force cracking attacks. If that option is set, then entering something like 10 incorrect codes (brute force attacks usually have to enter thousands of code combinations before hitting the right one), then the data on the phone is automatically encrypted, so that even after finally getting past the lock screen, the hacker still won't be able to read any of the data. (Some reports I read said that rather than encrypting it, the phone deletes all of the data.)
This is the thing that had the FBI stymied. They had no way of knowing whether or not Farook had set this second level of security. (And they couldn't interrogate him to find out, because, well, you know.) Understandably, they were reluctant to just go ahead and use the brute force technique and thereby risk making the data permanently inaccessible if it turned out that he had done so. So instead they tried to get Apple to come up with some technique that they could use to get into the phone without triggering the (metaphorical) DESTRUCT button. They could have simply sent the phone to Apple and had them open it and extract the data themselves (if the company even could), but they didn't do that, probably due to things like chain of custody issues, etc. Instead, they demanded that Apple develop a cracking technique that they could then use on this phone (and any other iPhone that they had in evidence) to get past the phone's security (aka, a special super top secret for-government-use-only "back door.") Apple did what any tech company would do to protect its reputation and preserve consumer confidence in its products, and categorically refused to comply with the request.
I also read that the FBI screwed up when they ordered that his password to the online storage service iCloud be reset shortly after the attack. They believed that by resetting the iCloud password, they could get access to information stored on the iPhone. Instead, the change locked them out and eliminated other means of getting in. This was a very stupid thing to do. Even guys I worked with at my last IT department knew better than that - at least they say they knew better, I can't tell if they are boasting or not. These guys tell me that they can disable higher levels of security on the corporate phones that are handed out to employees. Is this correct?
Isn't that a bit disingenuous, call it an industry and a market? Do we talk about a heart transplant industry? A bone-setting market? That kind of intellectual dishonesty is what is eroding this country.
no 0s either
From my favourite YouPipe troll.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Ed Snowden. We need you dude. Oh, and Anonymous? We need you to get seriously involved. We've gone global in the combing through of every little mundane fact of our lives and now its gone all George Orwellian Terriorist notwithstanding we've crossed into 1984.
Exactly. All this fuss and bother and expense over what I have no doubt will turn out to be absolutely nothing. Just like Hillary's email server.
Yeah, I don't see him using his employer's phone (employer gets all the bills, sees all the calls.) He'd have used a "burner" if he was going to use a phone at all, and based on what's been revealed to date, he had no need of it. The FBI, of course, wants to leave no stone unturned, and this is a big fucking rock in the middle of their crime scene.
I'm pretty confident the iPhone can be defeated, at least to the extent of allowing unlimited password attempts on the model 5C that they're dealing with. All they need to do is trick the phone into accepting a bogus iOS "update" that lacks the security features of the real iOS. That's probably what the FBI is crowing about. (The contents of an iPhone are only semi-seriously encrypted, because the actual key is stored in hardware. Guess the passcode, and it hands you the key.)Newer models are tougher to crack - they have a separate computer (not under control of iOS) that's in charge of security features.
Every SINGLE crime show I've seen on TV in the past 10 years shows criminals using multiple, disposable, pay-as-you-go "untrackable" cell phones to conduct their nefarious business. I have often wondered how accurate this was - you never know with TV crime shows, they are often total fantasy, particularly with some of the forensic stuff they depict. This terrorist guy was not stupid.
That much is accurate - buy the phone and SIM card with cash, at a place that doesn't have security cams on you, and you really are untraceable.
Are there places that don't have security cams? Not in my town. Actually, I also see on TV crime shows and news articles that stores overwrite their tapes or disks quite often, so if you bought such a phone a few weeks or months before you used it, there would be no footage. I filed three forged check claims against a cousin 2 years ago, in three different towns, one of which was a major metro area, and the police in all 3 towns did not go to the store to examine the camera footage for 2 or 3 months, by which time it had been overwritten. On TV shows they always look for the camera footage immediately, but this isn't how it works in real life.
Yes. The resemblance is what I didn't see, and the robot's definitely got more brainpower.
In fact this particular phone was Farook's work phone. He worked as a health inspector for the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. It was found in his company car that was parked in his garage at his home. Farook and Malik were carrying other cell phones with them when they were killed in the shootout on San Bernardino Avenue. And yet another phone was found in the SUV that they were driving. The corporate accountability associated with company phone use and the casual manner in which he left the phone strongly suggests that he did not use it in plotting the attack and that he did not fear having it discovered.
Presumably what the FBI really wanted to extract from the phone was its call log, its contacts list and its message archive.
LOL! Oh, I know ...
I don't have an iPhone. I don't even have a Smart Phone. Just an old AT&T flip phone. Do you need a password just to access a contacts list and call log on an iPhone???? I should read up on this or else I don't understand all the ins-and-outs of this controversy.
I just love how on TV crime shows the detectives manage to extract absolutely everything from everyone's cell phones with apparent effortlessness.
Yes. Smartphones have a lock screen, which is a splash screen that comes on when they are turned on/woken up. Their original purpose was to prevent functions of the phone from being initiated by accident when the the screen is touched during incidental handling (e.g., when pulling it out of a pocket). So when you wake up the phone, you first get the lock screen, and touching it doesn't do anything; you have to dismiss it with a specific touch gesture (swiping up on an Android phone, for example). But for extra security, the owner has the option of setting a code (such as a PIN number) that has to be entered first in order to unlock the screen.
Most Practically all users set this feature up. This level of security isn't uncrackable though. Normally a determined differently-ethical person can crack it via "brute force," meaning that they use a computer program to generate and enter every possible combination of four numbers, or four letters, or four numbers and letters, one after another after another, again and again and again, until it hits the right one and unlocks the screen. It is a very crude and unsophisticated (hence "brute force") but effective technique if the cracker has the time to implement it. The FBI wouldn't have had any problem doing this to unlock the phone.
But newer Apple phones have an extra level of security that users have the option of setting as well that protects the phone from brute force cracking attacks. If that option is set, then entering something like 10 incorrect codes (brute force attacks usually have to enter thousands of code combinations before hitting the right one), then the data on the phone is automatically encrypted, so that even after finally getting past the lock screen, the hacker still won't be able to read any of the data. (Some reports I read said that rather than encrypting it, the phone deletes all of the data.)
This is the thing that had the FBI stymied. They had no way of knowing whether or not Farook had set this second level of security. (And they couldn't interrogate him to find out, because, well, you know.) Understandably, they were reluctant to just go ahead and use the brute force technique and thereby risk making the data permanently inaccessible if it turned out that he had done so. So instead they tried to get Apple to come up with some technique that they could use to get into the phone without triggering the (metaphorical) DESTRUCT button. They could have simply sent the phone to Apple and had them open it and extract the data themselves (if the company even could), but they didn't do that, probably due to things like chain of custody issues, etc. Instead, they demanded that Apple develop a cracking technique that they could then use on this phone (and any other iPhone that they had in evidence) to get past the phone's security (aka, a special super top secret for-government-use-only "back door.") Apple did what any tech company would do to protect its reputation and preserve consumer confidence in its products, and categorically refused to comply with the request.
I also read that the FBI screwed up when they ordered that his password to the online storage service iCloud be reset shortly after the attack. They believed that by resetting the iCloud password, they could get access to information stored on the iPhone. Instead, the change locked them out and eliminated other means of getting in. This was a very stupid thing to do. Even guys I worked with at my last IT department knew better than that - at least they say they knew better, I can't tell if they are boasting or not. These guys tell me that they can disable higher levels of security on the corporate phones that are handed out to employees. Is this correct?