Big Brother is Watching You

[Seth Milner]

I don't understand the big deal here: Apple claims the world's privacy would be compromised by unlocking ONE telephone that the FBI wants to use to possibly track other terrorists that could possibly murder more U.S. citizens. Apple and Iphone owners obviously think that since the San Bernardino massacre didn't involve them or touch any of their families, the whole incident should just be 'buried in a history book and life move on; we'll deal with the next incident when it occurs' .
Next it'll be ruled that law enforcement can no longer obtain a search warrant to search the home of suspected terrorists, murderers, thieves, and pedophiles (who may have abducted children locked up in their basements). It's coming.

[Vrede too]

Say NO to Encryption Backdoors for Government Agents

Tell Congress you oppose any legislation that would mandate backdoors for government agents into encrypted devices.

"Properly understood, strong encryption is our best defense against online criminals—including terrorist organizations. It is the backbone of the Internet economy and vital for the protection of both free expression and privacy. The government’s demand on Apple would coerce a private U.S. company to hack its own device, threatening the trust of millions of customers and placing our technology industry at a significant disadvantage abroad."
-- House Judiciary Committee Democrats

Techies correct me if I'm wrong (wrong in facts - I'm never wrong on opinion ) but isn't the FBI request and related court order over Apple de-activating the auto-lock from the terrorist's phone, after which the FBI would get into it by themselves, brute force, I assume? And then the FBI would (likely) be able to get it decrypted themselves?

Where did the back-door request for decryption come from?

De-activating the auto-lock from the terrorist's (and thus everyone's) phone, has the effect of creating a back-door and nullifying encryption.

[rstrong]

Apple claims the world's privacy would be compromised by unlocking ONE telephone

No, they are NOT claiming that. The FBI isn't asking to unlock ONE phone.

What they want is a back door that unlocks ALL iPhones, along with the legal precedent that they can demand it for all other phones.

A back door that the CIA, TSA, DEA, NYPD and many local agencies will also demand. (Think of the Stinger cell phone bulk surveillance devices - for the NSA and military to "fight terrorism", and now in use by many local police forces.)

A back door that similar agencies in every other government will demand too.

A back door that all the hackers can use too. Even in the highly unlikely event that the government's back door *didn't* leak out, back doors are pretty much always found, ever since the down of the computer era. Witness all the different brands home routers with back door passwords, now being added to botnets by the hackers.

This is about the right of law-abiding citizens to have privacy and security from government and hackers.

Apple and Iphone owners obviously think that since the San Bernardino massacre didn't involve them or touch any of their families, the whole incident should just be 'buried in a history book and life move on; we'll deal with the next incident when it occurs' .

You obviously think that because someone was ALREADY ARRESTED for a crime AND they had a password-protected phone - one that even the local police say us unlikely to contain anything relevant to the case - NO-ONE can have privacy or security.

The same officials in this case keep using Paris attackers as justification for not allowing phone encryption. Except that the Paris attackers didn't use encryption; they coordinated with unencrypted SMS messages.

Next it'll be ruled that law enforcement can no longer obtain a search warrant to search the home of suspected terrorists, murderers, thieves, and pedophiles (who may have abducted children locked up in their basements). It's coming.

"Next it'll be ruled that law enforcement can install video cameras in law abiding citizens' homes to ensure that they stay law abiding."

See? Your slippery slope claim works equally well both ways.

[Vrede too]

... You obviously think that because someone was ALREADY ARRESTED for KILLED during a crime AND they had a password-protected phone - one that even the local police say us unlikely to contain anything relevant to the case - NO-ONE can have privacy or security....

Otherwise, I agree.

[rstrong]

But again, it won't be just the FBI. The NYPD will demand it. The DEA will demand it. The TSA will demand it. A hundred other police agencies will demand it. Consider the Stingray phone tracker - a mass surveillance device developed for the military and intelligence communities "to catch the terrorists", but now in widespread use by local and state law enforcement agencies. Now consider that every other country's police agencies will demand this "custom OS" too.

A Stingray device sets up a fake cell site to do man-in-the-middle attacks. It lets you download personal data from people's phones, track people through their cell phones, and listen to calls.

Developed for the military and intelligence community, they're not in common use by local police forces. The LAPD used a Department of Homeland Security grant in 2006 to buy a StingRay for "regional terrorism investigations". However, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the "LAPD has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable." They've shown up in Canada and Britain and elsewhere.

The latest to make the news is Memphis. Their mayor's election campaign explicitly mentioned Stingrays and the secrecy surrounding them, but now supports them post-election.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called the devices "an unconstitutional, all-you-can-eat data buffet." The police defend this not in court, but signing nondisclosure agreements stating that law enforcement officers must do everything up to swallowing their cyanide pills (let suspects walk, route FOIA requests through the FBI, engage in parallel construction, etc.) to prevent information about the technology from making its way into the hands of defendants, judges or peskily inquisitive members of the public.

Suppose the FBI gets their mandatory back door into everyone's devices. (This fight is about setting a precedent for other brands of phones too. Plus fitness trackers and all those "internet of things" devices showing up in people's homes and devices now standard in new cars, tracking enabled even when you don't buy the service.) Does anyone believe for an instant that the TSA, CIA, DEA, NYPD, LAPD and everyone else will demand it? And similar organizations in other countries?

Does anyone believe for an instant that it won't be leaked? Consider the data breach that gave Chinese hackers personal details on 21.5 million government employees.

On June 11, 2015, ABC News also said that highly sensitive 127-page Standard Forms (SF) 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions) were put at serious risk by the hack. SF-86 forms contain information about family members, college roommates, foreign contacts, and psychological information. At the time, OPM stated that family members names were not compromised. However, on June 13, 2015, OPM spokesman Samuel Schumach said that investigators had "a high degree of confidence that OPM systems containing information related to the background investigations of current, former, and prospective federal government employees, to include U.S. military personnel, and those for whom a federal background investigation was conducted, may have been exfiltrated."
[...]
The stolen data included 5.6 million sets of fingerprints. Biometrics expert Ramesh Kesanupalli said that because of this, secret agents were no longer safe, as they could be identified by their fingerprints, even if their names had been changed.

Other government agencies have had massive leaks too. The IRS has had multiple leaks of all the information needed for identity theft of huge numbers of citizens, repeatedly, even after declaring "all fixed!" We now know that Snowden wasn't the only one in the NSA leaking documents.

[billy.pilgrim]

Clear Channel to track you with their billboardsite





http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/0 ... or-passers

[O Really]

And you guys worry about NSA

[rstrong]

And you guys worry about NSA

There's an important difference: Clear Channel isn't going to use your data to arrest or torture you when the data raises vague suspicions.

This is what happened to Canadian telecommunications engineer Maher Arar. Kidnapped by the US, sent to a third country, tortured, and finally cleared and released with an "er, never mind."

Or American lawyer and veteran Brandon Mayfield. After the 2004 Madrid train bombings a *partial* fingerprint found on a bag *somewhat* matched his own from veteran's records. Despite Spanish officials telling the FBI that it wasn't a match, the FBI didn't just arrest him; they "disappeared" him. (Lied to the judge about the case against him, and later lied about where he was being held.) He was arrested as a "material witness", so he could be held as long as they wanted without charging him. And of course they raided his home and carted off his and his family's belongings.

Clear Channel can't do that. Yet.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- Cardinal Richelieu (disputed quote)

This sort of data mining is now used by law enforcement for "civil forfeiture." A small business's nightly deposits are less than $10,000? (Deposits greater than that amount must be reported to the federal government) Seize the account. No other evidence needed, and a system set up so that there's little chance of getting it back.

Wikipedia: Civil forfeiture in the United States: Seizures of funds in a bank account.

Again, Clear Channel can't do that.

But the thought of the government having their 6 lines - really, a complete dossier on everyone with EVERYTHING they written and a list everyone they've come into contact with - even unknowingly - is a tad scary. Snowden made it clear that they have that.

[O Really]

But the thought of the government having their 6 lines - really, a complete dossier on everyone with EVERYTHING they written and a list everyone they've come into contact with - even unknowingly - is a tad scary. Snowden made it clear that they have that.

Not all that scary. Railroading through bending the ummmm, "evidence" is a practice that way precedes data mining, and occurs without the help of NSA-type data. One could argue that even one person wrongly convicted is too many, but past that, if you use the Innocence Project statistics, about 95- 97% of people in prison are actually guilty. There are others who are hauled in but never charged, but overall that's a pretty good percentage to come out of a system where those deciding usually have no legal training and have to decide which of the two professional mouthpieces is lying least. Point being, tools and/or data can be used for good and tools and/or data can be used for harm. If the good or potentially good exceeds the horror stories by 95% to 5%, I don't find it so scary. I might feel different if Lady O Really or I were railroaded as one of the 5%, but still...

[Vrede too]

And you guys worry about NSA

It's like being the victim of 2 bullies that don't associate with each other all that much. Neither makes the other more tolerable.

[rstrong]

But the thought of the government having their 6 lines - really, a complete dossier on everyone with EVERYTHING they written and a list everyone they've come into contact with - even unknowingly - is a tad scary. Snowden made it clear that they have that.

Not all that scary. Railroading through bending the ummmm, "evidence" is a practice that way precedes data mining, and occurs without the help of NSA-type data.

Sure, it precedes data mining. But they used to have to work for it. Now it's a simple database search.

Back in the late 1990s someone decided to put everyone's driver's licence data for their state online for everyone to search. Everyone freaked, citing privacy, identity theft and stalking concerns. The counter-claim was that all this was ALREADY public record, for anyone who visited the records office. But it illustrated how being able to instantly search the records from home without getting out of your chair made it a whole new ballgame.

Yes, the police had their "six written lines", but now they have six million lines with virtually no extra effort. Add a bit of confirmation bias - taking the "lines" that support their suspicion and ignoring those that don't - and you get cases like Mayfield and Arar. And many civil forfeiture cases where those declaring the assets "guilty" get to keep the spoils for their department.

And the data mining has barely started.

One could argue that even one person wrongly convicted is too many, but past that, if you use the Innocence Project statistics, about 95- 97% of people in prison are actually guilty.

The problem is trends for people to be punished without being charged, let alone convicted. Countless civil forfeiture cases where there was no charges or appeal, because it was the state vs. the assets seized. Or foreigners like Arar: Kidnapped, jailed and tortured despite no charges or conviction, before being cleared of any wrongdoing. Many now into their second DECADE of detainment, despite being cleared. Or Americans like Mayfield, arrested as a "material witness" so they wouldn't have to charge them.

There's the trend for pig-ignorant inbreds like Seth Milner to support it "because Arar and Mayfield would have beheaded you if the tables were turned." And then deny the torture even when shown government officials testifying about it in court. And who can forget in 2012 when most of the Republicans candidates each shook their pom-poms for torture, promising to resume it - and it didn't hurt their campaigns one bit.

There's the whole default judgement scam: Countless Consumers Are Paying Off Someone Else’s Debt Because Of Default Judgments

And then there's the increasing high court / low court issue:

...where the wealthy and powerful get off scot-free for things that would get the average citizen jailed.

Like industry-wide mortgage fraud turned into industry-wide investment fraud.... wiping out many people's savings despite $trillions in tax-payer bail-outs. Not only no punishment, but those responsible successfully bribed lobbied bribed Congress to neuter laws that would stop them from doing it again.

Or HSBC caught doing everything from large-scale assistance of tax evasion to knowingly helping to launder $Billions in international drug cartel money to helping Iran and North Korea circumvent US nuclear-weapons sanctions. Fined five week's profit. No individuals charged or fined.

Or, Feds Focus Investigation On Who Leaked Report Implicating Ex-CIA Boss For Intelligence Leak... Rather Than On Initial Leak. And of course, even though Snowden's revelations of bulk surveillance against Americans were proven true, HE's the only one facing charges.

James Clapper lied to congress about his direct roll in the violation of the constitutional rights of 100's of millions of American citizens, and there has not only been no grand jury, but no one in the federal government seems to think he did anything wrong at all.

The "Department of Justice" is increasingly becoming "The Department of Making Sure Everyone Knows Their Place."

[Vrede too]

... And of course, even though Snowden's revelations of bulk surveillance against Americans were proven true, HE's the only one facing charges....

Or the only person imprisoned for the torture program being the one who told us about it.

[rstrong]

So John McAfee claims he could crack the phone. Let's say he could. What's keeping him (or somebody else) from cracking any phone they want? Other than maybe having something available to steal, why does it increase risk for Apple to do it?

Here in Canada we usually have at least three parties running in elections. At least one with no hope whatsoever of winning the election. And so we're used to politicians making grandiose promises based on the knowledge that they'll never be in a position to have to keep them. This is what McAfee sounds like. And wouldn't you know it, he's running for president in the US as a member of the Libertarian Party.

Daily Dot: McAfee Says He Lied About iPhone Hacking Method To Get Public Attention

But he lied in those interviews, he told the Daily Dot, to “get a shitload of public attention.”

Further, the method McAfee says is real—the one he says he’s lying to try to hide—is neither a secret nor feasible for anyone to accomplish without expensive tools and specialized skills. Even then, experts believe it would be difficult and would risk destroying the data the FBI is fighting so hard to access.

[rstrong]

Since the FBI isn't asking Apple to unlock their phones, but to write a replacement OS that would put the privacy of ALL of Apple's customers at risk, I found a point in one of the latest The Risks newsletters interesting...

Apple vs FBI—Another Constitutional Issue

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in both the "Citizens United" and the "Hobby Lobby" cases that corporations are persons no less than living, breathing persons. That is, the Supreme Court eliminated the distinction between corporeal persons and corporate persons.

The FBI is demanding that Apple perform a task that Apple would not otherwise do. The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited involuntary servitude. It makes no exception for national security, criminal investigations, or acts of terrorism.

In any case, I have not heard that the FBI is willing to pay Apple's costs for subverting the security of its iPhone. Those costs would not merely be the labor costs of actually unlocking one phone; they would also include the costs of lost sales when potential customers stop trusting Apple. Lacking any offer of compensation, what the FBI proposes would be a violation of the last phrase of the 5th amendment of the Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Further down...

They have suggested that the safeguards of iOS 7 were good enough and that we should simply go back to the security standards of 2013. But the security of iOS 7, while cutting-edge at the time, has since been breached by hackers. What's worse, some of their methods have been productized and are now available for sale to attackers who are less skilled but often more malicious.

Meanwhile...

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/isis-a ... rnational/

Prompted by a case related to the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the intense discussion heavily focused on thwarting the Islamic State. But ISIS supporters online didn't seem worried at all. Instead, they've spent the week--and longer--promoting strong encryption tools from outside the United States that the American government cannot touch with legislation. In the last month, Islamic State supporters have promoted security software from Finland, Romania, America, France, the Czech Republic, Canada, Panama, Germany, Switzerland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and other nations, a Daily Dot review found.

[Vrede too]

The FBI’s worst nightmare is coming true

Rather than use the tools at its disposal to hack into an iPhone recovered from one of the terrorists who carried out the horrific San Bernardino mass shooting late last year, the FBI chose to make the battle public. Many believed the Bureau hoped to set a precedent that would enable it to compel companies like Apple to assist in similar cases in the future....

But in taking this fight public, the FBI has seemingly made its worst nightmare come true....

As noted by The Guardian, technology companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are obviously watching the FBI’s fight quite closely, and many companies have come out in support of Apple. But they aren’t just supporting Apple’s fight on paper, they’re also supporting Apple’s stance with their own actions.

Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat and other companies are said to be in the process of making their apps more secure as a direct result of the FBI’s public battle with Apple....

[O Really]

It looks like it may be Apple's worst nightmare, not the FBI's. They won't help the FBI get into the terrorist's phone, (which some would find objectionable), claim it's to protect users from outsiders being able to break security, and then Israeli (or somebody) people get into it. Opps. Instead of controlling the process, they're now to the point of having to beg the FBI to tell them how they did it. And now users can be more insecure than they were when they though Apple might get their own guys to crack it. Hoisted on their own petard?

[rstrong]

And now users can be more insecure than they were when they though Apple might get their own guys to crack it. Hoisted on their own petard?

Time is on Apple's side. The public - at least those who care - are getting ever more educated on the issue.

At the very least they're starting to understand that a back door for the good guys is also a back door for criminals. This has been demonstrated over and over again since the dawn of the computer era.

If you recall the 2014 celebrity nudes hacking scandal ("Celebgate"/"The Fappening"), the hackers who accessed celeb iCloud accounts used a "lawful access" tool intended for government agency customers.

And now users can be more insecure than they were when they though Apple might get their own guys to crack it. Hoisted on their own petard?

Nope. However the FBI did it, users are still more secure than if Apple handed over a "solution", one that would quickly be demanded by a thousand other law enforcement and intelligence agencies across the US and around the world. By "not knowing" how the FBI did it, Apple won't take more flak when they close that security hole.

This has taught the world that Apple takes security seriously.

[billy.pilgrim]

And now users can be more insecure than they were when they though Apple might get their own guys to crack it. Hoisted on their own petard?

Time is on Apple's side. The public - at least those who care - are getting ever more educated on the issue.

At the very least they're starting to understand that a back door for the good guys is also a back door for criminals. This has been demonstrated over and over again since the dawn of the computer era.

If you recall the 2014 celebrity nudes hacking scandal ("Celebgate"/"The Fappening"), the hackers who accessed celeb iCloud accounts used a "lawful access" tool intended for government agency customers.

And now users can be more insecure than they were when they though Apple might get their own guys to crack it. Hoisted on their own petard?

Nope. However the FBI did it, users are still more secure than if Apple handed over a "solution", one that would quickly be demanded by a thousand other law enforcement and intelligence agencies across the US and around the world. By "not knowing" how the FBI did it, Apple won't take more flak when they close that security hole.

This has taught the world that Apple takes security seriously.

makes me want an iphone

[rstrong]

There's a new method for censoring anonymous complaints on consumer web sites:

TechDirt: The Latest In Reputation Management: Bogus Defamation Suits From Bogus Companies Against Bogus Defendants

Rather than subpoenaing the web site for the anonymous user's information, you simply get someone else to claim to be the user.

Now that they've been "identified", you have them enter a sworn statement admitting their guilt. That gets you a court ordered takedown. Not just for the page with the complaint, but for the entire subdomain since that's what you use in the court documents. With this judgment in hand, the plaintiffs can approach Google and have the "defamatory" links delisted.

Sure, the manufacted defendants (random people hired to claim to be the anonymous posters in question) are perjuring themselves. But since no one really knows the real identity of the posters, and since coming forward to protest the impersonation would expose the real posters to legal reprisals, there's little risk.

[billy.pilgrim]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has assured law enforcement across the United States that it will help unlock mobile devices such as iPhones involved in investigations when it is allowed by law and policy.

The FBI said in a letter to local authorities that it understands the challenges they face and that they lack necessary tools to monitor and investigate the communications of suspects who use encrypted mobile devices, according to the correspondence obtained by Reuters on Friday.


"As has been our longstanding policy, the FBI will of course consider any tool that might be helpful to our partners," the FBI said. "Please know that we will continue to do everything we can to help you consistent with our legal and policy constraints."