Federal judge FORCES Apple to help FBI decrypt San Bernardino killers iPhone 5C

[Roawoao]

4 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

The government rarely works in the interests of the people. The politicians have the interests of special interest groups, really. 

 

My number is to imply that 80-90% have no idea why they need crypto systems. Similarly, as you've pointed out numerous times, they use common guessable passwords. 

You arrived to a completely different conclusion, and misrepresented what I was saying entirely.

 

Your hypothetical quote ended with the person saying "You must be a terrorist if you want to."  

 

You do know there is this thing called voting were you know vote and if lots of people get really angry at all them special interest groups towing politicians don't get elected.

 

I'm not a US citizen so obviously I can't vote there but that is how a democracy works (not perfect obviously) but it is still a democracy.

 

Also it seems like your thinking just like Trik'Stari without being so direct. Thanks for that little bit.

 

What does rarely work in the interests of the people mean to you? What is the interests of the people? Are you the people? Do you represent everyone? So on and so forth. If the US public doesn't care or even worse for Apple has a dim view of their actions then they are screwed in even more ways.

 

The mere existence of a discussion where people disagree about this issue clearly shows it isn't some clear cut issue.

[Stuff_]

It's pretty clear you aren't a US citizen, I almost asked you if you were a bit ago.

You understand the definition of a democracy. You don't understand the US government first hand (only from the internet side of things).

 

The media plays a massive, if not the biggest role on the personal opinions of people. 

Special interests groups = people with billions or more. Those are the people that control the U.S. and can very easily dictate the politics of the United States.

[Roawoao]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

To be honest, I don't fault them for that. They're looking out for the best interest of their customers (which yes, in turn is looking out for themselves), and at the same time the FBI is just fear mongering to get what they want.

Fear mongering is a type of marketing and I don't think anyone can say Apple is not also fear mongering in their reply to the court order by saying things like all device security will forever be compromised and there is no way to protect abuse from malicious actors. Who do you believe obvious you have a very dim view of the government. I tend to take everything with a big metric meter cube of salt from any side.

 

Apple is technically wrong and a bunch of outright BS but on the PR/optics side have a point about consumer perceptions. On the government's side they do have a legitimate legal case and did use a proper court order nothing secret all in the legal system proper. Apple has bad times ahead because the courts will not be swayed by marketing BS even if well intentioned.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Roawoao said:

Fear mongering is a type of marketing and I don't think anyone can say Apple is not also fear mongering in their reply to the court order by saying things like all device security will forever be compromised and there is no way to protect abuse from malicious actors. Who do you believe obvious you have a very dim view of the government. I tend to take everything with a big cube of salt from any side.

 

Apple is technically wrong and a bunch of outright BS but on the PR/optics side have a point about consumer perceptions. On the government's side they do have a legitimate legal case and did use a proper court order nothing secret all in the legal system proper. Apple has bad times ahead because the courts will not be swayed by marketing BS even if well intentioned.

I side with apple (as much as that hurts me to say) because I feel that protecting the privacy of people is more important than cow-towing to the government in the name of stopping "terrorism". Which hasn't happened, despite all their electronic surveillance and spying.

[Roawoao]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I side with apple (as much as that hurts me to say) because I feel that protecting the privacy of people is more important than cow-towing to the government in the name of stopping "terrorism". Which hasn't happened, despite all their electronic surveillance and spying.

I side with no one a case by case approach is far safer. There are unmitigated PR disaster scenarios if you don't take that stance. Say a 9/11 scale event occurs and years down the line it is discovered via catastrophic crypto fail (private key leak) that if Apple did help it would have been prevented. It is impossible to predict what situations will occur in the future. As long as the courts handle it and companies provide sufficient justifiable resistance a happy balance can be achieved. Perfect privacy vs. total surveillance are not ideal futures.

 

In this case Apple is screwed. In the next hypothetical case the government is screwed if they try to gain signing authority (general access to all phones)

 

22 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

It's pretty clear you aren't a US citizen, I almost asked you if you were a bit ago.

You understand the definition of a democracy. You don't understand the US government first hand (only from the internet side of things).

 

The media plays a massive, if not the biggest role on the personal opinions of people. 

Special interests groups = people with billions or more. Those are the people that control the U.S. and can very easily dictate the politics of the United States.

Marketing and the media are not a US specific construct by the way. If a person is swayed by marketing then that is their decision so to speak even if it is a poor one in your opinion. Their opinions are theirs to have and in total the whole of public opinion will form.

 

Money can buy you saturation marketing but that doesn't actually mean it will work people in the wide scope of things are very very hard to predict your saturation campaign that cost your billions of dollars could backfire and cause an internet back draft of such epic proportions that you go down into the history books of total fail.

 

Money spent doesn't guarantee support. Also many billionaires are in the tech giants so I dunno what your implying is it a conspiracy ...

 

As it stands even though money can influence a great many number of people if you really start messing with them too much no amount of money is going to stop the uproar.

 

What you should be saying is information is power which marketing attempts to control but is not a certainty that it will result in what you expect. Companies like Google/Apple/Microsoft/Facebook/.... technically control the aggregate of almost all our electronic lives those companies have true power over everyone under their respective ecosystems. People trust them, become fanboys, start flame wars, stop caring about their constant spying for them targeted ads and other useful features or bad business practices or otherwise sketchy behaviour, .... 

[Stuff_]

12 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

I side with no one a case by case approach is far safer. There are unmitigated PR disaster scenarios if you don't take that stance. Say a 9/11 scale event occurs and years down the line it is discovered via catastrophic crypto fail (private key leak) that if Apple did help it would have been prevented. It is impossible to predict what situations will occur in the future. As long as the courts handle it and companies provide sufficient justifiable resistance a happy balance can be achieved. Perfect privacy vs. total surveillance are not ideal futures.

 

In this case Apple is screwed.

 

Marketing and the media are not a US specific construct by the way. If a person is swayed by marketing then that is their decision so to speak even if it is a poor one in your opinion. Their opinions are theirs to have and in total the whole of public opinion will form.

 

Money can buy you saturation marketing but that doesn't actually mean it will work people in the wide scope of things are very very hard to predict your saturation campaign that cost your billions of dollars could backfire and cause an internet back draft of such epic proportions that you go down into the history books of total fail.

 

Money spent doesn't guarantee support. Also many billionaires are in the tech giants so I dunno what your implying is it a conspiracy ...

 

As it stands even though money can influence a great many number of people if you really start messing with them too much no amount of money is going to stop the uproar.

 

What you should be saying is information is power which marketing attempts to control but is not a certainty that it will result in what you expect. Companies like Google/Apple/Microsoft/Facebook/.... technically control the aggregate of almost all our electronic lives those companies have true power over everyone. 

You mention a "case by case approach" but then elaborate on a hypothetical situation where some catastrophic event occurs in the future. You've contradicted yourself there.

 

I never said they were US specific. However, the media is also owned by the billionaires that provide millions towards the specific politicians that will actually pass/follow laws that they want, not what the people want.

 

Also money does control everything, especially politics. If you think otherwise, then you haven't read a single history book, ever. This is simply the way it is now, and pretty much the way it will always be (at least for my foreseeable future). 

 

It's tough to argue U.S. politics to someone that hasn't lived in the United States and is from.... where are you from anyway? 

[Trik'Stari]

17 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

I side with no one a case by case approach is far safer. There are unmitigated PR disaster scenarios if you don't take that stance. Say a 9/11 scale event occurs and years down the line it is discovered via catastrophic crypto fail (private key leak) that if Apple did help it would have been prevented. It is impossible to predict what situations will occur in the future. As long as the courts handle it and companies provide sufficient justifiable resistance a happy balance can be achieved. Perfect privacy vs. total surveillance are not ideal futures.

 

In this case Apple is screwed. In the next hypothetical case the government is screwed if they try to gain signing authority (general access to all phones)

 

Marketing and the media are not a US specific construct by the way. If a person is swayed by marketing then that is their decision so to speak even if it is a poor one in your opinion. Their opinions are theirs to have and in total the whole of public opinion will form.

 

Money can buy you saturation marketing but that doesn't actually mean it will work people in the wide scope of things are very very hard to predict your saturation campaign that cost your billions of dollars could backfire and cause an internet back draft of such epic proportions that you go down into the history books of total fail.

 

Money spent doesn't guarantee support. Also many billionaires are in the tech giants so I dunno what your implying is it a conspiracy ...

 

As it stands even though money can influence a great many number of people if you really start messing with them too much no amount of money is going to stop the uproar.

 

What you should be saying is information is power which marketing attempts to control but is not a certainty that it will result in what you expect. Companies like Google/Apple/Microsoft/Facebook/.... technically control the aggregate of almost all our electronic lives those companies have true power over everyone under their respective ecosystems. People trust them, become fanboys, start flame wars, stop caring about their constant spying for them targeted ads and other useful features or bad business practices or otherwise sketchy behaviour, .... 

A one time disaster does not outweigh the damage done, to possibly tens or hundreds of millions of people, by the federal government pushing their way to a generic backdoor for encryption.

 

Let alone, the worse possibility of them misusing it. You're buying into something that COULD be the result of false flag operations. Yes, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, but it DOES burn hot enough to heat steel to the point that it becomes like butter. And yes, there ARE a lot of weird things about what happened on 9/11.

 

But one FACT, does remain. The federal government knew about an attack, or the possibility of one, and did nothing.

 

I (and others) would say they allowed it to happen because they wanted the public focusing on an external threat, so they could strengthen their own powers (the KOTOR play, if you know what I'm talking about) internally (the patriot act). When it comes to government, I assume guilt. Because the evils that governments can commit always outweigh the evils that a few fringe terrorists can commit. (see almost all of history as an example. The absolute worst things ever committed by humanity, against itself, were almost ALWAYS committed by governments, against their own people)

[Roawoao]

33 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

You mention a "case by case approach" but then elaborate on a hypothetical situation where some catastrophic event occurs in the future. You've contradicted yourself there.

 

I never said they were US specific. However, the media is also owned by the billionaires that provide millions towards the specific politicians that will actually pass/follow laws that they want, not what the people want.

 

Also money does control everything, especially politics. If you think otherwise, then you haven't read a single history book, ever. This is simply the way it is now, and pretty much the way it will always be (at least for my foreseeable future). 

 

It's tough to argue U.S. politics to someone that hasn't lived in the United States and is from.... where are you from anyway? 

 

Live within 1 mile of the US just like 90% of us. Even in the catastrophic case you don't want to have a blanket rule just a constant tug of war where no one side (perfect privacy, total surveillance) wins out. The conflict prevents stagnation and ultimately failure.

 

In order for you to say there is a contradiction you have to state what it is. My argument for a case by case approach is because the future is unpredictable (hypotheticals) and settling into some magical constant ideal is retarded and foolhardy. Basically my answer is that it will always depend.

 

In this instance Apple is screwed the next probably no so much you can only pull so far.

 

30 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

A one time disaster does not outweigh the damage done, to possibly tens or hundreds of millions of people, by the federal government pushing their way to a generic backdoor for encryption.

 

Let alone, the worse possibility of them misusing it. You're buying into something that COULD be the result of false flag operations. Yes, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, but it DOES burn hot enough to heat steel to the point that it becomes like butter. And yes, there ARE a lot of weird things about what happened on 9/11.

 

But one FACT, does remain. The federal government knew about an attack, or the possibility of one, and did nothing.

 

I (and others) would say they allowed it to happen because they wanted the public focusing on an external threat, so they could strengthen their own powers (the KOTOR play, if you know what I'm talking about) internally (the patriot act). When it comes to government, I assume guilt. Because the evils that governments can commit always outweigh the evils that a few fringe terrorists can commit. (see almost all of history as an example. The absolute worst things ever committed by humanity, against itself, were almost ALWAYS committed by governments, against their own people)

I'm not even advocating a universal backdoor I'm saying for Apple to kick it down the road where they have better chances of starting a whole sale internet fire that actually works. I'm stating that while it is technically possible for Apple to do it right now they should use other less backdoor common methods that would work on an iPhone 5c and then in the future make the iPhone 7 more secure and then a future legal show down will occur and maybe they can win that one.

 

There is no possibility of misuse that doesn't already exist anyone with Apple's private key could silently introduce backdoors as official updates/apps and this would be far worse than alerting the lock screen settings via a DFU update.

 

Oh my more crazy talk. So tell me more about 9/11 was the government doing, .........................................................................

 

You no nothing Trik'Stari about metallurgy. Now that you went 100% off the rails.

 

Lets break it down for you. Why do steel buildings have fireproofing on the members? Lets see maybe just maybe its because steel loses strength when it gets hot and at a certain temperature it loses a lot of strength and becomes "like butter" (FIRE BUTTER is a more appropriate description because if you touched it you would catch fire). 

 

Oh would you look at that when in a fire (thousands of degF) it turns into hot hot fire butter. Also note that 800-1500degF is how hot the jet fuel fire would have been plus the combustibles in the building would complicate temperatures. This means it loses >40% of its strength upto 100% and when you add that on top of the lost structural elements is why the building collapsed. It didn't need to melt them it just needed to weaken the overloaded remaining members.

 

 

At high temperature creep failure can rapidly occur especially in alloys not meant to operate at extreme temperatures. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Blade of Grass]

5 hours ago, Roawoao said:

Problem with Apple's statement is that in order to steal that special OS and use it on other phone they also have to steal the private signing authority Apple has (hard coded private keys in all iPhones) getting that is far bigger of a prize than the lock screen mod.

What? They most definitely wouldn't. If you create a piece of software, sign it, and install it on a singular device, and then I take that exact piece of software (which already has a valid signature as you have already signed it) and install it on another device, it's going to work. 

5 hours ago, Roawoao said:

There is a big difference between marketing reality and actual reality. The cannot be decrypted is more of a marketing thing than an actual technical thing. (Apple cannot decrypt the phone because they said it cannot be decrypted) Yes Apple does not have the user encryption key but they can strip away everything around it to make it what is likely just a 12-16 bit numeric pin code. (Very trivial to crack)

How do you know they have a 12-16 bit numeric pin code? How do you know that Apple can deduce the other entropy in the key enough to do this?

On top of that, the difficulty to crack a key is directly related the complexity of the calculation. Sure, finding the password for a 12 digit md5 hash would be easy, but trying doing the same thing with a 10,000 iteration scrypt hash - not so easy any more.

Quote

The iPhone 5c has no secure enclave and is trivial to bypass the UX level OS protections just by dumping the flash memory and extracting the UID.

How would they dump the flash memory? 

2 hours ago, Roawoao said:

Again unless Apple is retarded (certainly possible) they can use their existing security model to restrict the access to one phone

How? If you sign something with your private key, it is signed. You can't sign something specifically for a singular device (unless each device from Apple has it's own private key-pair, in which case they could sign it with their private and the phones public, but I highly doubt they do this).

Bruce Schneier seems to think otherwise https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/18/why-you-should-side-with-apple-not-the-fbi-in-the-san-bernardino-iphone-case/

Quote

they can even do it without writting any custom OS software just literally dump the 5C's flash memory and give the FBI the UDID serial number and an open source password cracking tool. Done.

You seem to be certain that they can do this, do you have any sources backing you up?

1 hour ago, Roawoao said:

The precedent has been set Apple has been ordered by a court of law to comply the DoJ also, and the supreme court will be like follow the order Apple. 

 

This isn't a legal case its already the precedent with the conclusion already given. This is how law works the court decides and the precedent is set, failing to comply with a court order is not going to end well the precedents on that is also very clear.

If Apple has appealed the order, then no precedent will be set until a higher court has responded. Why would this have to go to SCOTUS? There are other lower appeal courts that they would have to go through before, specifically, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

[Roawoao]

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

 

What? They most definitely wouldn't. If you create a piece of software, sign it, and install it on a singular device, and then I take that exact piece of software (which already has a valid signature as you have already signed it) and install it on another device, it's going to work. 

How do you know they have a 12-16 bit numeric pin code? How do you know that Apple can deduce the other entropy in the key enough to do this?

On top of that, the difficulty to crack a key is directly related the complexity of the calculation. Sure, finding the password for a 12 digit md5 hash would be easy, but trying doing the same thing with a 10,000 iteration scrypt hash - not so easy any more.

How would they dump the flash memory? 

How? If you sign something with your private key, it is signed. You can't sign something specifically for a singular device (unless each device from Apple has it's own private key-pair, in which case they could sign it with their private and the phones public, but I highly doubt they do this).

Bruce Schneier seems to think otherwise https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/18/why-you-should-side-with-apple-not-the-fbi-in-the-san-bernardino-iphone-case/

You seem to be certain that they can do this, do you have any sources backing you up?

If Apple has appealed the order, then no precedent will be set until a higher court has responded. Why would this have to go to SCOTUS? There are other lower appeal courts that they would have to go through before, specifically, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

 

The software if it has a device UID hard coded into it plus the hash of the encrypted volume there is no way your just going to install it on another phone. Obviously Apple needs to do a tiny bit of programming to add the check but it cannot be removed without it being signed again so it is extremely hard to bypass by bad actors. (I am assuming Apple knows how to program)

 

Apple's default pin length is 4 numeric and stronger pin is 6 numeric (12-16 bits approximately) and few users would use a stronger all character password as the phone has no touchID and it would be hard to use if you needed to enter a 20 char password.

 

http://www.cnet.com/how-to/secure-your-ios-device-with-a-six-digit-passcode-on-ios-9/

 

Users can use arb passwords but it is unlikely they will use that for long. Apple also provides hinting as if your using a pin code there is no full keyboard.

 

The available key strength in a 4 to 6 digit pin code if subjected to an offline attack is trivial even with arb length (apple would not require seconds to unlock as that would be bad for user feel)

 

How to dump the flash memory. I'm sure Apple knows where the flash memory is but it is highlighted in red. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5c+Teardown/17382

 

With the PCB layout and some micro rework wires you can get at the requisite pins or Apple can just hook the phone upto a in circuit debugging platform. Failing that you can just desolder the chip and plop it on a standard BGA breakout board and dump using any flash reader (possibly even an SD card reader if you know what you need).

 

 

If your lazy you can buy it off the shelf. If you want to be really cheap dead bug style works too just solder the rework wires directly to the balls. (tricky but not that hard with the right soldering iron, expensive) Slow the clock way down as your signal integrity is going to be garbage and just read out the entire chip. (Still encrypted but just extract the encrypted drive key which is just protected by the user code and UID salt)(Crack away your going to be pretty successful as most users even terrorist don't use 20 char complex passwords)

 

Every iphone has a hardcoded UDID which could be used to tie the special version not that it is needed as described by the flash dump method (no secure element either). This code which is also the user pin code salt can be used to tie a version to one phone. For added security also just use the SHA256 hash of the entire encrypted volume so that it only works this one time on this one blob of user data. To modify this check you would need to re-sign the software.

 

Given the DoJ, Courts, and government in general's stance on terrorism I doubt the supreme court is going to help apple out. Also given that there is plenty of internal discussions the DoJ is leaking out Apple's case for it being technically impossible and to insecure is thin.

[Blade of Grass]

8 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

The software if it has a device UID hard coded into it plus the hash of the encrypted volume there is no way your just going to install it on another phone. Obviously Apple needs to do a tiny bit of programming to add the check but it cannot be removed without it being signed again so it is extremely hard to bypass by bad actors.

Quote

Every iphone has a hardcoded UDID which could be used to tie the special version not that it is needed as described by the flash dump method (no secure element either). This code which is also the user pin code salt can be used to tie a version to one phone. For added security also just use the SHA256 hash of the entire encrypted volume so that it only works this one time on this one blob of user data. To modify this check you would need to re-sign the software.

Ah, okay, I see what your idea is now. Clever!

Quote

Apple's default pin length is 4 numeric and stronger pin is 6 numeric (12-16 bits approximately) and few users would use a stronger all character password as the phone has no touchID and it would be hard to use if you needed to enter a 20 char password.

The issue is that we do not know if it's 4 digits, 6 digits, 25 digits, etc. For all we know it could very well be a secure 20 digit mixed alphanumeric with special characters. Although human nature would say that it's not, it remains conjecture for us to say anything about it.

Quote

How to dump the flash memory. I'm sure Apple knows where the flash memory is but it is highlighted in red. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5c+Teardown/17382

 

With the PCB layout and some micro rework wires you can get at the requisite pins or Apple can just hook the phone upto a in circuit debugging platform. Failing that you can just desolder the chip and plop it on a standard BGA breakout board and dump using any flash reader (possibly even an SD card reader if you know what you need).

Considering the fact that it's a BGA chip, it's going to be very difficult to get access to the wiring required to read from it (as they're all located underneath the chip, between it and the PCB). There are also certain risks involved with desoldering a BGA chip, specifically, risks of it being damaged beyond repair. I'm not quite sure if the government is willing to take these risks.

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

A one time disaster does not outweigh the damage done, to possibly tens or hundreds of millions of people, by the federal government pushing their way to a generic backdoor for encryption.

 

Let alone, the worse possibility of them misusing it. You're buying into something that COULD be the result of false flag operations. Yes, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, but it DOES burn hot enough to heat steel to the point that it becomes like butter. And yes, there ARE a lot of weird things about what happened on 9/11.

 

But one FACT, does remain. The federal government knew about an attack, or the possibility of one, and did nothing.

 

I (and others) would say they allowed it to happen because they wanted the public focusing on an external threat, so they could strengthen their own powers (the KOTOR play, if you know what I'm talking about) internally (the patriot act). When it comes to government, I assume guilt. Because the evils that governments can commit always outweigh the evils that a few fringe terrorists can commit. (see almost all of history as an example. The absolute worst things ever committed by humanity, against itself, were almost ALWAYS committed by governments, against their own people)

It takes courage to talk about 9/11 like that, I commend you.

 

I used to think it was common knowledge that the official story regarding that attack was bullshit.  I consider myself dumb, but it takes a special variation of dumb to think that story has any place in any real ongoing investigation. 

 

The theory that the steel was weakened to the point of catastrophic failure is easily disproved.  There is absolutely no evidence that any of the jet fuel even reached a single steel beam;  none.  Not saying it did not happen, just that there is no scientific evidence to verify it.  It is a theory.

 

On Topic:  False flag operations are often possible because of preceding powers that were granted to authorities.  A system of acceptance that a government can do and say whatever it wants without public dissent of any consequence is what can be (and has been) used to rally a populous under false pretenses.  Many countries, including the USA, have done it this way.

 

What may it may seem logical to do this one thing today, the precedence it sets (to accost the time and effort of a private company) may be used in concert with any number of current and future powers bestowed to the government in ways not realized at this moment.

 

Stick to your guns. 

[Roawoao]

39 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Ah, okay, I see what your idea is now. Clever!

The issue is that we do not know if it's 4 digits, 6 digits, 25 digits, etc. For all we know it could very well be a secure 20 digit mixed alphanumeric with special characters. Although human nature would say that it's not, it remains conjecture for us to say anything about it.

Considering the fact that it's a BGA chip, it's going to be very difficult to get access to the wiring required to read from it (as they're all located underneath the chip, between it and the PCB). There are also certain risks involved with desoldering a BGA chip, specifically, risks of it being damaged beyond repair. I'm not quite sure if the government is willing to take these risks.

Yes we do not 100% know but its pretty good conjecture that even a terrorist will find it difficult to use a work phone with a 20 digit mixed alphanumeric+special character password. He might have gotten caught long before with people wondering why it takes him so long to unlock his work phone and asking him questions.

 

BGA is easy as pie for designers used to SMD stuff. Everything is tiny now its the norm. All the equipment is designed around it including test/rework/.... Doing a the dump via PCB tracks is non-destructive as there are going to be test pads or accessible points on that board Apple would have the precise layout as well so dumping would be even less risky. They may even have a jig to debug iPhones splayed out as part of the dev process that they can just use. (its good design practice, apple has great designs so I'm pretty sure they have extensive custom tooling).

 

37 minutes ago, stconquest said:

It takes courage to talk about 9/11 like that, I commend you.

 

I used to think it was common knowledge that the official story regarding that attack was bullshit.  I consider myself dumb, but it takes a special variation of dumb to think that story has any place in any real ongoing investigation. 

 

The theory that the steel was weakened to the point of catastrophic failure is easily disproved.  There is absolutely no evidence that any of the jet fuel even reached a single steel beam;  none.  Not saying it did not happen, just that there is no scientific evidence to verify it.  It is a theory.

 

On Topic:  False flag operations are often possible because of preceding powers that were granted to authorities.  A system of acceptance that a government is can do and say whatever it wants without public dissent of any consequence is what can be (and has been) used to rally a populous under false pretenses.  Many countries, including the USA, have done it this way.

 

What may it may seem logical to do this one thing today, the precedence it sets (to accost the time and effort of a private company) may be used in concert with any number of current and future powers bestowed to the government in ways not realized at this moment.

 

Stick to your guns. 

??? How is anything your saying on topic. So everything is a false flag... I is all becoming clear now.

 

No evidence of jet fuel. Ok lets check.

 

Your saying that the building was joker plotted and filled with fuel or something with no one noticing. Oh my this is absurd. Oh and everyone is lying that was in the fire, near the buildings and so on and so forth....

 

I have a some advise when you have an epileptic trees moment just remember that if incompetence can be an explanation then it is highly probable vs. the trees being epileptic.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpilepticTrees

 

In 9/11 it is much simpler to just say government missed it through incompetence. MH370 Malaysia government clearly incompetent not some crazy conspiracy.

[stconquest]

5 minutes ago, Roawoao said:

???

No evidence of jet fuel. Ok lets check.

 

Your saying that the building was joker plotted and filled with fuel or something with no one noticing. Oh my this is absurd. Oh and everyone is lying that was in the fire, near the buildings and so on and so forth....

 

I have a some advise when you have an epileptic trees moment just remember that if incompetence can be an explanation then it is highly probable vs. the trees being epileptic.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpilepticTrees

 

In 9/11 it is much simpler to just say government missed it through incompetence. MH370 Malaysia government clearly incompetent not some crazy conspiracy.

You are that special kind of dumb.

 

Listen, if the USA had never before attacked it's own citizens to try and start military actions you would have the argument that there is no precedence.  

 

There's precedence:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

 

You only commented because you think you are right, when you are not.  You show a picture of an explosion.  Where does it show that lit (or unlit) jet fuel is drenching any steel beams.  As far as I see, the jet fuel largely burning up outside the building.  Are there steel beam suspended in the air surrounding the WTC?

 

If the weakening of the steel beams was the cause of the catastrophic structural failure of the tower, then at what point?  Did the building buckle for any relevant period of time?  The official story is a joke.  You are a problem in this world beyond anything that a formal education corrects. 

 

At any point in your post, did you relate your argument to the topic at hand?  No... you just want to argue. 

 

I am old enough to have had the ability to critically think when this event occurred.  As I was talking with a childhood friend of mine that evening, one of the many possibilities of what happened earlier that day was that the USA was involved in some respect.  I did not like the idea, but it was worth mentioning as it could very well be what happened.

 

I still don't know what happened, but I won't resort to accepting a bullshit story because it falls in line with a personal belief.  You apparently don't care if you are fed bullshit.  Fuck, you eat it up like it is an 8-course meal.  Then you have the nerve to turn around and tell someone you have great taste in food.

 

 

[ionbasa]

Since no one noticed my previous post a page back. I have an interesting point which I was hopping people would catch on to.

 

The owner of the iPhone wasn't actually the suspect. The owner (the suspect's employer) already gave consent to the phone being searched. With that being said, does Apple even have an legal basis to refuse the order?

 

My previous post also has the motion filed by the DOJ today. Interestingly, Apple has in the past unlocked iPhones when an warrant is served. Actually, in the fist half of 2015, Apple received an total 3824 device requests by the US Government, and Apple provided data for 81% of cases (only 81% was valid), and the data requests used the same legal action by courts as in this case (All Writs Act).

Source: https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/government-information-requests-20150914.pdf

 

So, this makes me actually strongly consider that this is just an PR stunt by Apple. Why all of the sudden stop complying on an high profile case, where they complied in low profile cases. Maybe the DOJ allegation isn't so far fetched? 

[Roawoao]

11 minutes ago, stconquest said:

You are that special kind of dumb.

 

Listen, if the USA had never before attacked it's own citizens to try and start military actions you would have the argument that there is no precedence.  

 

There's precedence:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

 

You only commented because you think you are right, when you are not.  You show a picture of an explosion.  Where does it show that lit (or unlit) jet fuel is drenching any steel beams.  As far as I see, the jet fuel largely burning up outside the building.  Are there steel beam suspended in the air surrounding the WTC?

 

If the weakening of the steel beams was the cause of the catastrophic structural failure of the tower, then at what point?  Did the building buckle for any relevant period of time?  The official story is a joke.  You are a problem in this world beyond anything that a formal education corrects. 

 

At any point in your post, did you relate your argument to the topic at hand?  No... you just want to argue. 

 

I am old enough to have had the ability to critically think when this event occurred.  As I was talking with a childhood friend of mine that evening, one of the many possibilities of what happened earlier that day was that the USA was involved in some respect.  I did not like the idea, but it was worth mentioning as it could very well be what happened.

 

I still don't know what happened, but I won't resort to accepting a bullshit story because it falls in line with a personal belief.  You apparently don't care if you are fed bullshit.  Fuck, you eat it up like it is an 8-course meal.  Then you have the nerve to turn around and tell someone you have great taste in food.

 

 

You do realize explosions of fuel have their own characteristic traits which the image show the same traits so unless tons of fuel was brought in which would contradict your no fuel ever touched the steel the image is sufficient. 

 

It shows a whole building of lit jet fuel on a steel beams (the outside walls is a major structural component of the WTC building by the way) I would be much more suspicious if for some magical reason there was a remotely recorded mass spectrometer located on every floor to say look see there was jet fuel burning the building. Why the recorders placed there uh testing air quality????...

 

I'm also guessing you don't understand what progressive collapse and basic engineering concepts (statics, load calculations, beam formulas, buckling conditions, creep failure, ....) No apparently your childhood friend and your age allows you to deduce disproved literally elliptic tree theories.

 

And how does this related to this discussion well it shows who believes in facts vs fiction.

 

11 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

Since no one noticed my previous post a page back. I have an interesting point which I was hopping people would catch on to.

 

The owner of the iPhone wasn't actually the suspect. The owner (the suspect's employer) already gave consent to the phone being searched. With that being said, does Apple even have an legal basis to refuse the order?

 

My previous post also has the motion filed by the DOJ today. Interestingly, Apple has in the past unlocked iPhones when an warrant is served. Actually, in the fist half of 2015, Apple received an total 3824 device requests by the US Government, and Apple provided data for 81% of cases (only 81% was valid), and the data requests used the same legal action by courts as in this case (All Writs Act).

Source: https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/government-information-requests-20150914.pdf

 

So, this makes me actually strongly consider that this is just an PR stunt by Apple. Why all of the sudden stop complying on an high profile case, where they complied in low profile cases. Maybe the DOJ allegation isn't so far fetched? 

Technically speaking the phone is the employers so the employee has no expectation of privacy on a work device. Of course why their IT department is incompetent (didn't setup device admins) is another question likely due to underfunding, lazy IT staff.

 

Previous iPhones have had no encryption is my understanding and most of the data was from iCloud not the device itself (i think). 

[Stuff_]

Well, Apple is just reiterating that they will NOT introduce any backdoors. The reason that they said that is because this leads straight into that topic of discussion.

 

It might be that the FBI never asked for that, formally, but Apple is simply letting everyone know that they wont do it.

[Roawoao]

10 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

Well, Apple is just reiterating that they will NOT introduce any backdoors. The reason that they said that is because this leads straight into that topic of discussion.

 

It might be that the FBI never asked for that, formally, but Apple is simply letting everyone know that they wont do it.

 

PR basically. I completely understand it from Apple's perspective even if they did not use a backdoor method if they complied with say the flash memory dump the social media and news response would be a PR disaster for Apple because of clickbait distortion. Best take it to the supreme court and lose out then find the obvious alternative (no secure element) for this specific case and call it a day. By then it will get dragged on out and people will stop caring when apple complies without using a backdoor as they could do right now. 

 

This obviously doesn't remove the chance in the future apple won't be forced to compromise their system but as I've said the private keys already control that and its the best we have for such applications and there is no clear alternative. (Even a ROM secure element can be cracked by say discovering an unpatchable vulnerability you trade the possibility of the government forcing apple to update it with a back door with the also possible chance a bug is discovered and cannot be fixed via updates) Trade offs, nothings perfect.

 

I guess forced obsolescence is a valid security plan businesses would love that. 

 

[Roawoao]

Hmmm new news more spins in all directions.

 

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

 

It seems like there is an even easier way to get a full image of the phone. The FBI changed the iCloud account password (I guess they were afraid accomplices might know the password) when Apple handed it over to them and then this broke the automatic backup to iCloud except Apple being in total control of iCloud could just revert the changes. I don't think Apple can claim it can't just roll back iCloud changes or restore the account state to an earlier point (simulate a data loss incident and recover from backup)

 

Now the new conspiracy is that the FBI purposefully changed the pin code (not correct) to force Apple to hack the phone. What is far more logical is that they got the iCloud password and wanted to make sure no one else could wipe the phone who the individual may have shared the iCloud password with.

 

Some news sites are being very confusing by saying things like,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/02/19/iphone-passcode-changed-government-possession/80632962/

"iPhone ID passcode changed in government possession"

When it should read iCloud or Apple ID password changed by FBI (it is globally accessible so changing it makes sense).

 

They way some clickbait articles are worded try to mislead to make readers think that the FBI changed the pin code after the fact to force apple to comply when it is again just incompetence that they didn't realize the iCloud backup still works even if they don't know the device pin code.

 

 

Edit: And then I guess I'm wrong its not incompetence it is just more Apple PR BS.

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/apple-says-investigators-ruined-most-promising-way-to-access-terrorist-data/

Quote

"They recommended that the iPhone be connected to a known Wi-Fi network such as one in Farook's home or workplace and plugged into a power source so it could automatically create a new iCloud backup overnight. If successful, that backup might have contained the missing information between the October backup and December 2, when the San Bernardino massacre occurred."

Only problem with Apple's idea is that they already knew it wouldn't work because he turned off the Automatic backups before and without the pin code it wouldn't magically start automatic backups later.

Quote

"Apple has already provided the FBI with access to Farook's iCloud backups through mid-October, when he apparently stopped backing up his phone to iCloud servers. "

So while the article says they never knew if it would work because of the FBI's change of the iCloud password the opposite is true that it was perfectly logical to no expect any new backups if the user turned them off intentionally months before. I highly doubt that Apple can reason that Farook instead of just turning off the iCloud backup in the phone settings took the effort to never go near his home or workplace wifi and to never charge his phone at home or work.

 

Basically the PR fireworks are in full session. Wait wasn't there some users earlier that said the media is in the pocket of the oligopoly [sic] certainly seems inverted. Who cares popcorn for everyone.

[Commander_Z]

it seems that the FBI changed the Apple ID less than 24 hours after it being in their possession.

 

 

Quote

 

The Apple ID passcode linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn’t happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible…

The executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a back door. One of those methods would have involved connecting the phone to a known wifi network.

 

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

[ionbasa]

Just now, Commander_Z said:

it seems that the FBI changed the Apple ID less than 24 hours after it being in their possession.

 

 

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

And? That's only relevant for iCloud. Which so happens that the iCloud Backup feature was disabled before the shooting spree occurred. The Apple ID was changed so an accomplice wouldn't have access to the Apple Account Information.

 

Apple ID =/= iPhone login passcode

[Roawoao]

2 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

And? That's only relevant for iCloud. Which so happens that the iCloud Backup feature was disabled before the shooting spree occurred. The Apple ID was changed so an accomplice wouldn't have access to the Apple Account Information.

 

Apple ID =/= iPhone login passcode

Also he didn't carefully enough and got confused by the poorly worded articles. If he bothered reading the post right above his the detailed explanation is right there and even has the same link...

[ionbasa]

1 minute ago, Roawoao said:

Also he didn't carefully enough and got confused by the poorly worded articles. If he bothered reading the post right above his the detailed explanation is right there and even has the same link...

Kinda ironic that you bring up poor wording, in an post that in itself is poorly worded .

[Roawoao]

Just now, ionbasa said:

Kinda ironic that you bring up poor wording, in an post that in itself is poorly worded .

I expect news articles to actually have editors not be on the same level as a forum post.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, ionbasa said:

And? That's only relevant for iCloud. Which so happens that the iCloud Backup feature was disabled before the shooting spree occurred. The Apple ID was changed so an accomplice wouldn't have access to the Apple Account Information.

 

Apple ID =/= iPhone login passcode

Do we know that it was disabled before the shooting? The argument Apple is making is that if they hadn't changed the password, the phone might have automatically backed itself up once it connected to the Internet. Obviously that would not happen if the backup feature was disabled, but I can't find any evidence that it was/wasn't.