Big claims require big proof. But I bet all you have is a hunch.
Comment on FBI Couldn’t Get into WaPo Reporter’s iPhone Because It Had Lockdown Mode Enabled
bokherif@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is just an advertisement. There is no phone the government cannot get into if they wanted.
sunbeam60@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
The big claim is that they couldn’t get into the reporters iPhone. You are right to demand proof before believing something so obviously made up.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Unless there’s an incredible amount of people “not in” on some universal secret, maths gonna maths, and physics gonna physics. Actual encryption works well in a proven way, computational power isn’t as infinite as some people think, and decent software implementations exists.
Getting hold of anything properly encrypted with no access to the key still requires an incredible amount of computing power to brute force. Weak/bad implementations can leave enough info back to speed this up, malicious software can make use of an extra, undocumented encryption key, etc. but a decent implementation would not be easy to break in.
Now, this does not say anything about what Apple actually do. They claim to have proper encryption, but with anything closed source, you only have your belief to back you up. But it’s not an extraordinary claim to say that this can be done competently. And Apple would have a good incentive in doing so: good PR, and no real downside for them since people happily unlock their phone to keep their software running and doing whatever it wants locally.
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Or, they walk in through the back door.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Big claims require big proof. But I bet all you have is a hunch.
I work alongside law enforcement. Part of my job involves helping detectives follow the instructions Apple/Google provide to them for downloading and unencrypting people’s phone data once a judge has given permission for them to request it from Apple/Google.
Now, I’m not familiar with “Lockdown Mode”. Maybe that uses separate encryption to encrypt data stored on your phone that ISN’T cloud synced data. But even then, if that Lockdown Mode is software created by the manufacturer, then they could have the decryption algorithm to decrypt it and I wouldn’t trust it. I would only trust open-source encryption software, like Veracrypt.
Bottom line is I’m here to guarantee you that if the data is synced with a cloud, it absolutely can be obtained by law enforcement.
Not that it’s particularly relevant, but typically when law enforcement get into the data, it’s usually because they have reasonable suspicion and it’s usually kiddie porn or chat logs proving they were trying to meet up with underage individuals. And I’m here to tell you that shit is way more prevalent than I think most people realize.
sunbeam60@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
You can read more about lock down mode here: support.apple.com/en-gb/105120
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Again, like you said, what is described in the article is a big claim, and it should require a big proof, not some trust-me-bro apple marketing.
tonytins@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
Just because someone has an iPhone doesn’t mean they’re advertising the product.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Is this an advertisement? Sure, yes. The government can get into any phone? No.
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Any iPhone? Almost certainly.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Virtually any phone I would say, yeah. Either by rubberhose cryptanalysis or by sheer time, money, and tools, they most likely can.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
So “any phone” turned into “virtually any phone”, and the owner needs to be alive and apprehended, and then they “most likely” can, maybe.
See, I mostly agree with what you said. But you can see how we have moved the goalpoast away from “there is no phone the government cannot get into”, to “the government can get into most phones”, which is quite a different statement.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I am not moving goalposts or making different statements, I’m not the user you were replying to.
I also mostly agree with you, but my angle is that the difference between “the government can get into virtually any phone” and “the government can get into most phones” is that the latter makes it seem like you can be “smart/knowledgeable enough” to avoid that, and that’s untrue. You should assume everything you keep on your phone can be extracted because of the nature of smartphone manufacturers, the supply chain etc, but I do not believe no phone can’t be broken into like OP was saying.