APPLE SAY NO
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
B A S E D apple
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html
>>53035752
>>53036211
so this doesn't apply to iphones.
>>53036308
Here you go pajeet.
>>53036475
At least they seem to be trying. At least they're out there bitching about it.
How does Android handle encryption again?
>>53037476
>>53037514
Pls, how does Android handle encryption again?
>>53035752
That's it. Time to take up arms and spark the racewar.
android l handles it well for me
>>53037550
Blackberry master race uses hardware encryption
>>53037550
You can, if that's what you're asking
>>53037642
>You can
I can what? Enable it? Its not on by default?
>>53037562
Gas the kikes, racewar now
>>53036475
If this was the case, what the fuck is the gov on about?
>>53037826
That was one of Apple's stipulations for agreeing to give the FBI access. Apple is literally run by their PR department.
>>53037550
ios encryption is equally useless:
https://media.blackhat.com/bh-us-12/Briefings/Zdziarski/BH_US_12_Zdziarski_Dark_Art_of_iOS_Application_Hacking_Slides.pdf
https://pentest.com/ios_backdoors_attack_points_surveillance_mechanisms.pdf
>>53038610
Interesting, thanks.
>>53035752
The Apple shilling is strong on /g/ tonight.
Apple has control over pretty much everything. Who utilizes the code, when it gets used, where, and how are all up to Apple. Apple can even destroy it after the FBI is done with one iphone if they choose. There is no backdoor or vulnerability unless Apple keeps it around.
>>53038767
>There is no backdoor or vulnerability unless Apple keeps it around.
this desu senpai
Apple is lazy though, so they usually prefer to keep their "accidental" exploits around for 3-4 years.
>>53035752
APPLE YES
https://media.blackhat.com/bh-us-12/Briefings/Zdziarski/BH_US_12_Zdziarski_Dark_Art_of_iOS_Application_Hacking_Slides.pdf
https://pentest.com/ios_backdoors_attack_points_surveillance_mechanisms.pdf
https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/
>Apple only disclosed content in response to 27% of the total U.S. account requests we received during the period from July 1st, 2014 to June 30th, 2015.
>Only 27%
>Only
Why is people licking Apple's ass over a simple lie? Apple has been collaborating with governments since forever and they will keep doing it because the law demands it. The Apple shilling is unbearable these days on /g/ seriously.
EFF even gave them 5 stars what the hell are they even thinking, they're getting cucked.
>DoJ wins suit
>Apple has to code a "Master Key" mode into the encryption of their devices
>everyone that would have something even remotely interesting gets rid of iShit
>buy Androids and flash them with open source Linux distros
>the "it just werks" faggots all get destroyed when a hacker obtains the master key
>tens millions of financial records are stolen as Apple shits itself and tries to reset the master key
>FBI probably stalls it because they're busy looking at cat pics on some militiaman's mother's iPhone
>because she might be a sleeper and someone in cybercrims heard you could hide stuff in .JPGs
>actual criminals and compsec nerds all flee from normalized platforms, making it even harder to track them
>microblogging liberal arts majors get their digital shit kicked in for treading on ground they were not meant to tread on
>since these hipsters are against big business and love big government, DoJ uses Twitter to sick Apple's userbase on them
>DoJ tries it with google next
I don't know if this is a good scenario or a bad one.
>>53038767
They don't want to set precedent around the act the government is using to coerce then.
In this specific case, the device can have an alternate OS loaded onto it with special hardware. That is not possible on newer Apple phones.
If they can be compelled to create software and hardware hacks to facilitate this work, then they will inevitably be compelled to weaken security on future devices. That's what their argument is.
>>53039587
>If they can be compelled to create software and hardware hacks to facilitate this work, then they will inevitably be compelled to weaken security on future devices. That's what their argument is.
That seems to be a different matter than what this case deals with. The district judge was quite explicit that this court order is for one purpose and limited to one device. It has no precedential value in limiting privacy for all devices for a general purpose.
There argument appears to be fueled by fear, fanned by Apple bullshit, rather than the facts of the court order.
>apple PR stunt
>>53037691
Not on Lollipop. There's too much of a performance loss in disk speeds. That's been fixed in Marshmallow though, and FDE is on by default.
>>53039602
What opinion do you hold of Snowden?
>>53039621
Thanks for the info.
>>53039696
Irrelevant to this discussion.
>>53039726
You sure are busy tonight.
>>53039772
Or having a lot of fun. I don't think I've had so many facts to undermine typical fear-mongering retards since Ron Paul was running for President.
>>53039788
FYI this shill got outted in a previous thread and the thread immediately expired. Take that as you will.
>>53035752
>leak everyone's personal icloud documents anyway
>twice
Yeah okay
>>53039806
Ah yes. I'm a shill for pointing out inconvenient facts.
Oh and the thread lasted for an hour after some retarded stopped posting anything other than "tl:dr" to my posts even when they were a response to someone else. Now that was flattering. He got so mad that he couldn't argue against the facts that I had my own thread stalker for a while there.
Are you going to be my thread stalker in this thread rather than discuss any facts?
>>53038610
So reading through those slides, they show pretty much exactly what I expected: the described vulnerabilities only work on *running* devices, or on backups to iCloud. Once you shut down the device, the "back doors" don't work. In this particular case, the phone was off, and the shooters had disabled iCloud 6 weeks prior.
>>53039843
Wew lad, you sound mad, must be all those facts of yours falling on deaf ears
>>53039772
CapSoc is on /g/ too?
He thinks he's a photographer and shits all over in /p/ every few months. He's Trinidadian. No one likes him.
> pic related
Is his photo. He's a club photographer.
>>53039857
Which is probably why they want apple to update it with a modified version of ios so they can bruteforce the pin without it wiping... If the phone was still turned on, apple would have gladly handed the data over to fbi and we wouldn't have heard about it at all.
>>53039902
>No one likes him.
Aw, i'm sure he aint that bad.... look at him trying to dance, bless.
>>53039894
>Wew lad, you sound mad
Flattered and mad. . . that's a strange combination. One might even say an impossible combination.
Ah well. There is little point in responding to your obvious attempts to evoke an emotional response. Especially after I pointed out how transparent and pointless your attempts are. Though I doubt you'll stop because you seem driven by your emotions.
You'll excuse me if I don't respond any further.
>>53039602
The argument of the court was that since Apple makes code as part of their daily operations, making code that circumvents security mechanisms they put in is not burdensome. This is like saying since Boeing makes airplanes as part of their daily operations, it is not burdensome to make a plane that crashes into a particular terrorist. Sure, you could make the case that it's ok, because there's nothing in the requirement that requires the plane crash into anyone else, but the sheer level of bullshit involved makes that argument irrelevant to the facts that 1. you're forcing someone to build an airplane that crashes and 2. you think you can force them to do so because you don't think their job is particularly hard.
>>53039806
holy shit chris pirillo's videos hardly even hit 1k views now
>>53039943
tl:dr
>>53039946
>The argument of the court was that since Apple makes code as part of their daily operations, making code that circumvents security mechanisms they put in is not burdensome.
Really? I'm looking at the court decision now.
I don't see anything of the sort. In fact, the only mention of burdensome is, "If Apple finds it burdensome to comply they can request a change within five days." Where are you drawing this conclusion from?
>>53039951
no wonder, he's a gargantuan fag of the mac variety
>>53039973
Can u post the link to the court doc pls? ty
>>53039989
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf
>>53040020
thanks anon
>>53039973
It wasn't in the order, it was the justification.
http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-O2PH836TTDSC01-1BOTTIT0C0H3L029VECFSAFU7I
>“Modifying an operating system -- writing software code -- is not an unreasonable burden for a company that writes software code as part of its regular business,” the Justice Department said in its filing Tuesday.
>>53040075
That's how the Justice Department argued their case not how the judge decided.
>Keenly aware of the legal and political challenges it faces, the Justice Department has crafted what it says is a narrow request that wouldn’t compromise the security of Apple’s software. The Justice Department said its demand on the company complies with All Writs Act, part of a law from 1789, which empowers courts to issue orders enforcing their rulings.
>>53040120
Ahh, I guess that's why the court ended up not compelling Apple to do anything. O WAIT LOL.
Unless your argument is that the case was decided on arguments that were not given in court, you're grasping at straws any you know it. Of course, if your argument IS that the case was decided on arguments not given in court, then you're retarded.
Suppose it wasn't a phone in question by this ruling but someone's mind. If the technology existed to effectively give up the contents on someone's mind, how would people react? Shit, the future is scary.
>>53040159
>Ahh, I guess that's why the court ended up not compelling Apple to do anything.
Straw man?
>Unless your argument is that the case was decided on arguments that were not given in court
I have made no such arguments. I have only questioned what was the factual basis for the asserted:
>The argument of the court was that since Apple makes code as part of their daily operations, making code that circumvents security mechanisms they put in is not burdensome.
It seems the conclusion was drawn erroneously from the request on the US side rather than any explanation of the judge's decision.
You might want to read a little further down the citation.
>Tuesday’s order “recognizes that decisions about who can access key evidence in criminal investigations should be made by courts and legislatures -- not Apple and Google
This seems to directly contradict the assertion.
>>53040194
Eh wha? Are you denying the fact that if the court viewed this modification as burdensome, that they could not order it?
>>53040194
>Straw man?
lol, no.
>what is sarcasm
>>53040283
>Are you denying the fact that if the court viewed this modification as burdensome, that they could not order it?
Not at all. That is a possibility. But the assertion made was not about a possibility. Are you trying to move the goalposts and argue what is the possible reasons the judge decided rather than the assertion of what _was_ the reason the judge decided the case on, or as it was put "argued by the court?"
>>53040296
>>what is sarcasm
Something very hard to effectively communicate on an anonymous forum and usually pointless as it is wasted time after having to be explained.
>>53040320
>Something very hard to effectively communicate on an anonymous forum and usually pointless as it is wasted time after having to be explained.
>therefore fallacy, durrr
>>53040304
You're not reading me correctly. Suppose that the court DID think that it was burdensome. Are you denying that if this were case, there is no way the court could compel apple to do it? Because then, if it is burdensome, all other reasons are moot.
>>53040338
>>therefore fallacy
Did you fail fourth grade English?
>wasted time
>fallacy
Or do you simply not know the difference?
>>53040339
>You're not reading me correctly.
Did you assert:
>The argument of the court was that since Apple makes code as part of their daily operations, making code that circumvents security mechanisms they put in is not burdensome.
Did you also later add:
>that was the justification
This seems to be fairly plain English that functions under any supposition of "supposing." That was not an argument that one should assume to be true. That was an argument that it was true. You, if you did write them, even tried to support that as true by quoting the Justice Department.
Your assertion is proven false and now you are trying to move the goalposts and cover your attempt to move the goalposts claiming I did not read it correctly?
>>53040401
>This seems to be fairly plain English that *doesn't functions under any supposition *or "supposing."
Typos abound.
>>53040401
>fail to understand sarcasm
>tries to call "strawman" due to not knowing his fallacies
>gets called out
>attempts more fallacies
it smells like a second rate, failed philosophy major here lads, WEW
>>53040401
Jesus fucking christ you literally are retarded. Seriously. How do you fucking eat without choking?
Ignore all previous arguments. There are two fucking universes. One where the judge believes it is a burden on Apple. One where the judge believes it is not. If we are in universe A, then we can stop ignoring my argument from before, and say that the judge doesn't understand what the fuck they're talking about. If we are in universe B, then the judge CAN NOT compel Apple to engage in this activity, since you can't compel someone to do something against their will if it is burdensome without a full on sentencing in a criminal or civil proceeding.
>>53040508
>Ignore all previous arguments.
Why?
>There are two fucking universes. One where the judge believes it is a burden on Apple.
Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that I should disregard reality and start thinking about some made up "other fucking universe?"
Are you reading your own shit before you post it?
>>53040543
>Why?
Because you are too stupid to understand the argument I was making before was based on an implicit assumption that I had, since the idea of you being so completely pants-on-head retarded as to legitimately believe the alternative hadn't crossed my mind. This means we have to back up and explain the fundamentals of what's going on here before we can move on to any reasonable discussion. Depending on how poorly this goes I might have to explain to you what a "legal system" is but who knows, let's just see where the night takes us.
>Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that I should disregard reality and start thinking about some made up "other fucking universe?"
It's a thought experiment you moron. By "two universes" I mean "there exactly two possibilities that happened". But hey, go ahead and keep shitposting to pretend anything you've said resembles anything close to an actual reasoned point.
>>53040618
>Because you are too stupid to understand the argument I was making before
No. I understand perfectly the argument YOU made before. You asserted that [THIS] was the court's decision. And you were questioned upon the accuracy of your statement you provided the US Govt's request mistaking it as the court's decision.
>It's a thought experiment you moron.
Which has no bearing on the argument YOU made before.
You did not make any argument on what was POSSIBLE or you SUPPOSED was the reasoning. No. You argued [THIS] was the justification of the courts.
You were proved wrong that [THIS] was not the court's decision or it's justification for the decision. Now you tried to cover up the fact that what you wrote before was wrong by trying to change it. By asking me to ignore what was argued before. To not quote your own words back at you.
If you cannot admit to making a simple mistake might I suggest you stop posting on 4chan until you grow up a bit more and can admit to making a mistake?
>>53040675
>4chan
>grow up
>>53040715
Yeah, I know it is a big ask and mostly pointless but I'd rather ask a mostly pointless request and be pleasantly surprised than not ask it and be gloomly affirmed in a pessimistic presumption.
>>53040675
>You asserted that [THIS] was the court's decision
And. It. Was.
>And you were questioned upon the accuracy of your statement you provided the US Govt's request mistaking it as the court's decision.
Then why did I even cite it as the justice dept.? The fact that the courts view it as not being burdensome is undeniable. Since there was no alternative reasoning given, we can only assume the reason is what the plaintiff gave.
>Which has no bearing on the argument YOU made before.
Except that if you bothered to read it, yes, it clearly does, as it literally says in it
>If we are in universe A, then we can stop ignoring my argument from before
For something that has no bearing on the argument I made before, it sure does rely awfully heavily on the argument I made before. But hey, don't let that stop you from drooling all over the clothes your mother picked out for you.
>>53040739
>drooling all over the clothes your mother picked out for you.
Priceless! Thanks for that anon, made me grin.
>>53040739
>Then why did I even cite it as the justice dept.
You didn't cite it as the justice department you cited it as the court's decision. It was pointed out that it was the Justice department and not the court's decision. That it was the US government's request was based upon it not being burdensome not the fact that the court decided or even agreed that it was not being burdensome.
>The fact that the courts view it as not being burdensome is undeniable
The court order, as was explained to you once before, even provided for Apple to argue it was burdensome meaning the court did not agree with the Justice department and found that Apple may find it burdensome contrary to what the Justice Department argued.
Great job making it clear that what was communicated to you an hour ago made not a whit of difference to your false assertion.
>>53040733
>trying this hard to come across as mature and intellectual
go look up some self-esteem building tips anon, you could use some
>>53040784
>You didn't cite it as the justice department you cited it as the court's decision.
O RLY?
Then why does my post say "the Justice Department said in its filing Tuesday"
Fuck it, you're not even making an argument any more, just trying to find some technical way to say "I'm right." This conversation is done.
>>53040803
Let's get this straight. You actually believe that it is worth any effort to "try to come across as anything" on an anonymous message board? That anyone will recognize your efforts to present a front as valid or meaningful?
Are you new here?
based but yet so not
>>53040618
>>53040739
>>53040822
You're wasting your time anon. This guy did the same in another thread >>53039806
. He wasn't interested in thought experiments or any reasoning to where the court's decision could lead to. He stuck rigidly to the established facts (as in, water is wet, people breathe air, day follows night) and didn't read posts that challenged him, calling fallacy after fallacy, where none existed.
>>53040822
>Then why does my post say "the Justice Department said in its filing Tuesday"
Because you were quoting a citation that proved to actually undermine the questioned assertion. It seems you thought the Justice Department represented the US federal court rather than the US side of the argument. Thus why it was suggested you read more of your own citation.
Wow. You cannot even remember what YOU did an hour ago.
>>53037904
>that image
>marketing chief Phill Schiller
>Schiller
>Shiller
>shill
>>53040822
>you're not even making an argument any more
I never made an argument in the first place. Initially I suspected that your assertion was based upon false information. This suspicion was proven accurate as you cited the Justice department as if supported your assertion about the federal court.
>This conversation is done.
Thank god. I'm appalled by your "forget was asserted previously" and "There are two fucking universes" idiocy.
>>53040839
Hush you, I'm enjoying this anonymous ego one-upmanship, the absurdity of it is staggering.
>>53035752
Good on them.
>>53035752
BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
L
O
W
N
T
H
E
F
U
C
K
O
U
T
>>53040909
Questioning someone assertion and then pointing out the errors in said assertion is no more one-upsmanship than constructive criticism is.
Is it your normal standard to let likely misinformation go unquestioned?
>>53040944
>normal
>4chan
>>53040995
I asked about your normal standard not 4chans. Unless your ego confuses you to believe you are 4chan?
>>53041004
>Unless your ego confuses you to believe you are 4chan?
English not your first language chuckles?
>>53041029
>Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery
-- Charles Caleb Colton
Flattery will get you nowhere.
>>53039008
Why do you think you know better than the EFF? Do you think they might have researched this before putting their name alongside the rating?
>>53041039
Uh, "English not your first language chuckles?" is correct, so the anon was not flattering you.
But dont let that stop you m80, you're on an absurdist ROLL!
>>53041091
>Uh, "English not your first language chuckles?" is correct, so the anon was not flattering you.
It is also a phrase I used numerous times in the other thread that my thread stalker was in. As it has been proven he is in this thread as well. I suspect he is using the same term in imitation.
Oh, and given that the point was about "his" personal standard. "He" responded to the question about his personal standard with a remark about 4chan. It is not incorrect to ask if my first language is not English as I noted "his" attempt to change the subject from what the question asked and followed up with the possibility that such a change was intentional even if sarcastic.
>>53041132
>As it has been proven he is in this thread as well.
>Anon
>>53041201
Similar conduct of posting "tl:dr" after his habit of posting "tl:dr" seems pretty solid evidence. Of course, it is plausible that some random anon decided to just type it in but it is far more plausible that it is the same hater as it was the same conduct by someone who admitted to having been in the other thread that included by thread stalker.
>>53041240
>it is plausible that some random anon decided to just type it in
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!
>>53041291
>DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!
Thanks for the classic example of cherry-picking. Disregard the rest of the post including the part that argues it is less plausible than the alternative given the evidence in this very thread.
>>53040933
FUCK YOU FUCKING SPERGS.
THIS WAS BEFORE THE NEW IOS THAT STORES THE ENCRYPTION KEY ON THE FUCKING IPHONE.
STOP POSTING PAST TENSE AND OLD ARTICLES OF WHAT THEY USED TO DO, THEY NO LONGER CAN.
YES I FUCKING MAD.
>>53041333
Hahahah hmmm see the thing is I was the "some random anon decided to just type it in" so no not a "classic example of cherry-picking". But dont let that stop you m80 keep going! KEEP GOING!!! Its very important that you respond to this too. VERY! Your whole sense of self-worth rests on it!!!
(Plus I got bets going here, dont let me down now anon!)
>>53041387
>Waaa, stop posting proof that Apple is full of shit!
>Waaa, I'm not going to get my shilling shekels if this publicity stunt ends up being unsuccessful!
>>53041394
>Hahahah hmmm see the thing is I was the "some random anon decided to just type it in"
Sure you were, anon. Sure you were. I'm sure you are not my thread stalker now trying to claim you are a different anon.
>>53041421
Post some proof of an iphone being cracked since introduction of the new system or any court cases since the roll out.
I'll wait.
>>53041434
Thanks man, appreciate it, I just made $10.
Now, lets go again!
>>53041387
>WAAAAAHHHH
>STOP EXPOSING APPLE AS BEING FULL OF SHIT
>THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HELPING THE FBI FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS
>PRETEND YOU DIDN'T READ THAT
>WE CARE ABOUT PRIVACY
>JUST NOT FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS
>REALLY, OUR PR DEPT SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE
Get mad retard.
>>53035752
>tim crook
>>53035752
I don't know if this has been said before, but
1: This phone didn't actually belong to the terrorist & likely contains no evidence, they are using this as an excuse to finally get a method to crack open iphones
2: backdoor keeps getting mentioned, but this isn't about a backdoor, it is about killing the 10 try limit, so that you can brute force through all 10000 key codes
3: this is a bipartisan issue, everyone is agreeing because they don't understand the situation at all, this is really bad. It shows you just how fucking technologically retarded the politicians are & it means apple may actually lose this
