Pretty terrible headline to this article. The FBI has not, in fact, "refuted" anything. They merely stated that there is no proof. That's only a "refutation" if you live in some Bizarro World where everything the FBI says is accepted as true.
To refute can be to prove wrong or simply to deny.
The FBI has denied it, but the FBI has not refuted anything. To refute the claims, the FBI would need evidence showing that the claims are false. The FBI seems to have no such evidence.
This is not an Apple thing nearly as much as it is a government spying on citizen thing. That is the relevance. The FBI is monitoring device usage is mass fashion. How the FBI received the data is secondary at this point.
An interesting observation. Think WinPhone is guilty of this? BB?
Curiously, as Android is open source, you (can) know exactly what's on your device--and who has access to what, specifically. There is nothing magical under the hood that may talk through Google--or Apple, or Microsoft--without your knowledge.
If you use a self compiled version of Android, you would be on more solid ground with your claim. However, every commercial Android-based phone from a manufacturer has plenty customizations and additional layers of software. I can't be bothered looking up the recent news (5-6 months ago) with the integrated "debugging" software that gave pretty much full access to all of the device's data. But there it was ...
Operators put a lot of pressure on handset makers to integrate additional software. Apple is, in fact, the seemingly lone company that hasn't complied with those requests. Of course, they have complied with requests to restrict built-in functionality (e.g. FaceTime over 3G, tethering)
Wouldn't the UDID be required to associate a cell-tower connection with a particular mobile device? If so, I'm pretty sure your cellphone service provider has this info and it can be obtained by the FBI directly from them. Hopefully with some kind of warrant, but nowadays (Patriot Act etc.) who knows? I doubt a phone hack is needed for this information to become available to the FBI should they want it for some reason.
Other than through data packets, the UDID is not transmitted by the cellular technology itself. You're possibly thinking of the IMEI and ICCID numbers.
Or they both could be telling the truth as they know it at this time. It is always possible a rogue element at the FBI created the list. Read the FBI statement carefully, they didn't say they aren't responsible just that they don't know of any authorized programs. On the other hand somebody could be leading the hackers on a wild goose chase. In between all of this is the possibility of a contractor working with the FBI getting access to this data and loosing control of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ward
Is it wrong to feel equally trusting of the FBI and the Hackers? Either could be lying and I would not be surprised.
Other than through data packets, the UDID is not transmitted by the cellular technology itself. You're possibly thinking of the IMEI and ICCID numbers.
Yup, looks like I'm completely off base there. What use is UDID to the FBI when they can get IMEI and ICCID codes from the service provider? How would they be expected to use the UDID to further their "investigations"?
Uh-oh ....
Now those FBI assholes have officially put it out there that this is all bullshit & it never happened ....
All AltSec has to do, now, is somehow/someway prove that this is genuine.
Of course, this could all be a feint by the feds to see exactly how AltSec got the data ....
Supposedly from a stolen laptop computer. That seems pretty simple and not really what i would consider to be a hack. The more profound question is how did the F.B.I. Get the information? Google? Facebook?
The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data.
They never said it didn't happen. Again read this: "At this time there is no evidence", that is called wiggle room.
Frankly I'm amazed that people can read so much into statements like these and think in absolute terms when there is nothing at all absolute here.
It already looks like the data is genuine. So the only thing they need to do is to show where it actually came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary
Uh-oh ....
Now those FBI assholes have officially put it out there that this is all bullshit & it never happened ....
All AltSec has to do, now, is somehow/someway prove that this is genuine.
Of course, this could all be a feint by the feds to see exactly how AltSec got the data ....
This site needs literate editors. "Rebuke" is certainly not the right word, but there's nothing in the FBI's statement which "refutes" (i.e. definitely disproves) AntiSec's account either.
They never said it didn't happen. Again read this: "<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">At this time there is no evidence", that is called wiggle room. </span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">Frankly I'm amazed that people can read so much into statements like these and think in absolute terms </span> <span style="line-height:normal;">when there is nothing at all absolute here.</span>
<span style="line-height:normal;">It already looks like the data is genuine. So the only thing they need to do is to show where it actually came from. </span>
I was just going to post the same thing.
The FBI didn't rebuke, refute, deny, or otherwise dispute the claim. They made an objective neutral observation that states absolutely no new information and says nothing about whether or not they were involved. It might imply it if you don't read it carefully but you would be wrong if you think it does.
Supposedly from a stolen laptop computer. That seems pretty simple and not really what i would consider to be a hack. The more profound question is how did the F.B.I. Get the information? Google? Facebook?
Not only that, but how did the "hacker" know who had the list? This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
At this point I would tend to believe the hackers over the FBI. The hackers call out the compromised FBI agent by name and give enough info about it to make it at least sound genuine on the surface. Of course the FBI is going to deny any vulnerabilities in their network. Don't forget that it IS an election year as well, so I'm sure heads are rolling behind the scenes.
The FBI has denied it, but the FBI has not refuted anything. To refute the claims, the FBI would need evidence showing that the claims are false. The FBI seems to have no such evidence.
Getting any type of claim validation from either side would be ludicrous. If the F.B.I. did make a statement saying this agent didn't lose his laptop and actually showed the agents laptop, no one would believe it was the same one regardless if it were true.
On the other side of the equation would be a 'thief', not a hacker, raising his/her hand telling the F.B.I. "It's true! I got it! Hey! Over here! Yea me!". I don't believe anyone would be that naive... but then crazier things have happened!
Or they both could be telling the truth as they know it at this time. It is always possible a rogue element at the FBI created the list. Read the FBI statement carefully, they didn't say they aren't responsible just that they don't know of any authorized programs. On the other hand somebody could be leading the hackers on a wild goose chase. In between all of this is the possibility of a contractor working with the FBI getting access to this data and loosing control of it.
Or, the Government is lying like always, there's that too.
Comments
To refute can be to prove wrong or simply to deny.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
See a dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
Oxford also has a definition of denying an accusation.
This is not an Apple thing nearly as much as it is a government spying on citizen thing. That is the relevance. The FBI is monitoring device usage is mass fashion. How the FBI received the data is secondary at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
An interesting observation. Think WinPhone is guilty of this? BB?
Curiously, as Android is open source, you (can) know exactly what's on your device--and who has access to what, specifically. There is nothing magical under the hood that may talk through Google--or Apple, or Microsoft--without your knowledge.
If you use a self compiled version of Android, you would be on more solid ground with your claim. However, every commercial Android-based phone from a manufacturer has plenty customizations and additional layers of software. I can't be bothered looking up the recent news (5-6 months ago) with the integrated "debugging" software that gave pretty much full access to all of the device's data. But there it was ...
Operators put a lot of pressure on handset makers to integrate additional software. Apple is, in fact, the seemingly lone company that hasn't complied with those requests. Of course, they have complied with requests to restrict built-in functionality (e.g. FaceTime over 3G, tethering)
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky
Wouldn't the UDID be required to associate a cell-tower connection with a particular mobile device? If so, I'm pretty sure your cellphone service provider has this info and it can be obtained by the FBI directly from them. Hopefully with some kind of warrant, but nowadays (Patriot Act etc.) who knows? I doubt a phone hack is needed for this information to become available to the FBI should they want it for some reason.
Other than through data packets, the UDID is not transmitted by the cellular technology itself. You're possibly thinking of the IMEI and ICCID numbers.
How about the phone's firmware? Is *that* open source?
Or they both could be telling the truth as they know it at this time. It is always possible a rogue element at the FBI created the list. Read the FBI statement carefully, they didn't say they aren't responsible just that they don't know of any authorized programs. On the other hand somebody could be leading the hackers on a wild goose chase. In between all of this is the possibility of a contractor working with the FBI getting access to this data and loosing control of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ward
Is it wrong to feel equally trusting of the FBI and the Hackers? Either could be lying and I would not be surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
Other than through data packets, the UDID is not transmitted by the cellular technology itself. You're possibly thinking of the IMEI and ICCID numbers.
Yup, looks like I'm completely off base there. What use is UDID to the FBI when they can get IMEI and ICCID codes from the service provider? How would they be expected to use the UDID to further their "investigations"?
Supposedly from a stolen laptop computer. That seems pretty simple and not really what i would consider to be a hack. The more profound question is how did the F.B.I. Get the information? Google? Facebook?
Please read this again:
Quote:
The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data.
They never said it didn't happen. Again read this: "At this time there is no evidence", that is called wiggle room.
Frankly I'm amazed that people can read so much into statements like these and think in absolute terms when there is nothing at all absolute here.
It already looks like the data is genuine. So the only thing they need to do is to show where it actually came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary
Uh-oh ....
Now those FBI assholes have officially put it out there that this is all bullshit & it never happened ....
All AltSec has to do, now, is somehow/someway prove that this is genuine.
Of course, this could all be a feint by the feds to see exactly how AltSec got the data ....
This site needs literate editors. "Rebuke" is certainly not the right word, but there's nothing in the FBI's statement which "refutes" (i.e. definitely disproves) AntiSec's account either.
"denies"
(a weak and mealy-mouthed denial, at that)
or "challenges" or "pushes back against"
The FBI didn't rebuke, refute, deny, or otherwise dispute the claim. They made an objective neutral observation that states absolutely no new information and says nothing about whether or not they were involved. It might imply it if you don't read it carefully but you would be wrong if you think it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
Supposedly from a stolen laptop computer. That seems pretty simple and not really what i would consider to be a hack. The more profound question is how did the F.B.I. Get the information? Google? Facebook?
Not only that, but how did the "hacker" know who had the list? This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
At this point I would tend to believe the hackers over the FBI. The hackers call out the compromised FBI agent by name and give enough info about it to make it at least sound genuine on the surface. Of course the FBI is going to deny any vulnerabilities in their network. Don't forget that it IS an election year as well, so I'm sure heads are rolling behind the scenes.
Getting any type of claim validation from either side would be ludicrous. If the F.B.I. did make a statement saying this agent didn't lose his laptop and actually showed the agents laptop, no one would believe it was the same one regardless if it were true.
On the other side of the equation would be a 'thief', not a hacker, raising his/her hand telling the F.B.I. "It's true! I got it! Hey! Over here! Yea me!". I don't believe anyone would be that naive... but then crazier things have happened!
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/04/heres-check-apple-device-udid-compromised-antisec-leak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheNextWebApplicious+(TNW+Apple)&utm_content=Google+Reader
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/04/heres-check-apple-device-udid-compromised-antisec-leak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheNextWebApplicious+(TNW+Apple)&utm_content=Google+Reader
Oh, yeah. I'm certainly giving any portion of my UDID to that text field…
If they didn't get it before, they'll get it now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Or they both could be telling the truth as they know it at this time. It is always possible a rogue element at the FBI created the list. Read the FBI statement carefully, they didn't say they aren't responsible just that they don't know of any authorized programs. On the other hand somebody could be leading the hackers on a wild goose chase. In between all of this is the possibility of a contractor working with the FBI getting access to this data and loosing control of it.
Or, the Government is lying like always, there's that too.