You're missing the point.They can't compel anyone to 'talk'. This is no different. They could force them to use the touch ID if they stored a fingerprint, just as they can force you to breath into a breathalyzer, or to give a blood alcohol reading. The catch here is that they couldn't prove it was entered by the person other than via circumstantial evidence. You cannot compel someone to convict themselves by testimony. You can either prove it through direct evidence, or they might confess it, but you cannot compel testimony.
No amount of wishful thinking by this guy can change that. Only a fundamental change in our laws would allow that.
Hey smart*ss... guess what? I'm an American and I can write or say whatever the f**k I want. Got that?
Holy cow, you’re delusional. I mean genuinely delusional. Do you also think the United States is a democracy? Please say no; I don’t think I could take that much insanity in a single person.
Good. Now, I know you *think* you rule the roost around here on these forums, but reality is... you don't.
You want a haircut, greaser? *snaps fingers rhythmically*
Telling me what I should and shouldn’t say is just another example of my main point…
You shouldn’t say lies. If you disagree, you’ll find that you have next to no support.
Have you ever heard of a paraphrase?
Have you ever heard of libel? False representation?
Or better yet, just leave my posts alone or I'm going to show you just how stupid you *really* are in front of all of your little minions. There are some people you just shouldn't mess with, man. I'm one of them.
If that’s a threat of any kind, I’m sure you’ll find both our forum rules and the law are not on your side.
Originally Posted by Rockarollr
I was fine until someone tried to tell me what I should and shouldn't write.
You shouldn’t write lies.
…what I write should be respected…
No, just truthful.
I have all of the respect in the world for others… until they trample upon my rights or try to control me…
Hoo-rah. Represent.
(or what I say)
Again, you’ll find that you won’t garner any support by spreading lies.
Even making a suggestion that what I said was somehow "wrong" was overstepping that boundary.
Did the man say the words that you put into quotation marks? If he did not, what you said was not only ‘somehow’ wrong, it was entirely wrong.
If you’d said something like…
Oh, I’m sorry, FBI director, I think what you meant to say was [content in quotes above], isn’t that right?
Are you serious? Go shout to yourself in your own personal discussion forum. This one is for people to talk like the other posters are people, not just text on a wall.
Oh, and American's can't do or say whatever they want, which is the heart of the discussion here. That's the whole point of being a nation. There is some kind of order the other people agree to follow so that society can be a beneficial thing.
Being able to commit a crime shouldn't come down to just being able to do more digital things than the victims.
I was fine until someone tried to tell me what I should and shouldn't write. Going by your assessment, what I write should be respected (or at least intelligently pondered), because that would be treating me like a *person* and "not just text on a wall". So, why wasn't I offered that level of respect from the beginning?
I have all of the respect in the world for others... until they trample upon my rights or try to control me (or what I say). Even making a suggestion that what I said was somehow "wrong" was overstepping that boundary. That's where I draw the line and yes, I can be a nasty mother whenever I feel either of those things have been violated.
I'm sorry if I missed it, but where is the forum rule that says I can't paraphrase someone without being chastised or "corrected"???
Generally, using quotation marks means that it's a direct quote, and not a paraphrase. Especially when you put a credit with a named person afterward.
You know... you really are a sad little life form. Thirty-six THOUSAND posts on one Internet forum linked to a company brand? Hahahahahaha!!! I needn't say another word, really.
Maybe you should consider finding yourself a girlfriend... or a dog, you f***ing loser.
Right or wrong, you know damn good and well you didn't have that knowledge in your head. You googled it. I bet you had to look up what a paraphrase was before you could even respond.
And being able to enforce the law shouldn't come down to just being able to do more digital things than a 'free' citizenry, either.
I appreciate your point. I just think in this case, the two are mutually exclusive. If the sole evidence of a crime is encrypted in a way that nobody else can gain access to, there isn't any way to enforce the law.
There are plenty of things police can do that a free citizenry can't. I'm glad, too! Clearly the police can (and do) abuse that privilege. But the whole point of allowing officials to go slightly above what normal citizenry can do is to thwart other free citizens who do bad things a lot more.... also I have been watching a lot of Law & Order:SVU, so I'm pretty biased today.
Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in the Snowden camp. I just think smartphones are a new arena. They are journals, cameras, gps, phones, bio-metric readers, textual communication devices, the entire Internet, payment devices, and the list goes on. Just because the contents of your mind could be lodged in there somewhere doesn't mean the other features of the phone are off limits too.
Right or wrong, you know damn good and well you didn't have that knowledge in your head. You googled it. I bet you had to look up what a paraphrase was before you could even respond.
Yet another girlfriend-less loser nerd, I see. SMDH
Actually, I am gay, but I do have a boyfriend. So you're half-right. But my previous point still stands.
"The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else."
And again in another section near the beginning of the article: "Direct quotations involve incorporating another person's exact words into your own writing."
The problem is this guy pretends the NSA and hackers don't exist... Sure, perhaps the FBI follows the constitution and requires a court order to look at your data, but the NSA sure as hell doesn't. get rid of them and all unconstitutional wiretapping programs and we can talk about encryption backdoors for the FBI.
You're only missing the Touch ID to be found on the last two generations of iPhone.
When you've read every article and comment on this forum from the past thirteen months, you'll be up to speed.
Look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Excuse me dude, but I said 'touchpad iPhone'...that's what I meant anyways. Touch ID. I usually do read a lot of posts here, but I just thought of that. So easy to hack 4 digit number. I have a 5s so I just tried it. Swipe to get to the password number screen. Can it be set up without the number password and only use the Touch ID I don't know.
The glorious irony of all this is that these guys are giving Apple free publicity every time they complain about the encryption. Most consumers are going to be impressed by, and drawn to Apple because of this, not the other way around.
That password is a 4 digit number or any number, it can be brute force hacked really easily.
iPhone is not restricted to 4 digit passcode. You can use longer alphanumeric codes if you want. Brute force is not really that easy since the phone times out for one minute after 6 incorrect attempts. Let's say it is only a 4 digit code. There are 10,000 different combinations.
If you could enter in a new code every two seconds it could take over 6 hours but since it times out for one minute it adds another 100 hours. As far as I know there is no other way to enter the code than with your finger. Theoretically, you could build a machine with lifelike fingers and speed up the process but that doesn't sound that 'easy' either. And that is with just the simple passcode. If you used a long complex string it could take years because manually entering the code is so time consuming. Or you might get lucky on the first try.
Just an opinion and I did the math rather quickly.
Edit: The first try math was way off as I made the mistake of 4^10 instead of 10^4
Aren't there numerous companies that claim to be able to instantly hack any cell phone made? They demonstrate their programs at military defense and police equipment expos. No cell phone is safe from them. So why is this FBI director whining about this? Doesn't he have access to all of these companies knocking on his door trying to sell their services to him and the rest of the government?
From what I have read, nobody is demoing hacks for iPad 3 and higher or iPhone 5 and higher. Only earlier iPhones. Now Apple is claiming that not even they can decrypt it. So it is two different things. One, trying to find the passcode to view the iPhones contents, but you are unsuccessful there, if the data is encrypted with a 256 bit key, that is going to present quite a challenge. At least a year with a really fast computer. The Police don't have all that much time in many cases they have to charge a suspect with a crime or release them in 24 hours.
Comments
Being able to commit a crime shouldn't come down to just being able to do more digital things than the victims.
Well, no, it shouldn't...
And being able to enforce the law shouldn't come down to just being able to do more digital things than a 'free' citizenry, either.
You're missing the point.They can't compel anyone to 'talk'. This is no different. They could force them to use the touch ID if they stored a fingerprint, just as they can force you to breath into a breathalyzer, or to give a blood alcohol reading. The catch here is that they couldn't prove it was entered by the person other than via circumstantial evidence. You cannot compel someone to convict themselves by testimony. You can either prove it through direct evidence, or they might confess it, but you cannot compel testimony.
No amount of wishful thinking by this guy can change that. Only a fundamental change in our laws would allow that.
Not necessarily: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you
Holy cow, you’re delusional. I mean genuinely delusional. Do you also think the United States is a democracy? Please say no; I don’t think I could take that much insanity in a single person.
You want a haircut, greaser? *snaps fingers rhythmically*
You shouldn’t say lies. If you disagree, you’ll find that you have next to no support.
Have you ever heard of libel? False representation?
If that’s a threat of any kind, I’m sure you’ll find both our forum rules and the law are not on your side.
You shouldn’t write lies.
No, just truthful.
Hoo-rah. Represent.
Again, you’ll find that you won’t garner any support by spreading lies.
Did the man say the words that you put into quotation marks? If he did not, what you said was not only ‘somehow’ wrong, it was entirely wrong.
If you’d said something like…
that wouldn’t have been wrong.
Are you serious? Go shout to yourself in your own personal discussion forum. This one is for people to talk like the other posters are people, not just text on a wall.
Oh, and American's can't do or say whatever they want, which is the heart of the discussion here. That's the whole point of being a nation. There is some kind of order the other people agree to follow so that society can be a beneficial thing.
Being able to commit a crime shouldn't come down to just being able to do more digital things than the victims.
I was fine until someone tried to tell me what I should and shouldn't write. Going by your assessment, what I write should be respected (or at least intelligently pondered), because that would be treating me like a *person* and "not just text on a wall". So, why wasn't I offered that level of respect from the beginning?
I have all of the respect in the world for others... until they trample upon my rights or try to control me (or what I say). Even making a suggestion that what I said was somehow "wrong" was overstepping that boundary. That's where I draw the line and yes, I can be a nasty mother whenever I feel either of those things have been violated.
I'm sorry if I missed it, but where is the forum rule that says I can't paraphrase someone without being chastised or "corrected"???
Generally, using quotation marks means that it's a direct quote, and not a paraphrase. Especially when you put a credit with a named person afterward.
See: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/
Maybe you should consider finding yourself a girlfriend... or a dog, you f***ing loser.
Generally, using quotation marks means that it's a direct quote, and not a paraphrase. Especially when you put a credit with a named person afterward.
See: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/
Right or wrong, you know damn good and well you didn't have that knowledge in your head. You googled it. I bet you had to look up what a paraphrase was before you could even respond.Ell. Oh. Ell.
Well, no, it shouldn't...
And being able to enforce the law shouldn't come down to just being able to do more digital things than a 'free' citizenry, either.
I appreciate your point. I just think in this case, the two are mutually exclusive. If the sole evidence of a crime is encrypted in a way that nobody else can gain access to, there isn't any way to enforce the law.
There are plenty of things police can do that a free citizenry can't. I'm glad, too! Clearly the police can (and do) abuse that privilege. But the whole point of allowing officials to go slightly above what normal citizenry can do is to thwart other free citizens who do bad things a lot more.... also I have been watching a lot of Law & Order:SVU, so I'm pretty biased today.
Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in the Snowden camp. I just think smartphones are a new arena. They are journals, cameras, gps, phones, bio-metric readers, textual communication devices, the entire Internet, payment devices, and the list goes on. Just because the contents of your mind could be lodged in there somewhere doesn't mean the other features of the phone are off limits too.
Generally, using quotation marks means that it's a direct quote, and not a paraphrase. Especially when you put a credit with a named person afterward.
See: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/
Right or wrong, you know damn good and well you didn't have that knowledge in your head. You googled it. I bet you had to look up what a paraphrase was before you could even respond.
Yet another girlfriend-less loser nerd, I see. SMDH
Actually, I am gay, but I do have a boyfriend. So you're half-right. But my previous point still stands.
A paraphrase is... your own rendition of essential information and ideas expressed by someone else, presented in a new form.
Read and learn, little boy.
See: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/1/
A paraphrase is... your own rendition of essential information and ideas expressed by someone else, presented in a new form.
Read and learn, little boy.
See: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/1/
"The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else."
And again in another section near the beginning of the article: "Direct quotations involve incorporating another person's exact words into your own writing."
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/
There's this little point of logic I can't get around...when you turn on a touchpad iPhone you can always swipe to get to the number password screen.
That password is a 4 digit number or any number, it can be brute force hacked really easily. :rolleyes:
Am I missing something here?
I haven't read all the comments here so apologies if someone else has posted this already.
It’s laws all the way down.
...until you start hitting the turtles...You're only missing the Touch ID to be found on the last two generations of iPhone.
When you've read every article and comment on this forum from the past thirteen months, you'll be up to speed.
Look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Excuse me dude, but I said 'touchpad iPhone'...that's what I meant anyways. Touch ID. I usually do read a lot of posts here, but I just thought of that. So easy to hack 4 digit number. I have a 5s so I just tried it. Swipe to get to the password number screen. Can it be set up without the number password and only use the Touch ID I don't know.
The glorious irony of all this is that these guys are giving Apple free publicity every time they complain about the encryption. Most consumers are going to be impressed by, and drawn to Apple because of this, not the other way around.
That password is a 4 digit number or any number, it can be brute force hacked really easily.
iPhone is not restricted to 4 digit passcode. You can use longer alphanumeric codes if you want. Brute force is not really that easy since the phone times out for one minute after 6 incorrect attempts. Let's say it is only a 4 digit code. There are 10,000 different combinations.
If you could enter in a new code every two seconds it could take over 6 hours but since it times out for one minute it adds another 100 hours. As far as I know there is no other way to enter the code than with your finger. Theoretically, you could build a machine with lifelike fingers and speed up the process but that doesn't sound that 'easy' either. And that is with just the simple passcode. If you used a long complex string it could take years because manually entering the code is so time consuming. Or you might get lucky on the first try.
Just an opinion and I did the math rather quickly.
Edit: The first try math was way off as I made the mistake of 4^10 instead of 10^4
Bingo. I knew somebody else would mention it.
Bingo. I knew somebody else would mention it.
From what I have read, nobody is demoing hacks for iPad 3 and higher or iPhone 5 and higher. Only earlier iPhones. Now Apple is claiming that not even they can decrypt it. So it is two different things. One, trying to find the passcode to view the iPhones contents, but you are unsuccessful there, if the data is encrypted with a 256 bit key, that is going to present quite a challenge. At least a year with a really fast computer. The Police don't have all that much time in many cases they have to charge a suspect with a crime or release them in 24 hours.