anonymouse

About

Username
anonymouse
Joined
Visits
17
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
316
Badges
1
Posts
6,624
  • Cellebrite says it can pull data from any iOS device ever made

    [looks like deleting the duplicate deleted the original, or the forum automatically deletes dupes and I should have just waited]
    gatorguy said:
    It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.

    Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them. 

    Just my 2 cents. 
    Apparently, you missed this part:
    Cellebrite penetration tools were discovered for sale on the open market in February 2019

    Which means that it affects 100% of users, not just "bad guys". This is why Apple resisted the FBI's demands to create a back door. Once something like this is created, it can't be controlled; just witness what happened with the NSA's hacking tools.

    netmageSoliretrogustosocalbrianAppleExposedcaladanianjbdragonStrangeDaysradarthekatlostkiwi
  • Man jailed for not unlocking iPhone adds fuel to device search warrant debate

    AppleInsider said:
    [...]

    There is the argument in some cases that a warrant could be denied due to the fourth and fifth amendments, such as the case in Idaho in May. A warrant to search a device of unknown ownership was considered as under the fourth amendment it would be lawful if it was "reasonable," namely if it didn't violate the person's constitutional rights, but the fifth protecting against self-incrimination meant the device could not be unlocked as it would identify the person as its owner, which also brought into play the fourth.

    The alternative is for the police to employ hacking techniques, like the "GrayKey" tool from 2018 that some regional police forces used to access the contents of smartphones, but at a cost of thousands of dollars to license the technology.

    Due to the expertise required, the unreliability of the techniques, and the cost, there is an increased pressure for law enforcement to get the suspect to unlock the smartphone, but the trouble with acquiring access due to current law is said to give more of an edge to criminals.

    "It would have an extreme chilling effect on our ability to thoroughly investigate and bring many, many cases, including violent offenses," said Hillar Moore, district attorney for East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. "It would basically shut the door."
    As pointed out above, this isn't really a dilemma. The very reason that certain rights were added to the Constitution was to restrict the ability of the government, including law enforcement, from violating individual privacy. If we throw out the 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments, among other constitutional protections, just to make the job easier for law enforcement, it would have an extreme chilling effect on Americans' ability to live lives free of the fear of unwarranted government intrusion as the founders intended. The use of "hacking techniques" without a warrant is also a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, otherwise it's no different that obtaining evidence through the use of burglar's tools to illegally enter a home.

    However, forcing an individual to unlock their phone is clearly a violation of 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination. I would even go so far as to argue that the use of "hacking tools" to unlock or decrypt phones, and other devices or documents, is inherently a 5th Amendment violation as there is a reasonable expectation that locked and encrypted devices and documents are essentially private in the same way that one's thoughts are. If that makes life difficult for law enforcement, so be it. The founders  did not, nor did subsequent generations of lawmakers, include a clause or amendment that waives individual rights to privacy or self incrimination in cases where that makes life difficult for law enforcement.
    designrbonobobAppleExposeddysamoriaStrangeDaysradarthekatredgeminipasmaceslinmaccadbb-15
  • SoftBank considering sale or IPO of chip design company Arm Holdings

    elijahg said:
    SoftBank only just bought ARM a few years ago. Seems weird to sell them off a few years later.
    Well, they may need to cover their WeWork losses.
    ronnxyzzy01tokyojimuviclauyyccornchipwatto_cobra
  • Apple may split its 5G 'iPhone 12' into two launches

    I suspect this analyst is mistaken as that strategy doesn't make any sense. If Apple delays the launch of 5G phones until December/January and everyone know they are delaying it until December/January, sales for the September release will be slow until then while even people who end up buying September models will wait to see what's coming later. If it's not generally known, there will be a lot of disappointed people who bought September phones and sales for the December/January models will suffer  because people have already done their annual upgrade. If there is uncertainty about whether it will happen, sales for the September models will suffer while people wait to see if new models are coming in December/January.

    Seems like bad news for Apple in all scenarios. Seems unlikely they wouldn't think through the scenarios. Apple doesn't generally do stupid things.
    caladanianiOS_Guy80randominternetpersonllama
  • Elizabeth Warren confirms Apple is on her big tech breakup list

    ItsDeCia said:
    While she’s at it, why not prevent Apple from selling their own accessories in their retail stores too? Since other brands are there, we wouldn’t want Apple to have a competitive advantage in their own store or anything. Smh
    Given the proposal, and that Amazon couldn't sell Amazon Essentials anymore, this is a possibility.
    I don't think she's actually thought this through. This proposal, as presented so far, would affect pretty much every large retailer in the US who sells white label products -- i.e., products made by a third party for the retailer and uniquely labeled for them. This is Warren's main problem: she doesn't really think through the details of things. There are businesses that exist only for (or at least by) making these white label products. This would effectively put all these companies out of business and their employees out of jobs.

    While I agree that some of these companies present a real threat to our society, clearly there are unintended consequences of this proposal that make it untenable. Simplistic, headline grabbing proposals are not what we need. What we need are ideas that are thoughtfully developed and directly address the problems.
    cornchipn2itivguycolorwatto_cobradanhmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Editorial: Google's acquisition of Fitbit looks like two turkeys trying to make an eagle

    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    Google's version ...  Sign here please ...   Health Insurance Personal Advertising Account.
    Were you aware Apple's iCloud is NOT approved for storing sensitive health information? Apple will not guarantee its privacy and proper storage. 
    “If you are a covered entity, business associate or representative of a covered entity or business associate (as those terms are defined at 45 C.F.R § 160.103), You agree that you will not use any component, function or other facility of iCloud to create, receive, maintain or transmit any “protected health information” (as such term is defined at 45 C.F.R § 160.103) or use iCloud in any manner that would make Apple (or any Apple Subsidiary) Your or any third party’s business associate.”

    FWIW Google does offer HIPAA-compliant cloud services and will guarantee the privacy and safe storage of that data. 
    Really gatorguy? More whataboutism?
    StrangeDaysAppleExposedwilliamlondonspinnydpscooter63watto_cobraPickUrPoisonp-dogsuddenly newton
  • Cellebrite says it can pull data from any iOS device ever made

    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    roake said:
    gatorguy said:
    It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.

    Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them. 

    Just my 2 cents. 
    I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero. 
    Privacy is privacy.  Once we give it up, it’s gone forever.
    Then you gave it up the day you got a credit card, opened a bank account, were hired by someone, or passed your driver exam. All of those are giving up more or your "personal privacy" than this purported Cellebrite hack ever could.

    IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.

    Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top:
    Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort. 
    This is an incredibly specious argument. There is simply no comparison between your willingly giving up information in return for a convenience where you expect the powers-that-be who handle that information to be careful and circumspect, with a situation in which the information is unwillingly, inconveniently given up with no expectation of privacy to follow.

    Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.

    GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.
    How are you personally exposed to Cellebrite hacks? You aren't.

    Yes the credit bureaus act as clearinghouses for for financial worthiness BUT when did you give Experian or Transunion or Equifax permission to sell your personal information for marketing or surveys or investigations or pretty much any purpose even if having nothing to do with extending credit on your behalf? Answer: You didn't expressly do so, nor were you aware they're doing it in all likelihood. BTW where's that page opting out from it?

    But feel free to explain how you're benefiting when Experian sells the actual you, name/address/email and other personal data, to the PAC interested in getting donations from pro-Democratic wage-earners making $150K or more working in higher education, living with a significant other and over the age of 50. How about when a medical device company purchases a list from Equifax of medicare-eligible high income individuals suffering from specific diseases or impairments.  Privacy intrusion? Some company buys personal access from Transunion to LGBT individuals earning more than 100K and working in tech or finance, not politically active, amd owning a pet who might be interested in their product lines. Privacy intrusion? The credit bureaus actually sell segments like that with identifiable people and their contact information, and you want to say you willingly cooperated with no expectation of privacy?  

    That makes yours the very definition of specious argument.


    You didn't benefit from the data sale, you didn't expressly permit it, you aren't aware of it when it happens, and it happens every day. Celebrite isn't touching your life at all. Which is worth your concern but which is getting it? There's your answer. 

    You don't worry about those invasive things right up in your face, but want to proclaim how informed and concerned you are about personal privacy when Cellebrite can access your device with physical access which they don't have and almost assuredly never will. 
    Your argument still remains entirely as specious as anantksundaram described it. This whole thing about Experian, et al. is a red herring and a se quoque. It's entirely beside the point that there are other privacy violators, like Google and Facebook, out there, and the gist of your argument, that we should ignore one potential privacy violation because there are other actual or potential privacy violations is patently absurd; it defies reason, particularly when you have cumulatively and historically argued that we should ignore pretty much all the other privacy violators too.

    In addition, your entire argument depends on conveniently ignoring the fact that this won't be just a benign law enforcement tool. Quite apart from the almost certain abuse of such a tool by law enforcement (when did law enforcement not abuse each of its various tools in some way?), history has shown that Cellebrite tools cannot be controlled and use limited to law enforcement. This will become available to criminals, repressive regimes, and other bad actors. The idea that even in these cases that the number of affected users will be small and therefore irrelevant is pernicious nonsense.

    What percentage of the Earth's population has been infected with Ebola? Probably fewer than 0.2%. How are you personally exposed to Ebola? You aren't. So the WHO should just ignore it because there are other more pressing health issues. Influenza kills many more people ever year than Ebola. Thus, according to the logic you apply to Cellebrite, Ebola is nothing to worry about and anyone who is concerned is simply being hysterical.

    christophbGeorgeBMacpscooter63anantksundaramlostkiwiknowitallbeowulfschmidtmagman1979
  • Samsung's designers copying Apple again in Samsung Pass icons

    Soli said:
    While I think it's very likely that Samsung stole this icon from Apple as it seems to be in their nature, to me that icon also seems very obvious.
    You're apparently confusing patent and trademark law, and perhaps the meaning of 'obvious'.
    wonkothesanenetmagepscooter63radarthekatRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
    Who the heck is Andrew and why should I care one bit what he thinks.
    tmaymarcotor949williamlondonmatrix077watto_cobra
  • Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Nah. Expecting to be able to upgrade a laptop is as stupid as expecting to upgrade a tablet. I'm a hardcore tech nerd software dev, and have never upgraded anything other than RAM on a notebook. And now I just get what I need upfront. I have never, ever upgraded the storage or (lol) processor. That may be some DIY hobby thing you're into, but 99.9% of Apple's market doesn't do it. They aren't going to make compromises for the .1%, get real.

    It's appliance computing. Don't like it? Get a Dell.

    Andrew disagrees.
    Who cares.
    tmaywilliamlondonmatrix077watto_cobra