20 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
riettaMar 2016Strongly recommends
It has been explained to them multiple times in congressional hearings. If you have a long time, the recent House Judiciary Committee Hearing is worth the watch: The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy ▶ this video There was another one that I watched back in June, but I cannot find the video at the moment. Should have bookmarked it! In the rietta.com article, I linked the this hearing, starting with Susan Landau's testimony starting at ▶ this video . But there is more must watch portions of the hearing. I like GnuPG and I use it regularly with work as does my team. And some of our clients do too, but not nearly enough. But my mom and dad are never going to use it. They do both use iPhones though. So being able to protect them is important.
in “FBI Wants It to Be Impractical to Deploy Strong Encryption Without Key Escrow” · View on HN
alblueMar 2016Recommends
I sat through the YouTube presentation (which is available at ▶ this video if you have four hours to spare). In general the discussions were quite well presented, apart from a couple of rabid questioners suggesting that public security trumped any one individuals' right to personal security. I've written up a summary of the hearings at InfoQ here: [link] The general responses from Apple were that it wouldn't be possible to write this just for one phone; that once the FBiOS was available for one it would be available for any phone. Dr Landon also highlighted the fact that most people now use their phones as part of a two-factor authentication, and that the easiest way to break into a system (such as the IRS leak) is to compromise login credentials. The fear is, therefore, that once pandora's box is opened that the operating system would be installable on any device and thus potentially give access to any state actor to any account simply through device compromise. The entire hearing was very well laid out, though in a few cases Apple's witnesses weren't quite as fluid as the FBI's. The congress members have five days to ask additional questions, after which presumably a report will be made. More information is available at the House page here: [link]
in “FBI’s Comey Concedes Mistake Was Made Over iPhone in San Bernardino Case” · View on HN
pdkl95Jun 2017Cites it
> that doesn't lead to a wack-a-mole game Stored-program general purpose computers are a fundamentally a threat to any entrenched power that relies on being able to control any potential risk with physical, legal, economic, or social force. The only real way to control software that is no longer scarce is to find a way to hobble the "universal computing machine" so it is no longer universal. Cory Doctorow's warning[1] about the War On General Purpose Computing received a lot of attention, but I suspect his far more important followup[2] about the looming Civil War over General Purpose Computing was had a much smaller audience. Dan Geer suggested[3] that this "Cold Civil War" has been ongoing for a long time already. With this new push by FVEY nations against crypto, it looks like the war is starting to heat up. > where comms do go dark That's just not true. Metadata is everywhere and will likely only get even more informative into the future. As Susan Landau explained[4] in her testimony to Congress, the only people "going dark" are the people trying to "preserve 20th century investigative techniques [while] our enemies are using 21st century technologies against us." Complaining about "going dark" is just misdirection away from a total failure to update investigative techniques to not just keep up with changing technology, but to take advantage of the new opportunities created by our growing sea of {,meta}data. [1] [link] [2] [link] [3] [link] [4] ▶ this video
in “How the Australian government plans to access encrypted messages” · View on HN
Show 14 more comments
alblueMar 2016Cites it
This presents a summary of the congressional hearing "The Encryption Tightrope – Balancing American's Security and Privacy" that was covered live on YouTube ▶ this video A replay of the event is now available but the news piece summarises the important parts of the discussion.
in “Apple, FBI testify before Congress” · View on HN
ibejoebMar 2016Cites it
Lots of interesting stuff in this session. "We are a rule-of-law country. The FBI is not cracking into your phone or listening to your communications except under the rule of law," says Comey (1:37). I suppose that's the NSA's job... ▶ this video
in “FBI’s Comey Concedes Mistake Was Made Over iPhone in San Bernardino Case” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
I'd love to see a transcript [2], or list of participants [4] and find out which representatives present lean towards Apple or towards the FBI. I skipped around the video. I mostly saw support for Apple, with a few exceptions, one being Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner, a House republican of Wisconsin, asked Apple what legislation they would support, and Mr. Sewell, Apple's general counsel, said they support debate on the subject [1] The congressman was clearly bullying Mr. Sewell here and using his position as congressman to make it appear as though Apple is not being agreeable. Well, encouraging debate before writing one-sided legislation sounds like great teamwork to me. The congressman should have been reminded that not supporting new legislation is a valid position, and that every problem we face need not be solved with new laws. Perhaps Mr. Sewell is trying to be respectful to the congressman. But I think he should not shy from responding in kind. Treat others as they treat you. No one will judge you for it. I think Apple missed an opportunity here to say they do not feel new legislation is needed, since guaranteeing back doors into devices would be an abridgement of consumers' right to privacy, and Apple's right to create safe products for consumers as it sees fit. Overall though this seemed like a productive session. Mr. Gowdy, a House republican of South Carolina, also bullies Sewell in the same manner [3], literally asking Apple to lobby for legislation. In othe
in “FBI’s Comey Concedes Mistake Was Made Over iPhone in San Bernardino Case” · View on HN
sigmarMar 2016Cites it
I watched most of the hearing (can be viewed here ▶ this video ), this article seems like a pretty accurate characterization. Comey's parsing of words in his response to the question of whether any gov't agency can access the phone reminded me of Clapper's "least untruthful" answer (ie his lie about NSA data collection).
in “Congress finally showed it's willing to fight the FBI on encryption” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
> The debate is shifting to "public security vs privacy" instead of Apple vs FBI, which is how a lot of the consumers and Apple fans see this right now Actually Apple is painting it as a "security vs. security" debate [1] [2]. They point out that every iPhone user's security is put at risk if they are forced to sign software that weakens the iPhone's security. > I rather enjoyed hearing Comey's responses and found Bruce Sewell to lack the same maturity and preparedness I thought Sewell performed well. He was given some tough questions he could not have anticipated. Sewell was the one on the hot seat here. Comey did not face as much pressure. [1] ▶ this video [2] ▶ this video
in “Congress finally showed it's willing to fight the FBI on encryption” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
That is FBI director Comey's statement, not Apple's. Comey says, Apple is highly professional in protecting its own innovation, its own information [1] Comey even articulates Apple's position clearly, Apple's argument, I think will be, that's not reasonable because there are risks around that. Even though we're good at this, it could still get away from us. And the judge will have to figure that out [1] So Comey claims Apple is very good at technical stuff and so they must have a way to keep this software secure. Yet at the same time he claims we should not believe Apple when Apple says this backdoor would weaken everyone's security. On one hand he is saying we should believe in Apple's technology expertise, and on the other hand he is saying we should not. Well, given that Comey is self-admittedly not knowledgeable about technology, and given that many other tech companies and independent tech experts have stood up to support Apple, it's clear to me who to trust on this issue about tech security. Apple has demonstrated their commitment to safety by improving the iPhone's security with successive iterations of software and hardware. The FBI has demonstrated their deep desire to gain guaranteed backdoor entry to devices for over a year, yet claim this case is only about one phone. Apple's track record and rhetoric are much more consistent and trustworthy than the FBI's. [1] ▶ this video
in “Apple VP: The FBI wants to roll back safeguards that keep us ahead of criminals” · View on HN
devyMar 2016Cites it
Interestingly, this is the EXACT advice [1] given at the Apple + FBI @ U.S. Congressional Hearing on March 1st from California congressman Darrell Issa (R). Congressman Issa was previously the CEO of DEI, a car security and audio equipment company. He is possibly one of the most tech-savvy members of U.S. Congress and happens to be one of the wealthiest as well [2]. The Congressional hearing video footage is here, the suggestion was proposed at 1h23m 13s in.[3] [1]: [link] [2]: [link] [3]: ▶ this video
in “One of the FBI’s Major Claims in the iPhone Case Is Fraudulent” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
There was another discussion about this which dropped off the front page [1] I am not as bothered by Obama's conclusions as I am bothered by the errors in his supporting facts. These are going to contribute to the mis-education of portions of the American public. Here is his full keynote which I think we all should watch [2] One year ago President Obama held nearly the opposite view. He spoke with President Xi in China about legislation Beijing was considering that would similarly handcuff tech companies [3]. He criticized Xi for this and pointed out that it would damage their economy. I don't know whether Obama continues to hold the view that mandating backdoors would damage a country's economy or not. Perhaps he does think it will hurt our economy but is worth the cost. Perhaps he thinks it is better for our security too. Of course he is wrong. I am baffled that nobody, to date, has been able to explain the entirety of the issues we must balance to maintain public safety and security to our President. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was able to achieve that understanding [4] Shouldn't the President have access to the best minds in technology? It's not as if any of us would refuse his phone call. Note I don't claim to be a best mind but I think I can talk through the issue to present understanding of the full tech side of the picture to a layperson, and at the same time be respectful of the challenges faced by the DOJ when trying to give justice to victims and security to the
in “Obama at SXSW: ‘Absolutist view’ on digital privacy cannot prevail” · View on HN
pdkl95Mar 2016Cites it
> I didn't know about In that case, you might want to do more reading on the topic. > What precisely, is the functional difference here See the numerous other threads, as this has been explained many times. > [many words restating the FBI's misleading framing of their order to Apple] The FBI wants a backdoor into any crypto that gets in their way. To deny this is to deny not only the past 20 years rhetoric from the FBI and their current actions involving this case and the other phones they also want to unlock. If you think that such a backdoor can exist without breaking encryption, then you haven't been paying attention to how fast exploits spread. Let me guess - you think that this is isolated to ONE phone? That the FBI isn't going to turn around and use this same order on every other phone in the future? Or are you calling Susan Landau a liar[1] and insisting that Apple can somehow keep a backdoor secret while maintaining a daily service to use that backdoor? You seem to be going out of your way to try to blame Apple, while ignoring both the technical context and the FBI's actions and motives. [1] ▶ this video
in “Obama at SXSW: ‘Absolutist view’ on digital privacy cannot prevail” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
This is not a debate about privacy vs. security. It's about security vs. security. [1] [2] [3] On balance, putting backdoors in phones will make us less secure, because criminals will just use other methods to communicate, and the public will be putting their data within reach of every hacker in the world through a government-imposed weakness. The administration is unlikely to understand our privacy concerns. They do understand economic and public safety issues, and it is the facts around these issues that we must share with them. President Obama himself told President Xi last year that introducing backdoor legislation would hurt his economy [4]. Let's make Obama's argument back to him [1] ▶ this video [2] ▶ this video [3] ▶ this video [4] [link]
in “Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
Doesn't this make the FBI's case weaker with the public and the court, given there would then be more points of attack for hackers? Comey went on record saying the tool should be secure in Apple's hands because Apple knows what it is doing [1] And, he didn't even think of this tactic until Darrell Issa suggested it at the Congressional hearing [2]. > Issa: Did you receive the source code from Apple? Did you demand the source code? > Comey: Did we ask Apple for their source code? Not that I'm aware of It seems like the FBI is grasping at straws here. Does anyone buy this charade? The PR on the DOJ's side is atrocious. From the beginning, "just about one phone" was obviously a lie, and it's all been downhill since then. For once, the fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics of the government are not working. I'm happy about that but concerned for our future when law enforcement blames technologists for not handing over data to phones. We need to continue educating each other on these issues regardless of what the courts say, and regardless of what ultimately comes out of Congress. [1] ▶ this video [2] ▶ this video
in “FBI argues it can force Apple to turn over iPhone source code” · View on HN
studentrobMar 2016Cites it
We should argue this issue in terms of security and the economy. Those are the terms politicians and people understand. See [1] [2] [3] about security About the economy, Obama himself provides the best argument there. Last year he told President Xi that anti-encryption laws would hurt his economy [4] I'm interested in starting a grassroots campaign around this issue. Shoot me an email at stillastudent using Google's email service if you're interested in helping. [1] ▶ this video [2] ▶ this video [3] ▶ this video [4] [link]
in “Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case” · View on HN
riettaMar 2016Cites it
Even if the system were perfect and the users with legit access had impeccable credential management and physical security, the escrow will be used a lot to unlock devices and communications. It becomes routine . Processes which become routine are prone to being subverted, as Mrs. Landau stated in her recent congressional testimony that I linked to in yesterday's article on the FBI and key escrow - ▶ this video .
in “The Clipper Chip” · View on HN
pdkl95Mar 2016Cites it
Susan Landau, during[1] the House Judiciary Committee hearing: Smart phones are increasingly wallets, and they give us access to all sorts of accounts [...]. NSA will tell you that stealing login credentials is the most effective way into a system. [...] Here's where smart phones are extremely important: they are poised to become authenticators to a wide variety of services. While I think that Apple has good reasons to fight the FBI's order for simple constitutional reasons, they obviously are not limited to a single motive. This comment about phones being "wallets" does fit with the idea of Apple being some sort of bank (or payment processor). [1] ▶ this video
in “Follow the money: Apple vs. the FBI” · View on HN