Apple Goes To War With the FBI

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
From your rep, you're disagreeing with the idea that something can still be considered secure so long as whoever is trying to hack it doesn't have physical possession. Great, until you lose it.

In any case, my opinion is that anything is only secure until it isn't. Apple does better than some, but I still don't store anything on my phone that I care about anyone else not seeing.
 

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
The best you can hope for from your cryptography is to buy time.

Enough time that what you wrote is of only historical interest.

Back during WWII, resistance fighters were told to hold up against torture for just 24 hours, and, after that, tell everything that they knew. Because, in those 24 hours, the word that they'd been nabbed would get out, and everything would change. Every op they were aware of would be canceled. Every person in their cell would be relocated under a new name.

The biggest, most secure bank vault in the world is designed to last just until a guard is scheduled to walk by.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
From your rep, you're disagreeing with the idea that something can still be considered secure so long as whoever is trying to hack it doesn't have physical possession. Great, until you lose it.

In any case, my opinion is that anything is only secure until it isn't. Apple does better than some, but I still don't store anything on my phone that I care about anyone else not seeing.
I think it's more precise to say that I disagree on the definition of secure. As I said in my previous response here, 100.000% security is a myth. At least within information technology. "Secure" technology refers only to minimized risk. Not to lack of risk. Every algorithm can, eventually, be solved and reverse engineered. And, in this case, where the hacker (the FBI) has physical control of the device, it's possible to completely bypass security algorithms. The technology to completely prevent that simply does not exist.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
I guess for me, anything 'secure' that relies on a particular definition rather than practicality goes back to rule 1: don't put anything on it you wouldn't want someone to find.