Jason A Lindsley

I was reading this article earlier this week and thanks for providing the link to the case. I too disagree with the FBI stance on withholding such a critical vulnerability to the iPhone. Just like Apple has stated in it’s argument prior to the FBI obtaining access to the iPhone, the FBI now has a tool that would be able to access over 100 million IPhone users by circumventing legal processes. The security and privacy of it’s users is no compromised, even if the intention of the third-party was in public interest.

Hi Jason,

It’s a shame really that the FBI refuse to cooperate and share details of the flaw with Apple. This is a disservice to the millions of iPhone users. I wonder if they had to sign some sort of disclosure not to provide details to Apple if they agreed to use this hack. Whatever the case might be, refusing to share this information does nothing but potentially hurt the millions of innocent people that use the iPhone.

We talked about this in last years class for quite a while. It is my recollection that the FBI paid for a service, and was claiming that they did not have the technique themselves. It is a little slight of hand, but probably gives them enough of an excuse to not disclose what they do not “know”.

Wade

Hello class- I agree with all of you and I think that our government agencies should disclaim all the tools available to them and make things transparent to the public.

Some of the other tools available to them, like Black Widow, and RedSeal are so dangerous in the wrong hands, but who polices those who use tools for the wrong purpose in those government agencies?

I agree with the Judge’s ruling that if the FBI or other government agency hack a computer for investigative purposes, they should obtain a search warrant from a local magistrate. If an agency has the ability to access a computer’s file system, and have the ability to look at history, etc., they should have to go through the same process as if a laptop was confiscated as evidence. Monitoring of IPs, and internet traffic is still an issue that needs to be discussed, should agencies be allowed to monitor your internet traffic and see what websites you are going to without your permission? Also Jason, I agree that anything you do on the internet has the potential to become public.

I agree that a search warrant should be in place for this type of thing to happen. Unfortunately, living in the technology age, the rules and regulations are always going to be playing catch up. There is will always be that first time some uses technology in a way that no one ever thought, and courts will have to rule on how it should be handled.

I also find it humorous that the judge, while ruling they need a search warrant, still declined the defenses request to dismiss the evidence they found because of it. Isn’t that a contradiction?

I know how straight forward an answer this seems, but the legal system is always a bit slow to adapting to new technology. The slowness has to do with how even simple terms like “search” need to have a specific definition that has multiple tests that would hold up in a court. Another debate in law that is similar is if smell is enough for probable cause for a vehicle search. The legal question they are answering here is if your computer has malware on it, do you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The FBI is still going to continue to fight for their right to hack though.

I really appreciate the judge ruling that in order hack a computer for investigative purposes FBI should obtain a search warrant from a local magistrate.When a person is in the list of investigation then he is just one of the source of investigation and investigation can lead to many sources its like licensing the FBI to hack any person data in the name of investigation.
The FBI or agencies has now have to justify the hacking of data and in what sense it gonna help them to the magistrate in order to obtain the warrant

It is difficult to have an absolutist view on this Privacy vs Security controversy. I believe this is something that must be done in a way that is fair for all parties involved. Should companies like Google, Samsung or Apple create a back door specifically for law enforcement? Probably yes, probably no. If they do, then hackers will figure out a way to exploit the system. On the other hand, this raises home land security risks concerns. Maybe the best solution is for Federal agencies to develop with their own tools and make it illegal for the general public to use.

One thing to keep in mind is that the attackers a frequently not in the country of the victim. So even if you catch them, can be difficult to prosecute. Last year it was Israeli criminals attacking frecnh companies. For some reason the Israelis seemed to be particularly effective against the French.