Apple has been lying to us

Apple has been lying to us.

They give the goverment information about users all the time.

revealed in the email leaks, pic related

What can be done to stay truly encrypted?

Other urls found in this thread:

wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30593#efmAHtANd
cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/
thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/Sup
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/
thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/285938-clinton-endorses-warner-mccaul-encryption-commission
apple.com/privacy/transparency-reports/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Stay offline

>thousands of times
>every month

so why would they not unlock the iphone of that terrorist couple who shot up their workplace? too high profile?

wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30593#efmAHtANd

cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/

but i like being online

stay where you are, a drone is on it's way to your location

>We give information when they have a warrant.

Oh, so it's nothing?

What are you even talking about?

no need if all my shit is hacked

well avoiding cell phones would be a start.

Anyway to have protection from metadata gathering you need the people providing the service to be on your side. You need them to make a point of not collecting metadata from you, and designing their service to make that difficult or impossible to do, so when the Feds show up with a warrant they have nothing to give them.

Once you have a VPN or the like from a place like that, you want to communicate via services that are inherently decentralized, where there's just an open-source project producing some software and that's it, so that there isn't anyone LEOs can come to with a warrant. Though again, the devs need to be incredibly careful to ensure that gathering metadata is impractical or impossible.

>>We give information when they have a warrant.

they had a warrant for the terrorist phone but would not give info then, but apparently they do it "thousands of times a month"

cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/

why say no here

and yes thousands of other times

>Anyway to have protection from metadata gathering you need the people providing the service to be on your side. You need them to make a point of not collecting metadata from you, and designing their service to make that difficult or impossible to do, so when the Feds show up with a warrant they have nothing to give them.

does any carrier do this

cock.li/wireless?

OP doesn't seem to bright

They did. Do you not know what a PR stunt is?

no apple held out for months then the fbi had to hardware hack the phone themselves

if you kept up with this stuff you would know apple says they do not have the ability to give the feds the info on your phone and have been saying that for years

Again, it was just a PR stunt.

well regardless they have been lying to us

is there anyway to be truly encrypted?

By using the word "carrier" and "wireless" it sounds like you're talking about mobile providers.

No. None of them do that. As a matter of fact they're mandated by law to not do that, they all have infrastructure in place to track your real-time location, so that they can then give it to emergency-services operators if you call 911 or your country's equivalent. This is inherent to anything using the cellular network, so you can't get around it by rooting a phone or something. If it can make calls it's being tracked.

Wireline network access is another story. There are a very few privacy-respecting ISPs (that one in Sweden that's dedicating themselves to being a giant pain-in-the-ass for big copyright is a case in point), but more to the point its much easier to work around a malicious ISP. Namely you get a VPN. VPNs are one of the few industries where companies actually compete on their privacy credentials. Go read TorrentFreak's guide. Pick a provider that's not in your country (and ideally not in any of the Five Eyes, or their collaborators) and use servers in yet a third country (most have servers all over) Crossing jurisdictional boundaries is a big pain for regular law-enforcement, and is a roadblock even for national-security types. They would both much prefer to just call up your ISP and demand a bunch of info about who was doing what when, but they can't if all they have is an IP from a datacenter on the other side of the world. Similarly, all your ISP sees is an encrypted tunnel. They don't see what websites you're visiting or anything that you're doing, other than the raw amount of traffic transferred.

thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/Sup Forums-linked-federal-kiddie-porn-probe#lightbox-popup-1

On iOS? Not sure. On Android? Not likely...

what about the photos on your phone, are they at least encrypted?

>what about the photos on your phone, are they at least encrypted?

yes

Basically, yes, but they say they give METADATA. This is information like logs of who you message, what IP address you were using with their services at a given time etc. They don't turn over the contents of messages, or things like the contents of your iCloud account because the encryption keys for that are stored on your own devices. This is why you have to authorize joining iCloud from a device you already own-- it's actually sending a version of the encryption key directly to your new device and not saving it.

Foreign intelligence people know this much at least, and if apple broke into the devices for the US government, it'd hurt their credibility with these foreign actors.

if they give metadata with a warrant why don't they give all your data?

if they have a warrant how is it legal not to give the data over?

>if they give metadata with a warrant why don't they give all your data?
Metadata falls under a lower legal protection standard, since they're classified as "business records", not personal communications. Also the content may be encrypted with a key that Apple doesn't control, but the metadata is inherently visible to them, unless they take care to design their service in such a way that they don't. Most tech companies don't do this, since they want the analytics that depend on it.

>if they have a warrant how is it legal not to give the data over?
There are grounds on which you can contest the legality of what a warrant asks for. More to the point in this case, a warrant can compel you to surrender something you already have, but can't require you to create something you don't have. Say I'm a locksmith and the police want to get into someone's safe. The cops can get a warrant requiring me to give them any keys I own to customers' safes. But if I don't have the key they want, a warrant cannot compel me to come make one, nor can it require me to redesign my locks so that police can open them more easily. You can compel that kind of assistance by passing a law, but not with a warrant.

Steganography with giant noise is gud for text. For other data to be offline is the only way to dodge this shit.

>Steganography with giant noise is gud for text.

wat

>You can compel that kind of assistance by passing a law,

is this likely to happen?

The data is encrypted. It doesn't matter if its legal or not they can't give them shit

It would be extremely sketchy and overtly Orwellian.
Some encryption mathematically cannot be broken without consciously introducing a backdoor, which is what Apple would have had to do. This (publically known) existence of such a backdoor would be dangerous and outright absurd, would essentially mean that your encryption has been a ruse all along.

They tried, with the Burr-Feinstein bill. It didn't get much traction. Comey's FBI is widely thought to be looking to try again, but it's not looking good for them since the whole tech industry opposes it. And such a law would be impotent against services outside the US, open-source software, etc.

Obama refused to back Burr-Feinstein, but Clinton will back it. Be afraid.

>The data is encrypted. It doesn't matter if its legal or not they can't give them shit

the feds can and have hacked the encryption on iphones before

i see, but most of our elected officials are old and think the internet is a series of tubes and that apple is protecting the data of terrorists, Trump called for a law forcing apple to put in back doors

>Obama refused to back Burr-Feinstein, but Clinton will back it. Be afraid.

did she say that?

>did she say that?

no

Why would a corporation lie?

Surely there are programs for phones with 256 encryption, right?

>Surely there are programs for phones with 256 encryption, right?

if they can crack 128 why not 256?

To make encryption look bad so goyim would push for anti-encryption legislation obviously

>To make encryption look bad so goyim would push for anti-encryption legislation obviously

that's why the FBI did it, but apple did not cave in that case

the feds hired hackers to hardware hack the phone somehow

Thing is there is also no evidence whether AES-256 has already been broken, but there also isn't any that it hasn't been.

>Thing is there is also no evidence whether AES-256 has already been broken, but there also isn't any that it hasn't been.

has 128 been broken?

No clue. I haven't read anything about the topic but I would assume with reasonable certainty that annoying pre-quantum cryptography is likely broken.

>I would assume with reasonable certainty that annoying pre-quantum cryptography is likely broken.

well shit

Meant to say anything* pre-quantum

Full data =/= meta data

I can say Jimmy went to the library at 5pm and what books he checked out using the library database, but not what he wrote in his essay about those books.

>I can say Jimmy went to the library at 5pm and what books he checked out using the library database, but not what he wrote in his essay about those books.

still though, thousands a month?

Yeah, everyone has cell phones. Anytime someone is arrested and charged with a crime they get a warrant for their phone meta data.

if the gubmint provides a warrant, and the request is not unreasonable, they can't exactly fight it, they would have no standing in court.

>if the gubmint provides a warrant, and the request is not unreasonable, they can't exactly fight it, they would have no standing in court.

they didn't unlock the iphone owned by those terrorists for the feds

see

Yeah, she basically did.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/

>"I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners," Clinton continued. "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts."

thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/285938-clinton-endorses-warner-mccaul-encryption-commission

>Warner and McCaul’s offering would establish a national commission to study the contentious problem of how law enforcement can gain access to locked communications during investigations without hampering the privacy and security of lawful tech users.

>“This commission will work with the technology and public safety communities to address the needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all Americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests,” the Clinton campaign said.

Do you honestly believe that a candidate who would say these things would not back Burr-Feinstein, given the chance?

They didn't unlock the San Bernardino iPhone because they couldn't. That was their argument. Their argument was that it wasn't within the scope of the law to compel Apple to create special software to gain access to data to which they did not already have access.

If they had access already, that would be a different story. Which is why Apple told the FBI they were retarded for fucking up the iCloud backups, because if they'd allowed the phone to back up data to iCloud, Apple would have access to that, and would be able to hand it over.

They've hacked it, but every time they want to hack an iPhone, they have to have a vulnerability to exploit. Apple patches these vulnerabilities whenever they find them (see Trident), so it's not always a sure thing that the feds are going to be able to get in. This is why iOS vulns are now worth upwards of a million dollars apiece.

Apple hasn't been lying about shit. It's been common knowledge for a long time that they hand over what information they possess in response to court-issued warrants, and that that information includes metadata and iCloud data.

Where Apple draws the line, though, is the security of the devices themselves, and the integrity of the data stored locally on it. That data is yours, and yours alone. If you upload it to iCloud, it's in Apple's possession, and thus covered under a warrant served to Apple, but data on your device is your business, not theirs.

That's what the San Bernardino case was about. The FBI wanted Apple to compromise the security of the device itself, and Apple doesn't do that, and haven't since they implemented full-device encryption and the Secure Enclave.

No it wasn't, you idiot. Apple's stance is consistent, if you actually understand the nuances of the issue.

thats because the feds wanted Apple to show them their backdoor for when they can't break into phones.

[spoiler]even tho the NSA probably has iphones tapped ANYWAY[/spoiler]

Apple doesn't have a backdoor to the local device. They have access to iCloud, and that's about it.

And define "tapped". If you mean that they can intercept traffic going to and from it in a Room 641A kind of way, yes.

If you mean that they've broken the encryption, that's far less likely. Brute forcing the encryption on an iPhone is almost impossible, especially if the phone is set up to only allow you ten tries, and exploits allowing you to end-run the iPhone's encryption are among the most sought after on the black market.

If there's a vulnerability in the wild, the NSA certainly has it. Whether or not there exists such a vulnerability at the current time is a far less certain question.

>Apple doesn't have a backdoor to the local device. They have access to iCloud, and that's about it.

so don't back up to iclould or you don't own your data?

Apple is not above the law. If they have the information in their presence they will hand it over. Unlocking a device is different as is metadata.

why not just encrypt the metadata and only give the customer the password>?

What's the point of this thread? Do any of you go outside anymore? Do you just spend your time in Gentoo compiling?

Everyone does this because they have to. Google even made an entire video about it. It's not some secret that you exposed. Apple said it multiple times. They're always willing, not like they have a choice, to assist law enforcement.

However, there's a limit. They follow that limit or at least say they do. No one can prove they do, but no one can prove they don't. We will never know for sure. That's the major benefit of open source. Anyways, they will help, but they'll never unlock your iPhone for them.

Apple gets a request. They decide what information is needed. They send that general information.

iCloud backups are encrypted, so you're still fine.

As far as the law is concerned, yeah. If Apple has it, and has access to it, they must furnish it. Remember, this isn't an Apple policy, this is federal law in their home country.

Now, what they could do is go zero-knowledge; that is to say, encrypting iCloud with a key that only the user has. I've been pushing for that for a while, and I think they might do it if the feds keep poking the bear.

You underestimates the amount of information that Apple ID holds about a user. It may gave them everything about. It how information about their purchases, emails, contracts, imessage history, itunes purchase, ip address, and more.

The data that the government gain from that was enough to convict Kickass website for instance.

When have they not lied?

>You underestimates the amount of information that Apple ID holds about a user. It may gave them everything about. It how information about their purchases, emails, contracts, imessage history, itunes purchase, ip address, and more.

They give the info after they get a warrant
that's how they're supposed to do it
go back to never connecting to the internet if you are a fucking pedo or do other illegal shit

but how am i supposed to order cheese pizza without an internet connection to non free javascript?

Schrodinger's cat

Thanks, TBBT

I don't think Apple holds any more than, say, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc do. They need a minimum of information about their customers to do business.
The one difference is that Apple don't have an advertising business like Microsoft, Google, Facebook et al. They don't sell your info on to their advertisers.
All companies are obliged by law to cough up what they have when the law has the court order. Not all court orders are able to be made public.
Do you remember Apple's "canary"? It was a piece of rubric on their site that said they hadn't been compelled to give up customer info. Once an order was served they took down the "canary". They were eventually made to take it down ermanently.

>trusting companies
>ever
Are you cum-on-toast retarded?

who said we trusted them

I WAS READING THIS THREAD NEWBIES

=THE BACKDOOR IS IN THE BASEBAND PROCESSOR=

>Warrant
>Metadata
>'other' stuff

Worrisome but the actual data is still protected.

>Apple has been lying to us.

>They give the goverment information about users all the time.

No shit, this is not unusual. EVERY company does this and is open about doing so. This isn't Apple saying they are underhandedly working with the government or whatnot (Like Microsoft with the Snowden Leaks). They don't openly comply? They openly get fined.

apple.com/privacy/transparency-reports/

Info as in metadata. Not actual tangible exact data (San Barandino etc)..

>apple.com/privacy/transparency-reports/

But NSA isn't interested in sharing their exploits. Why would they?

Also, OP is a retard who doesn't understand the difference between metadata and actual data

>But NSA isn't interested in sharing their exploits. Why would they?

So basically OP doesn't understand the difference between handing over data they have access to and breaking their own encryption to gain access to a locked device.

>So basically OP doesn't understand the difference between handing over data they have access to and breaking their own encryption to gain access to a locked device.