Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID

posted by mrpg on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-aint-checkin-all-those-links-buster dept.

takyon writes:

Apple argues stronger encryption will thwart criminals in letter to Australian government

Apple has long been a proponent for strong on-device encryption, most notably for its iPhones and the iOS operating system. This has often frustrated law enforcement agencies both in the US and overseas, many of which claim the company's encryption tools and policies are letting criminals avoid capture by masking communications and securing data from the hands of investigators.

Now, in a letter to the Australian government, Apple says it thinks encryption is in fact a benefit and public good that will only strength our protections against cyberattacks and terrorism. In Apple's eyes, encryption makes everyone's devices harder to hack and less vulnerable to take-overs, viruses, and other malicious attacks that could undermine personal and corporate security, as well as public infrastructure and services. Apple is specifically responding to the Australian Parliament's Assistance and Access Bill, which was introduced late last month and is designed to help the government more easily access the devices and data of criminals during active investigations.

Letter here (#53), or at Scribd and DocumentCloud.

Also at Ars Technica, Engadget, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider.

Police told to avoid looking at recent iPhones to avoid lockouts

Police have yet to completely wrap their heads around modern iPhones like the X and XS, and that's clearer than ever thanks to a leak. Motherboard has obtained a presentation slide from forensics company Elcomsoft telling law enforcement to avoid looking at iPhones with Face ID. If they gaze at it too many times (five), the company said, they risk being locked out much like Apple's Craig Federighi was during the iPhone X launch event. They'd then have to enter a passcode that they likely can't obtain under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from having to provide self-incriminating testimony.

Also at 9to5Mac.

Related:

California Lawmaker Tries Hand at Banning Encryption
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
Hacker Decrypts Apple's Secure Enclave Processor (SEP) Firmware
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
Law Enforcement Agencies Increasingly Cracking iPhones Using "GrayKey"
Australian Government Pursues "Golden Key" for Encryption
When's A Backdoor Not A Backdoor? When The Oz Government Says It Isn't
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
FBI Used Cooperative Suspect's Face to Unlock His iPhone

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 31 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:31PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:31PM (#748582)

    The government is so out of touch with the public a full on revolution could happen and they wouldn't notice until they are thrown out of parliament

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Touché=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:48PM (2 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:48PM (#748618) Journal

    https://medium.com/s/story/the-surprisingly-solid-mathematical-case-of-the-tin-foil-hat-gun-prepper-15fce7d10437https://medium.com/s/story/the-surprisingly-solid-mathematical-case-of-the-tin-foil-hat-gun-prepper-15fce7d10437 [medium.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:52PM (1 child)

      by Nerdfest (80) on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:52PM (#748646)

      Bad link, human.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:51PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:51PM (#748619) Journal

    Let's start over by using preview:

    The Surprisingly Solid Mathematical Case of the Tin Foil Hat Gun Prepper [medium.com]

    As gun policy discussions unfold in the wake of mass shooter incidents, they routinely end in three buckets. There’s the “tyranny can never happen here” bucket, which the left has mostly abdicated in the wake of Trump winning after they called (and still call) him a tyrant. There’s the “you can’t fight the army with small arms” bucket, which is increasingly unsound given our ongoing decade-and-a-half war with Afghani tribal goat herders. And there’s the “what the hell do you need an AR-15 for anyway?” bucket, which, by its very language, eschews a fundamental lack of understanding of what those people are thinking. I am not a prepper. But I know a few. Some of the ones I do know are smart. They may not be doing as deep an analysis as I present here, on a mathematical level, but the smart ones are definitely doing it at a subconscious level. If you want to understand the perspectives of others, as everyone in my opinion should strive to do, then you would do well to read to the end of this article. To get where we’re going, we will need to discuss the general framework of disaster mathematics.