That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • May 3rd, 2016 @ 9:17pm

    I can see it now...

    Twitter: Fine, we'll challenge the classification, who do we go to for that?

    Judge: The DOJ.

    Twitter: ... the same group that classified it in the first place.

    Judge: The very same.

    Twitter: ... lovely.

    Judge: Good luck!

    Twitter: Now you're just twisting the knife.

  • May 3rd, 2016 @ 9:11am

    Adding to the ranks

    But if we don’t discuss what we are doing and how we are regulating it even in general terms, we cede the field to those who are hostile to intelligence activities.

    Not just that, but by consistently lying and being caught out on their lies they created people 'hostile to intelligence activities'. People that might have sided with the spy agencies had they been honest, 'Yes we did X. Here's why, and here's the limits that are in place to avoid abuse.' when the evidence came out are much less likely to do so when the agency lies, and then has their lies exposed. If they lied about X, what about their other claims, are those lies as well?

    Among their legion of mistakes lying when they aren't staying silent is certainly up there as far as 'things that poisoned public opinion against them'.

  • May 3rd, 2016 @ 9:00am

    What they might say if they were honest

    "We've spent considerable time and effort lining the 'proper channels' with spike pits, trip wires and various other traps to ensure that anyone naive enough to use them are dealt with before they can do any damage. As such we highly object to the idea that would-be-whistleblowers would be able to avoid our carefully laid traps and might actually be able to expose our actions."

    Given the 'proper channels' aren't meant to fix any problems other than 'this person doesn't know how to keep their mouth shut', of course they're going to be heavily flawed and make it near impossible that a problem will be reported to someone interested in fixing it, that's the point.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 2:44pm

    For a VERY loose definition of 'neutral'

    So at one point they make a dig about how the blogger wasn't 'neutral' in their write-up, yet later on they make it abundantly clear that they are anything but, and are firmly on the side of the cops by trying the classic 'Cops put themselves at risk all the time, what's a few minor incidents?' ploy.

    Ah good old hypocrisy...

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Full Retard

    Yeah, in their attempt to take shots at the one who showed them up, they just make themselves look even worse.

    He's 'just' a blogger, he might not have run across the story until recently, however you're a 'professional' news agency, what's your excuse?

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 1:32pm

    Oh if only...

    Can't understand is one thing, that's at least possible to fix, the real problem comes from those that won't understand because doing so would require them to admit that their position is wrong, and their demands impossible.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 12:08pm


    Funny as that would be, given the clueless actions of the judges involved so far in asking for the impossible they would probably take that as 'mocking' them/the court and just tack on more charges as a result.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    We should also put a camera at every home to prevent further crime. Why stop there? MAke everybody wear always on body cameras. And arrest if battery dies.

    Almost everyone, since it would be a terrible violation of privacy and just such a hassle to require police to wear them, and their job is hard enough already to have to deal with that as well. /poe

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 10:56am

    Re: A Few Bad Apples

    The police: Where you get fired not for abuse of power or doing a bad job but because you tried to stop others from doing so and were told you weren't welcome as a result.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:29am

    Using a right to show why it's important

    Got to love how the section of the report dealing with fair use starts with a snippet from another report to list it's claims so that they can then be addressed, something that would not be legal were it not for fair use.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:19am


    But of course. Forcing someone to place cameras that can be accessed at any time in their place of business is perfectly fine, nothing to get worked up over. Having cameras record 'officers' while on business(whether on their body or held by someone else) is a horrible violation of privacy, takes work to sort through, costs way too much... totally different, honest. /s

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:16am

    "Nice business you've got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

    At least when you're having to pay protection money to the mob they can only threaten you with a few broken bones or a trashed business, and can't throw you in jail if you refuse to comply. Unlike the NYPD the mob also doesn't want to kill your business, as a dead business is one that's not paying out, whereas the NYPD doesn't particularly care either way so long as they get what they want.

  • May 1st, 2016 @ 8:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So it's completely believable to you that an agency would lie as a matter of course yet for some reason be above parallel construction, which has already been proven to be widespread?

    Not at all, however evidence laundering against who? The 'suspects' in this case are quite dead, and if they were going to lie and claim that some vital information had been 'found' on the phone I imagine they'd have done it already. Instead they seem to be hoping that the matter will blow over and be forgotten for when they try again the next time a tempting case comes along.

    It's much more plausible to think that the FBI would not stop searching for other ways to access the contents of the iPhone, and the official story is an outside hacking group approached them which would make sense given the high profile nature of the proceeding.

    To what end though? Unless I'm off by miles they do not and never did actually care what was on the phone itself, all they cared about was the legal precedent they thought it could get them. Once it looked like that wasn't going to happen they dropped the case to avoid the 'wrong' precedent being set.

    Occam's razor cannot support the mass conspiracy needed to explain outright lies, a $1.3m budget item, and the idea that FBI is so competent as to orchestrate a long running subversion of the legal system (somehow countering the checks and balances of gov't too) at the expense of their primary investigative goal.

    You might be overthinking it, there's no need for a 'mass conspiracy', just good old perjury in an attempt to get through the courts what they couldn't get through the lawmakers.

    As I see it there were several points at which a lie was possible:

    1) In the beginning, when they claimed that they couldn't unlock the phone without Apple's forced assistance. For this to be a lie it would require them to already have access in some way, perhaps by a previously discovered flaw in the security.

    Odds: Low to mid.

    2) Also in the beginning, when they claimed that they had 'exhausted all other options', and tried everything with no success. For this to be a lie they'd simply need to not try all other possibilities such as getting in contact with other agencies or specialists and soliciting their help/advice.

    Odds: Mid to high.

    3) When they claimed that they'd found another way in and no longer needed to force Apple to help them. This was a lie either in the sense that they didn't 'just' find the exploit, they'd had it the entire time, or in the sense that they hadn't found a way to unlock the device and were just claiming otherwise in order to drop the case.

    Odds: Mid to high. I'd put this one as the most likely given the timing.

    And finally 4) When they claimed that a mystery company/group sold them the unlocked phone but didn't tell them how it was done, so they in turn couldn't tell anyone else how it was done(and more importantly so that other people couldn't check if the hack even existed).

    In the end it's the timing that strikes me as the greatest indicator that the 'We found a way in' was a lie. They spend considerable resources trying to swing public opinion in their favor, and just as it seems the case is going to go south on them like magic they 'find' another way in and drop the case.

    It's not like this was a small, relatively unknown case, if there really was someone willing to sell them an exploit to unlock the phone I imagine they would have approached the FBI with it early on, not waited that late in the case to sell it(though I suppose in that scenario doing so would give them quite the bargaining chip).

  • May 1st, 2016 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You might want to check your Occam's Razor, it seems to be sharpened in a rather interesting way.

    'The FBI lied to get out of a case that was going poorly for them, and then lied again to cover for the first lie' is much more likely to me at least than 'The FBI found just at the right time a group willing to unlock the phone but not tell how it was done, and the FBI accepted this despite the fact that it made any potential evidence on the phone completely useless.' Slightly less likely than #1, but still more likely than option #2 of course is 'The FBI lied when they claimed they didn't have the ability to access the phone in the first place, and just wanted to force Apple to do what they could have done to set the legal precedent they wanted.'

  • Apr 30th, 2016 @ 3:20pm

    "Experts claim that 2+2 will always equal 4, but let's not take an absolutist view of the matter..."

    Which would be funny if it weren't so dangerous. On security you can and you should take an 'absolutist view' on it, because deliberately flawed security is not only bad, in a very real sense it's worse than no security at all as it provides a false sense of security, and people will take risks they otherwise wouldn't thinking that they're safe when they're not.

    As such there is no 'middle ground', no 'compromise' available, those that are calling for deliberately installing or requiring security flaws are wrong and demanding the impossible, while those that are calling for strong security without deliberately created flaws are right and understand what can and can not be done.

  • Apr 30th, 2016 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's my guess as well, the whole 'We got in, no need to continue with the case' was a lie designed solely to allow them to drop a case that was going badly for them, and now this is yet another lie to try and cover for the first.

    They drop the case by claiming that it's not needed, but of course people want to know how they got in, and since they didn't they need some excuse for how they got in but can't tell people who they did it. Out of nowhere an unknown group steps in that unlocks the phone but doesn't tell the FBI how they did it, and as a result the FBI can't tell anyone else how it was done either.

    The entire thing positively reeks of lie after lie, attempting to use the court system to set the precedent they can't get via the lawmakers and running away when it starts to look like the 'wrong' precedent will be set.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 11:16pm

    Left a few words out

    At least with a record label advance a band gets some dollars which they are obligated to pay back several times over on laughably terrible terms before they are considered 'recouped' and can actually make any money from 'their' music.

    If musicians, or more accurately labels aren't happy with the 'pennies' they get from services like YT they're more than welcome to not use the service and enjoy the nothing they get from doing so. Maybe they can make their own service and see how well that works out for them, anything to avoid the 'pennies' from Google after all.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 10:09pm

    Government: "It's their fault, take it up with them. " Company: "No, it's their fault, take it up with them."

    If companies were required to introduce security vulnerabilities, and when those vulnerabilities were found and exploited I imagine that any companies sued due to it would be very quick to point out that they didn't want to have the vulnerability in place, they had to have it, which put the blame on the government. The government would turn around and so that no no, they just said that the vulnerability had to be there, they didn't say it had to be vulnerable to bad people, so the company was at fault.

    They'd continue pointing fingers, wasting time and stalling trying to blame the other person, and any potential lawsuit would go nowhere as a result.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 9:10pm


    I'm fairly certain they've been doing that the entire case.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 4:11pm

    Lovely priorities

    During his initial appearance in a federal courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif., the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, said Sara Naheedy, Gartenlaub’s attorney at the time.

    So they believed that they had sufficient evidence to nail him to the wall on possession of child porn, but they were willing to drop that entirely so long as he was agreeable to turn government informant or confess to potential espionage.

    Yeah, the warrant wasn't even close to the only screwed up thing in this case, though given the dodgy nature of the whole process I wouldn't be surprised if their willingness to drop the CP charges was because they were simply using the threat of them to pressure him to cave.

More comments from That One Guy >>