Re: [Fed-Talk] Whoa Nelly
Re: [Fed-Talk] Whoa Nelly
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Whoa Nelly
- From: Jeffrey Walton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:53:28 -0400
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Dave Schroeder <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Jeffrey Walton <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Dave Schroeder <email@hidden> wrote:
>>> Why is it going to "get interesting", given that UDIDs alone are near-worthless, that only app developers themselves could combine UDIDs with other information to track users, and that Apple has already been rejecting apps that abuse UDIDs in this way?
>>>
>> UDIDs are classified as non-public information. The are similar in
>> sensitivity to IMSIs and IMEIs.
>>
>> Apple and Google are removing the ability of programs to retireve the
>> information from their APIs. Windows Phone does not provide the
>> functionality - period.
>>
>> The question should be (if the claims are true): what is the FBI doing
>> with the non-public information, and how did they obtain it?
>
> Naturally, you'll assume the worst -- instead of being concerned that an undefined group of people who largely consider themselves anarchists is breaking the official laptop of a US federal agent.
They are both threats to the data under my purview, so they are both
threats to me - I don't discrimate between 'bad' bad guys and 'good'
bad guys.
>> The answer to the latter is probably chilling: I would suspect a
>> partnership between priavate/corporate america and government
>> (possibly a Fushion Center). It totally sidesteps protections afforded
>> to us (the citizens).
>
> You're making a fundamental mistake: Fourth Amendment protections still apply, and corporate/government "partnerships" do not allow the state to bypass it.
>
> Fusion centers have ZERO to do with any of this, but it's a standard whipping boy among the Alex Jones/Infowars types, so I'm not surprised to see it come up here.
>
Actually, I don't read Alex Jones. But I did read an excellent article
from MIT and Fusion Centers. It seems its becomming increasingly
common (popular?) to use a public/private partnerships to sidestep the
protections (I can't find the reference at the moment).
If I had to speculate, I would guess the FBI likely got its
information directly from Apple. Apple has obscene License Agreements
and Terms of Service, and are free to do whatever they want with your
data (IMEIs, IMSI, UDIDs, or even data in their iCloud). I know
lawyers who are emphatical about keeping corporate data on a device -
and off of iTunes Backup and iCloud. Apple takes no repsonsibility for
reputational or financial loss, and has no requirement to make an
individual or entity whole. But again, its all speculation and we will
probably never know the answers to some questions.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden