874 karma · joined August 28, 2017
Is this strictly true? I feel like the evidence that a photo was present on specific device is different from evidence that a photo was uploaded by a specific account (and a specific ip address probably).
It seems like it would be far easier for the government to justify a search warrant if they have evidence the photo they are looking for was on a specific device. Just having evidence that a specific account uploaded a photo seems like far shakier grounds to search a specific device, after all accounts are often stolen to be used for criminal purposes and ip addresses don't map cleanly to people or devices.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administra...
Also Clearview itself has been found breaking the law repeatedly.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/class-action-suit-against-...
So you would need to break open the co-processor without destroying its contents and read the secure enclave key before any brute forcing could happen directly on the encrypted data.
And no you can't just try to brute force it by sending decryption requests to the secure enclave. The secure enclave itself implements a exponentially increasing lockout time and won't respond to decryption requests during it. [0]
[0] https://www.apple.com/in/business-docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pd...
> To further discourage brute-force passcode attacks, there are escalating time delays after the entry of an invalid passcode at the Lock screen. ...On devices with Secure Enclave, the delays are enforced by the Secure Enclave coprocessor. If the device is restarted during a timed delay, the delay is still enforced, with the timer starting over for the current period.
https://www.apple.com/in/business-docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pd...
Its not clear from your answer how much blame you are putting on operational issues and how much blame (if any) you are putting on the misaligned incentives between governments and the people who use their services.
First, you’ll use this technique to solve one of the most annoying problems known to humanity: version-controlling Microsoft Word documents. Everyone knows that Word is the most horrific editor around, but oddly, everyone still uses it.
...Now Git knows that if it tries to do a diff between two snapshots, and any of the files end in .docx, it should run those files through the “word” filter, which is defined as the docx2txt program. This effectively makes nice text-based versions of your Word files before attempting to diff them.
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Attribute...
This makes it sound like the limitation is on how long you have before you can't sue. But if you have already sued and won then the statute of limitations wouldn't apply. I think instead there is a time limitation for collecting on the judgment from the suit.