You know what's coming next: FBI is upset it can't get into Texas church gunman's smartphone

0 views
Skip to first unread message

David Fritz

unread,
Nov 11, 2017, 3:10:44 PM11/11/17
to
FBI agents investigating the murder-suicide of 26 people in a church in
Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday, have said they can't yet unlock the
shooter's smartphone.

In a press conference on Tuesday, special agent Chris Combs said that
investigations into the motives and actions of the gunman was ongoing, but
that his mobe was a closed book to them.

"With the advance of technology, and the phones, and the encryption, law
enforcement at the state, local or federal level is increasingly unable to
get into phones," Combs said. "I'm not going to say what kind of phone it
is, I'm not going to tell every bad guy what phone to buy to harass our
efforts to try to find justice here."

The cops say the mass shooting was sparked by a family dispute, and that
the murderer's mother-in-law was living in the town. She was not at the
church service, though, when the gunman, armed with an AR-15 assault
rifle, entered and killed two dozen people, who were aged 18 months to 77
years, and injured a further 20 folk.

It looks as though the FBI is going to get into another showdown with a
phone manufacturer over the unlocking of a handset, as it did with the San
Bernardino shooter and Apple. In that case the killer destroyed all of his
laptops and cellphones, except his work iPhone.

The Feds tried to force Apple to unlock the mobe after the agency failed
to get past the PIN screen. The iGiant refused to make special software to
bypass the security mechanisms in the device, and aggressively fought the
US government in court to resist the order. Later, the agency gave up the
battle, and found a third party to break into the phone for it.

According to its latest statements, the FBI has almost 7,000 smartphones
that it can't get past the passcode screens or otherwise access. However,
with the church mass-murder such an emotive case, it may use this one to
take another legal stand, and force a handset maker to unlock and decrypt
the Texas gunman's phone, as part of its wider campaign for breakable
encryption in consumer electronics.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/08/fbi_texas_church_gunman/

Shadow

unread,
Nov 11, 2017, 7:46:28 PM11/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:10:43 -0000 (UTC), David Fritz
<david...@vzw.com> wrote:

>FBI agents investigating the murder-suicide of 26 people in a church in
>Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday, have said they can't yet unlock the
>shooter's smartphone.

The guy's medical record would be far more revealing.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

!Jones

unread,
Nov 11, 2017, 10:28:20 PM11/11/17
to
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:45:57 -0200, in talk.politics.guns Shadow
<S...@dow.br> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:10:43 -0000 (UTC), David Fritz
><david...@vzw.com> wrote:
>
>>FBI agents investigating the murder-suicide of 26 people in a church in
>>Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday, have said they can't yet unlock the
>>shooter's smartphone.
>
> The guy's medical record would be far more revealing.
> []'s

"Unlocking" something that has been encrypted by a single user key is
nearly impossible... right next to it, anyway. The user types a
phrase; take an MD5 and seed the random generator; now XOR bit by
bit... the attacker has 2^128 (something like one followed by about 38
zeros) keys to try. Even with known plaintext (which they certainly
have), it'll take months. There just aren't any magic shortcuts.
There aren't any "master keys" like there might be for the RSA if the
key numbers generated aren't prime... it's all brute force. All it
depends on is the entropy of the random generator and they're pretty
damn good nowadays.

They've got the medical records, I'm sure.

So what? He was never committed; he was ordered into a mental health
evaluation by an Air Force medical officer; he didn't "escape"... he
simply went AWOL.

He was convicted of a misdemeanor assault; two counts of article 128,
UCMJ. The charge never explicitly mentioned "domestic violence". The
UCMJ does not have a specific "domestic violence" article. Anything
tried by special court martial is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Under
current law, neither were required to be reported under the letter of
the law.

Kelly was a legally armed citizen... up until the events of last
Sunday, that it. (So are most of them, BTW.)

Jones

--
How's my posting?

Direct Complaints to the Usenet Abuse Hotline:
Please Dial: 1-800-328-7448

Shadow

unread,
Nov 13, 2017, 5:49:30 PM11/13/17
to
He was crazy, not a member of some fantasy "terror group". The
only reason the FBI want to unencrypt his phone is to make a
precedent.

No mandatory psych test to buy a gun + crazy == murder.

Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test. It only
takes an hour and can be done every 5 years or so.

Just Wondering

unread,
Nov 13, 2017, 9:00:55 PM11/13/17
to
On 11/13/2017 3:48 PM, Shadow wrote:
>
> Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test.

Where's your data to back that up? Why would you want to subject people
to such a test, what do you think it would show, who would have access
to individual results, who would interpret the results, what's the
margin of error, what about false positives and false negatives about
whatever you're trying to find, what would it actually accomplish?
Answer: The whole concept is a pile of bat guano.

Shadow

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 10:29:27 AM11/14/17
to
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:00:52 -0700, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 11/13/2017 3:48 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>
>> Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test.
>
>Where's your data to back that up?

Medical books. History of recent slaughters. Medical data on mass
murderers.

>Why would you want to subject people to such a test

Because psychotics shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.

>what do you think it would show

If a person is psychotic

>who would have access to individual results

the government

>who would interpret the results

Psychiatrists. You got it the wrong way round. They would interpret
the results, and just send a Psychotic ? "yes" "no" "maybe" to the
government.

>what's the margin of error

Tiny, if the "maybe" cases have a more thorough/frequent exam.

>what about false positives and false negatives

Obviously, the false positives could ask for a re-test by another
psychiatrist if they thought the first one was biased. The false
negatives could get the psychiatrist sued if they go on a killing
spree, so they wouldn't be very frequent.

>whatever you're trying to find, what would it actually accomplish?

It would stop psychotic and/or rampant sociopaths from buying guns.

>Answer: The whole concept is a pile of bat guano.

No, it's used in a lot of countries. No schools and churches shot up
there..

BTW, the very first question on the exam would be:
"Should psychotics/violent psychopaths be allowed to buy guns ?"

and the second:
"Why/why not ?"

EPIC FAIL !!!!!! Sorry mate, you tested positive. You can always apply
for a re-evaluation. You "got your rights" etc.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 10:33:47 AM11/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:29:06 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:00:52 -0700, Just Wondering
><fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11/13/2017 3:48 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>
>>> Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test.
>>
>>Where's your data to back that up?
>
>Medical books. History of recent slaughters. Medical data on mass
>murderers.

TRANSLATION: No such data exists.


>>Why would you want to subject people to such a test
>
>Because psychotics shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.

Let's have "psych tests" before a person can enjoy ANY right, then.
Voting. Jury duty. Posting to usenet.

Running for President.

Shadow

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 10:55:33 AM11/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:33:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:29:06 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:00:52 -0700, Just Wondering
>><fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/13/2017 3:48 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test.
>>>
>>>Where's your data to back that up?
>>
>>Medical books. History of recent slaughters. Medical data on mass
>>murderers.
>
>TRANSLATION: No such data exists.

TRANSLATION: You haven't spent 30 years studying it.
>
>
>>>Why would you want to subject people to such a test
>>
>>Because psychotics shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.
>
>Let's have "psych tests" before a person can enjoy ANY right, then.
>Voting.

No, 98-99% of the people are not psychotic, so it would not
change the results.

>Jury duty.

Why not ?
How would you feel about having a possible life sentence
decided by psychos ? The mathematical chance of having a jury composed
by > 50% psychotics is minimal, but it exists.

>Posting to usenet.

I don't think posting to Usenet has even caused a mass
slaughter. Let me look at the MASSIVE data ..........
Nope. never
>
>Running for President.

OMG. I thought being a rampant sociopath was mandatory.

><rest of my reply psychotically removed>

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 11:06:11 AM11/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:54:51 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:33:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:29:06 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:00:52 -0700, Just Wondering
>>><fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/13/2017 3:48 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test.
>>>>
>>>>Where's your data to back that up?
>>>
>>>Medical books. History of recent slaughters. Medical data on mass
>>>murderers.
>>
>>TRANSLATION: No such data exists.
>
>TRANSLATION: You haven't spent 30 years studying it.

You have ZERO data showing that "Normal people don't mind doing a
simple psych test."

>>>>Why would you want to subject people to such a test
>>>
>>>Because psychotics shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.
>>
>>Let's have "psych tests" before a person can enjoy ANY right, then.
>>Voting.
>
> No, 98-99% of the people are not psychotic, so it would not
>change the results.

So it wouldn't have prevented Trump from becoming President?

No, according to you, lives could be saved by these tests.

>>Jury duty.
>
> Why not ?
> How would you feel about having a possible life sentence
>decided by psychos ? The mathematical chance of having a jury composed
>by > 50% psychotics is minimal, but it exists.

Not surprising you're for this.

>>Posting to usenet.
>
> I don't think posting to Usenet has even caused a mass
>slaughter. Let me look at the MASSIVE data ..........
> Nope. never

You have no proof of that AGAIN.


>>Running for President.
>
> OMG. I thought being a rampant sociopath was mandatory.

Only if you're running as a Democrat.

Shadow

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 1:28:36 PM11/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:06:08 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:54:51 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:33:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:29:06 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:00:52 -0700, Just Wondering
>>>><fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 11/13/2017 3:48 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normal people don't mind doing a simple psych test.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where's your data to back that up?
>>>>
>>>>Medical books. History of recent slaughters. Medical data on mass
>>>>murderers.
>>>
>>>TRANSLATION: No such data exists.
>>
>>TRANSLATION: You haven't spent 30 years studying it.
>
>You have ZERO data showing that "Normal people don't mind doing a
>simple psych test."

You have to do one to pass a driving license where I live. No,
people complain about queues, but not the tests.
>
>>>>>Why would you want to subject people to such a test
>>>>
>>>>Because psychotics shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.
>>>
>>>Let's have "psych tests" before a person can enjoy ANY right, then.
>>>Voting.
>>
>> No, 98-99% of the people are not psychotic, so it would not
>>change the results.
>
>So it wouldn't have prevented Trump from becoming President?
>
>No, according to you, lives could be saved by these tests.
>
>>>Jury duty.
>>
>> Why not ?
>> How would you feel about having a possible life sentence
>>decided by psychos ? The mathematical chance of having a jury composed
>>by > 50% psychotics is minimal, but it exists.
>
>Not surprising you're for this.
>
>>>Posting to usenet.
>>
>> I don't think posting to Usenet has even caused a mass
>>slaughter. Let me look at the MASSIVE data ..........
>> Nope. never
>
>You have no proof of that AGAIN.

Well, you seem to be far more experienced than I am. Show me a
case.
>
>
>>>Running for President.
>>
>> OMG. I thought being a rampant sociopath was mandatory.
>
>Only if you're running as a Democrat.

So that's why they lost. They couldn't find a candidate.
Figures.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 2:54:37 PM11/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:27:24 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:06:08 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>>You have ZERO data showing that "Normal people don't mind doing a
>>simple psych test."
>
> You have to do one to pass a driving license where I live. No,
>people complain about queues, but not the tests.

I seriously doubt that. But you can always reveal what state that is
so I can fact check you.


TOS tRudey now!

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 3:02:08 PM11/14/17
to
On 11/14/2017 12:54 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> I seriously doubt that. But you can always reveal what state that is
> so I can fact check you.
>
Let's revisit your stance on THIS current event K-Louse, then you tell
us what defines you and what you REALLY believe:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:20:39 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
<lbax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:oqmhj...@news6.newsguy.com:
>
>> Marc Thiessen: Want to protest Trump? Disrespecting the flag is a
>> disgraceful way to do it
>
> Much better to disrespect the flag by:
> - wearing American flag clothing
> - carrying flag flat
> - drawing on the flag
> - using disposable flag products
> - flag advertisements
> - flag uniforms
> - tattered flag on your car
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yczdy7hb
>
> Kneeling during the Anthem is NOT disrespecting the flag.

Fuck the flag, and fuck the national anthem.

Wrap the fucking national anthem sheet music and a picture of Francis
Scott Key in the flag, and burn it.

Who. Gives. A. Fuck.

Only brain-dead, inbred, unread Trump supporters think this is a
sacrilege that needs avengin', and quick.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/2-americans-what-nfl-players-do-during-the-national-anthem-27952706.png

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Care to explain THAT un_American outburst for us????

TOS tRudey now!

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 3:02:35 PM11/14/17
to
On 11/14/2017 9:06 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> Not surprising you're for this.

TOS tRudey now!

unread,
Nov 14, 2017, 3:02:55 PM11/14/17
to
On 11/14/2017 8:33 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> Let's have "psych tests" before a person can enjoy ANY right, then.
> Voting. Jury duty. Posting to usenet.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages