What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

plawolf

Lieutenant General
A bit old, but worth posting since it hasn't really been reported at all.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


How Chinese-Indians paid the price for 1962 war
By Sandip RoyKolkata

As the world ushered in the Year of the Monkey, the eastern Indian city of Kolkata (Calcutta) also had its own Chinese New Year Parade.

That's only fitting.

Kolkata is home to India's only Chinatown, complete with soy sauce factories, ornate temples and tiny clubs where old men play mah-jong.

Even as recently as 10 years ago there were 25 dragon dance troupes in Kolkata. Now there are barely five. The Chinese have been leaving steadily over the last few decades.

"We left the country because of mistrust," says Michael Cheng. "Otherwise today we might still be Indian."

Once a third-generation Indian, he is now a naturalized American citizen, living in North Carolina.

In 1962 when he was six, Mr Cheng and his family were taken from their homes in the hills of Darjeeling and bundled into a train that rumbled across India, the word "enemy" scrawled on its side, every compartment filled with befuddled and scared Chinese families.

They ended up in the dusty Deoli internment camp in the deserts of Rajasthan.

Once India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was imprisoned there by the British. Now Nehru's government was imprisoning some 3,000 Chinese residents of India.

India and China were at war for barely one month. But Mr Cheng languished in the camp for 22 months.

"Deoli-wallahs"
He was lucky. Some stayed over four years.

When they were released, the family was not allowed to go back to Darjeeling where his father ran a restaurant and a shoe business.

They were dumped in Kolkata, their movements severely restricted.

"They would not let us go back where we belonged. They would not let my parents go outside Kolkata to make a living. That was a slow killing," he says.

A few months ago Mr Cheng came back to India with some other "Deoli-wallahs" as they call themselves.

Yin Marsh was 13 when she went to the camp with her father and brother. She wrote a memoir about it - Doing Time with Nehru.

In August 1962 Steven Wen was in an Independence Day parade saluting the Indian flag. Three months later he was in Deoli.

Wen eventually left on a Taiwanese passport in 1969. For almost 50 years he didn't set foot in India or even admit to his Indian roots. He told everyone he was from Taiwan.

"If I said I was born in India it just reminded me of the humiliation I received," he says.

He is back on as much a fact-finding mission as an awareness-raising campaign.

Few Indians know about the Deoli camp or how the Defence of India Act of 1962 permitted detention in custody "of any person (suspected) of being of hostile origin".

Fewer know that Chinese people born before 1950 and living in India are still stateless, needing to renew a residence permit every year.

Traumatic memories
There has been no apology and no reparations. When the Association of India Deoli Camp Internees wrote a letter to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh they got no response.

"Over 20 internees died in that camp. We would like to build something in remembrance," says Mr Wen.

Even the Chinese did not speak about Deoli for years. But that does not mean they do not remember.

"My identity card number is 880. My father is one number before me - 879," says Monica Liu, one of the few who stayed on in India.

Her restaurant, Beijing, in Kolkata's Tangra Chinatown, is always bustling, famous for its award-winning golden fried prawns.

She owns five Chinese restaurants now and once opened an Indian restaurant in China. She runs a little empire from her office above the restaurant, barking orders at her managers in Hindi, meeting a stream of locals who want her help.

"I don't want to remember bad things that happened to us," she says. "But no one will forget."

When her family was detained, her grandparents in China stopped receiving remittances from her father. Her grandfather died, she says, of hunger.

She remembers a friend, unused to the desert heat, dying of sunstroke in the camp.

To this day, she cannot eat potatoes or bottle gourd. "For five and a half years I ate that only," she says. "I don't want to smell that even."

Camp life
The Deoli internees around today were children then and for some of them it was almost like an extended vacation.

Yin Marsh remembers the excitement when they were served meat once and the revulsion when they discovered it was camel. "There were things floating around - little tubes and bits of intestine," she says.

Mr Wen remembers growing watermelons and killing birds with a slingshot fashioned out of a rubber tire.

"Our favourite bird was pigeon - a great delicacy," he says, smiling for the first time. He remembers killing one, cleaning it and giving it away to the father of a girl he liked.

"I still remember the girl's name, Lee Foong," he says tears welling up. "I don't know where she is now. I just want to know how she is."

"Education was the biggest thing I lost," says Mr Cheng. The children had no blackboards and wrote on slates with chalk. "When I was released from camp I was three years behind everybody. I was never able to make it up."

There is little chance anyone will be "making it up" to them soon.

An Indian bureaucrat close to the Prime Minister's office told Yin Marsh that even with a new government in place, one not beholden to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru and his descendants, an apology was unlikely.

A more plausible goal may perhaps be to re-evaluate residence permits for Chinese people born in India before 1950, or a monument or plaque acknowledging what happened in Deoli.

After returning from India, some of the former detainees are now setting up their own non-profit organisation with the help of an American lawyer.

The Indian government has said recently that those who could produce documents showing legal title to lost property could file claims.

Many had left their businesses in the hands of associates and neighbours they trusted, thinking they would be back in days or weeks. When they came back after years, neighbours shut their doors on them and old school friends greeted them with racist abuse.

But after all these years, Monica Liu is not sure what an apology will even achieve. It all feels like a "once upon a time" kind of story, she says.

"What is sorry?" she says. "Just a common word like a small wind blowing on your skin. Whatever we had is already gone."

Imagine the international uproar and media coverage had China done something like this.

Make no mistake, I have little doubt that things like this can still happen even in today's world to overseas Chinese.

This is the very real threat all the rabble rousing thinly veiled racism in the western press carries.

It would be as foolish as it would be ineffective to depend on the good nature of people to prevent things like this, when the only proven means of deterrence is a strong China, who will speak out for its people when they are mistreated abroad, and who can make states pay if they fail to stop such despicable behaviour.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Imagine the international uproar and media coverage had China done something like this.

Make no mistake, I have little doubt that things like this can still happen even in today's world to overseas Chinese.

This is the very real threat all the rabble rousing thinly veiled racism in the western press carries.

It would be as foolish as it would be ineffective to depend on the good nature of people to prevent things like this, when the only proven means of deterrence is a strong China, who will speak out for its people when they are mistreated abroad, and who can make states pay if they fail to stop such despicable behaviour.

The truth of the matter is, overseas Chinese have always been keenly aware of how vulnerable they are, or could be. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that this awareness is almost bred into our culture. This is part of the reason many of us wish for a strong China, even though we would probably never live there on a permanent basis. In our minds, overseas Chinese are persecuted because China was weak. A strong China means better security for us.

I know this might not make any sense to non-Chinese, but this feeling is very real.
 
If Apple ultimately declines to assist the FBI in gaining access to the Bernandino shooter's iPhone then both the company and its employees such as Tim Cook himself should be held responsible for obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting terrorists and murderers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Tim Cook says Apple will fight US gov’t over court-ordered iPhone backdoor
Apple CEO says use of All Writs Act to demand a backdoor is "chilling," "too dangerous."

by Sebastian Anthony (UK) - Feb 17, 2016 5:39am EST

Apple chief Tim Cook has attacked the recent court order that compels Apple to unlock and decrypt the San Bernardino gunman's iPhone. "Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the US government," says an open letter published by Cook early this morning.

Late yesterday, a federal judge in California ordered Apple to help the US government (the FBI) unlock and decrypt the iPhone 5C belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, who shot up an office party in San Bernardino in December 2015.

In the past, Apple has helped extract data from iPhones when issued with an appropriate warrant. Since iOS 8, however, full encryption has been enabled by default—a move that was seemingly introduced specifically to prevent such data-grabs by governments. "Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data," the company wrote on its website at the time. "So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8."

Now, however, Judge Sheri Pym has ordered Apple to introduce a backdoor to help the FBI unlock the iPhone—and, unsurprisingly, Tim Cook is not best pleased.

Cook's "message to our customers" is quite impressively aggressive. It begins by explaining why we need encryption, moves onto a brief history of the San Bernardino case, and then explains exactly what the FBI actually wants from Apple. Here's the core of the letter:

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
From the court order, we even know what kind of backdoor the US government wants:

Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
Basically, right now there are measures in place to stop someone from picking up your iPhone and brute-forcing the code to unlock your phone. The FBI wants a backdoor that allows such a brute-force attack to take place. With direct passcode input through the iPhone's Lightning port, and no additional delay between passcode attempts, cracking the code would be very easy.

Apple, for its part, opposes the court order. "We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack," Cook writes. "We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country ... While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products."

Finally, one last thought: Tim Cook published the open letter at midnight Pacific time, when most Americans were already asleep. Europe, however, was just waking up—and Europeans tend to get quite upset by egregious breaches of privacy. If Apple was compelled to introduce such a backdoor for the FBI, European governments would have access to it as well.

This post originated on Ars Technica UK
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
If Apple ultimately declines to assist the FBI in gaining access to the Bernandino shooter's iPhone then both the company and its employees such as Tim Cook himself should be held responsible for obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting terrorists and murderers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I highly doubt that they would be charged with such. It's one thing if they're withholding information that they have from the FBI; it's an entirely different situation if the FBI wants Apple to order its employees to spend company time and money developing yet non-existent software to counter Apple's own defenses against hacking. You can order someone to hand something over but you can't order someone to create something.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I highly doubt that they would be charged with such. It's one thing if they're withholding information that they have from the FBI; it's an entirely different situation if the FBI wants Apple to order its employees to spend company time and money developing yet non-existent software to counter Apple's own defenses against hacking. You can order someone to hand something over but you can't order someone to create something.
Correct.

It is true a valid search warrant was obtained. But they are asking Apple to do the search.

That would be like finding that a neighbor down the block was arrested for some terrible crime, and then the police, when they got the warrant to go into the guy's house, because he had purchased a custom carburetor from you, want you to come over and help them get his car running.

Most of us would be willing to help...but it is not a crime not to, particularly if in so doing, your patent and custom knowledge of how to build the carburetor might become public knowledge.

For me, Apple should offer to take the Phone and crack it in their lab and then hand the data over to the FBI. but the FBI wants software developed by Apple to do it and then keep that software.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Correct.

It is true a valid search warrant was obtained. But they are asking Apple to do the search.

That would be like finding that a neighbor down the block was arrested for some terrible crime, and then the police, when they got the warrant to go into the guy's house, because he had purchased a custom carburetor from you, want you to come over and help them get his car running.

Most of us would be willing to help...but it is not a crime not to, particularly if in so doing, your patent and custom knowledge of how to build the carburetor might become public knowledge.

For me, Apple should offer to take the Phone and crack it in their lab and then hand the data over to the FBI. but the FBI wants software developed by Apple to do it and then keep that software.
Apple's saying they won't crack that phone, even for one use, because the technology to crack Apple's OS would have to be developed first, and once it's made, will find a way to proliferate and end up in the wrong hands. Then, it'd be something you wish you could un-invent but it'd be too late. So now, Cook's foresight is telling him to stop its creation.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I just saw a local news report that said the iPhone was issued by his workplace. Chances are they're not going to find anything important. It sounds like it's just being used as an excuse to get Apple to make a key to unlock iPhones.

Indirectly there was another story of how Apple just bought some industrial park near a residential neighborhood. The residents are complaining because there is 24 hour a day noise coming from there and there's high amounts of security to where residents when they walk their dogs are followed by security everywhere they go in their own neighborhood. Just shows how much Apple values their own secrets. The rumor is Apple's smart car is being developed there.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Didn't Snowdon say you are screwed if you use an iPhone?

Maybe the FBI will have better luck speaking to their colleges in the CIA (banned to operate on US soil).

Although the whole thing almost feel like a staged act to try and shore up world wide faith in US high tech products after the body-blow the Snowdon leaks dealt them.

In the past, companies get help requests from government agencies in secret, often with gag orders banning them from disclosing details.

Odd then that the FBI is making such a public spectacle of this, when it should have been blindingly obvious Apple (and every other company) would fight tooth and nail to resist such requests if they are public knowledge because to comply would demolish public trust in their products. Thus the far better solution would have been to stick with the tried and tested formula of the past - issue a court order with accompanying gag order.

Companies would be more inclined to help knowing their brand won't be damaged by complying, and they would also be far more likely to loose if the resisted such secret requests, as without public outcry and pressure, judges would be more inclined to side with the government.

To air all this out in the open maximises resistance from Apple and minimises the chances the FBI will get what they want.

Almost like the FBI is setting themselves to take a dive.

Not only would that make strategic sense, it would also make tactical sense if the FBI secretly got the CIA to unlock the data on the phone, but made a public fuss about not being able to get at the data.

That helps to keep the data recovered from the phone useful and relevant for longer, as the terrorists would be less inclined to go burning contacts and resources if they think those assets are still secure (since the FBI couldn't unlock the phone), and maybe be tempted to specifically opt to use iPhones if they think the US alphabet agencies can't get into them, presenting US agencies an intelligence bonanza if they actually do have a working back door into iPhones.

Such a charade benefits everyone involved (except the terrorists), so would be a logical move to make.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Didn't Snowdon say you are screwed if you use an iPhone?

Maybe the FBI will have better luck speaking to their colleges in the CIA (banned to operate on US soil).

Although the whole thing almost feel like a staged act to try and shore up world wide faith in US high tech products after the body-blow the Snowdon leaks dealt them.

In the past, companies get help requests from government agencies in secret, often with gag orders banning them from disclosing details.

Odd then that the FBI is making such a public spectacle of this, when it should have been blindingly obvious Apple (and every other company) would fight tooth and nail to resist such requests if they are public knowledge because to comply would demolish public trust in their products. Thus the far better solution would have been to stick with the tried and tested formula of the past - issue a court order with accompanying gag order.

Companies would be more inclined to help knowing their brand won't be damaged by complying, and they would also be far more likely to loose if the resisted such secret requests, as without public outcry and pressure, judges would be more inclined to side with the government.

To air all this out in the open maximises resistance from Apple and minimises the chances the FBI will get what they want.

Almost like the FBI is setting themselves to take a dive.

Not only would that make strategic sense, it would also make tactical sense if the FBI secretly got the CIA to unlock the data on the phone, but made a public fuss about not being able to get at the data.

That helps to keep the data recovered from the phone useful and relevant for longer, as the terrorists would be less inclined to go burning contacts and resources if they think those assets are still secure (since the FBI couldn't unlock the phone), and maybe be tempted to specifically opt to use iPhones if they think the US alphabet agencies can't get into them, presenting US agencies an intelligence bonanza if they actually do have a working back door into iPhones.

Such a charade benefits everyone involved (except the terrorists), so would be a logical move to make.

Exactly what I was thinking. I don't see Cook being that altruistic as Apple was never marketed to be an ultra secure device like Blackberry was, and now suddenly, Cook is being this champion of privacy? Doesn't add up.

Furthermore, from a technological point of view, it doesn't make sense. Information is secured through encryption, which can always be cracked given enough time and resources. Why couldn't the FBI simply download the encrypted data and ask Apple for the encryption details? An iPhone pass key is only 4 digits, it doesn't take long to try all 10000 combinations once you have the encrypted data on your own computer.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Furthermore, from a technological point of view, it doesn't make sense. Information is secured through encryption, which can always be cracked given enough time and resources. Why couldn't the FBI simply download the encrypted data and ask Apple for the encryption details? An iPhone pass key is only 4 digits, it doesn't take long to try all 10000 combinations once you have the encrypted data on your own computer.

You need to unlock the phone in order to initiate a data sync to a computer.

It would be an obvious and serious flaw if it was possible to simply copy all the encrypted files from a locked phone onto another device to bypass the 10-errors-autowipe feature on iPhones, since as you rightly pointed out, a 4 digit passcode would be stupidly easy to defeat using a brute force attack that way.

Although it should be noted that 4 digits is only the default length of passcodes on iPhones, and it is perfectly possible to set a passcode as long as you could remember and be bothered to type in every time you wanted to unlock your phone (assuming it doesn't have fingerprint scanner).

Just ask this guy :D

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top