←back to thread

Leaker reveals which Pixels are vulnerable to Cellebrite phone hacking

(arstechnica.com)
446 points akyuu | 1 comments | 30 Oct 25 23:12 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
derbOac ◴[30 Oct 25 23:39 UTC] No.45766747[source]▶
They couldn't answer the question most on my mind: "We’ve reached out to Google to inquire about why a custom ROM created by volunteers is more resistant to industrial phone hacking than the official Pixel OS. We’ll update this article if Google has anything to say."
replies(10): >>45766778 #>>45777056 #>>45778032 #>>45778056 #>>45779079 #>>45779102 #>>45779404 #>>45780503 #>>45781099 #>>45783125 #
bigyabai ◴[30 Oct 25 23:43 UTC] No.45766778[source]▶
Short answer: Google is a business that can be compelled by the federal government in ways that nonprofits are resistant to. Ron Wyden identified one of these weaknesses in 2023: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
replies(3): >>45768420 #>>45776776 #>>45777359 #
GeekyBear ◴[31 Oct 25 21:14 UTC] No.45776776{3}[source]▶
No American company has a choice when the Feds want data stored on a company's server.

That doesn't stop Apple or any other company from designing devices that attempt to keep prying eyes out of the data stored on your device.

replies(3): >>45776872 #>>45779077 #>>45780067 #
bitwize ◴[31 Oct 25 21:24 UTC] No.45776872{4}[source]▶
The government has ways of twisting the arms of uncooperative people/organizations into providing all the backdoors they need. Everything from increased tax and regulatory scrutiny to "discovering" CSAM on executives' computers or phones.

The government does what it wants because it's the government. Mere laws generally don't stand in its way for long.

replies(4): >>45776920 #>>45776928 #>>45777883 #>>45780246 #
gleenn ◴[31 Oct 25 21:30 UTC] No.45776920{5}[source]▶
I think this is a very negative idea to promote: that laws should can be subverted. Everyone should believe that laws work and when they don't we should work to fix that, not assume that it can never be fixed.
replies(6): >>45777205 #>>45777775 #>>45778094 #>>45778235 #>>45778297 #>>45778794 #
1. cyphar ◴[01 Nov 25 02:31 UTC] No.45778794{6}[source]▶
On the other hand, it can be a grave mistake to confuse how things should be with how things are. Activists and whistleblowers should not act with the blind assumption that laws will protect them and that "minor" hurdles to law enforcement (i.e., the 5th amendment in the US) will be sufficient to protect them either.

I'm also unfortunately not convinced that some of these problems are tractible -- one of the core issues is that the legal systems of the world have adopted the third-party doctrine for warrants and so even if there was a legal right to prevent everyone's devices from being backdoored you would also have to depend on Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple to be willing to go to court at great expense to defend your rights. I don't like to think of myself as being cynical, but I just don't believe that would happen. And if the company is happy to comply, law enforcement doesn't even need a warrant. I honestly don't see how anything other than technological solutions are on the table here.

(I am aware of the high-profile stuff with Apple and Google claiming to fight against backdoors in court. In this respect I must admit that I am a cynic -- Cellebrite/NSO/et al claim they can get into iPhones and Android devices and law enforcement agencies happily buy their products, so someone here is lying.)