From: mariasophia@comprehension.com   
      
   Chris wrote:   
   >> even if   
   >> the servers containing your data are in the UK. So the US   
   >> administration, etc. can not only access your data,   
   >   
   > They cannot access your data if the system is set up properly (i.e.   
   > encrypted).   
      
      
   Being an avid student of history, I'm well aware that the Germans (who are   
   no slouches at math) thought the same thing, as did the Japanese in WWII.   
      
   As did the British and Americans, where my point is that even   
   billion-dollar ciphers are seemingly always broken by those who want it.   
      
   Generally, there is some other flaw that opens the door to decryption.   
      
   Hence, I doubt there is any security against a TLA with resources in any   
   Apple (or Microsoft or Samsung or Google, etc.) consumer encryption.   
      
   Of course, none of us face the threat of a TLA, but I ask the next question   
   to help all of us ponder if consumer encryption is crap or if it's good.   
      
   To get more data for our Occam's Razor conclusions, I would like to ask if   
   any encrypted cell phone (iOS or Android) has ever evaded the TLA scrutiny.   
      
   Q: Has a criminal's cell phone ever evaded LE's decryption attempts?   
   A: ? (note that LE can take advantage of zero-day holes if they like)   
      
   When I google if any modern encrypted phone (iOS or Android) remained   
   permanently inaccessible to law enforcement, even with flaws, exploits, and   
   full TLA-level effort, I do find that some cases weren't worth the effort.   
      
   Note that phones with biometrics were easily opened by LE, so passcodes   
   appear to be legally non-compelling while biometrics are just a gimmick.   
   --   
   Most people believe more in highly marketed biometric gimmicks than they   
   should given biometrics can legally be compelled while pins cannot be.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)