Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Al Doggity on February 17, 2016, 09:42:27 PM
-
Any thoughts on this epic battle? My theory: the husband and wife terrorists' phone is an obvious and convenient red herring. Current legal tussle not about this phone, but about creating the magical slippery slope.
-
No need for the government to intervene and force Apples hand in this matter. They should get their own hackers to break the security function of the phone, not force a company to do it. Gestapo tactics right der.
-
It's all show.
CrApple, Microshit and many others have backdoors for the government already incorporated in their products for many years.
If you want to make it a little harder for the government to spy on you use Linux.
-
On the surface this looked like a glamorous headline, but after looking at it it is certainly interesting.
I tend to agree with the rights over the people. I mean, like someone said it's a slippery slope and the rights of the people kept us from being run by communist dictators so there's that.
-
It's all show.
CrApple, Microshit and many others have backdoors for the government already incorporated in their products for many years.
If you want to make it a little harder for the government to spy on you use Linux.
x2. Just a bullshit ad campaign to promote how safe apple products are. Tbombz's ass is more protected.
-
So protection of terrorists is a noble thing? It's a court's order just like a warrant. Unless you believe law enforcement shouldn't have warrants to search computers and phones because it's a slippery slope. Just typical liberal thought that is ruining this country.
-
x2. Just a bullshit ad campaign to promote how safe apple products are. Tbombz's ass is more protected.
interesting comparison. Really something to ponder. :o
-
So protection of terrorists is a noble thing? It's a court's order just like a warrant. Unless you believe law enforcement shouldn't have warrants to search computers and phones because it's a slippery slope. Just typical liberal thought that is ruining this country.
It's not the same as a search warrant. You're forcing the manufacturer of the product to break into it for you. It's the same as the government forcing businesses to bake cakes for gay weddings. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not giving up my freedoms "just this one time" for the government.
-
It's not the same as a search warrant. You're forcing the manufacturer of the product to break into it for you. It's the same as the government forcing businesses to bake cakes for gay weddings. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not giving up my freedoms "just this one time" for the government.
I didn't read the article but its not about YOU giving up YOUR freedpom just this one time. Its a search of an individial cell phone related to a specific event. There's obviously loads of Probable cause to justify searching the phone (s) that belonged to the shooters. Nobody cares about your phone.
Apple one of the greediest organizations ever taking the high road is hilarious. Apple doesnt give a fuck about your personal freedoms.
-
It's not the same as a search warrant. You're forcing the manufacturer of the product to break into it for you. It's the same as the government forcing businesses to bake cakes for gay weddings. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not giving up my freedoms "just this one time" for the government.
Governments have a tendency of using tragedies to expand power and limit freedoms. The government could just get the phone records from ATT and Verizon.
-
The NSA had criticized Apple about a year ago because they encrypted their products. They accused them of protecting child molesters. ::) Apple can NOT get into that phone no matter what unless they can guess a simple password. The issue at hand is they want Apple to create a back door so they can get into your phone and computer.
I have spoken to Apple about this already regarding a phone my friend could not remember his password. They said you might a well toss it unless you an remember your PW. Apple gives you the option to use an advanced PW and from what I read you should have at least a 15 character one with various letters and numbers. Most people will not do this.
Some states have passed a new law I think NJ is one of them (perhaps Harley can verify) that if you get pulled over in you car they can now take your phone as evidence if you are charged with something or even if they suspect you have committed a crime.
-
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/12/23/National-Politics/Images/Untitled-51387827612.jpg)
-
The NSA had criticized Apple about a year ago because they encrypted their products. They accused them of protecting child molesters. ::) Apple can NOT get into that phone no matter what unless they can guess a simple password. The issue at hand is they want Apple to create a back door so they can get into your phone and computer.
With all due respect it's naive to think there's no backdoor in a device that has been mainly created to monitor the user's activities.
-
With all due respect it's naive to think there's no backdoor in a device that has been mainly created to monitor the user's activities.
Oh you may be right but I do know of a situation where local police took a mans phone and were unable to get in it. Maybe these back door devices are only reserved to certain agencies.
-
I didn't read the article but its not about YOU giving up YOUR freedpom just this one time. Its a search of an individial cell phone related to a specific event. There's obviously loads of Probable cause to justify searching the phone (s) that belonged to the shooters. Nobody cares about your phone.
Apple one of the greediest organizations ever taking the high road is hilarious. Apple doesnt give a fuck about your personal freedoms.
Well thanks for your opinion on a topic you admittedly know nothing about.
-
With all due respect it's naive to think there's no backdoor in a device that has been mainly created to monitor the user's activities.
Apple and your service provider don't need your password to monitor your activities.
-
Well thanks for your opinion on a topic you admittedly know nothing about.
This poster needs to understand that once this court battle is decided, it becomes legal precedent. It affects future similar cases.
-
So protection of terrorists is a noble thing? It's a court's order just like a warrant. Unless you believe law enforcement shouldn't have warrants to search computers and phones because it's a slippery slope. Just typical liberal thought that is ruining this country.
Did you read the article? All this could be solved if gun manufacturers would be required to invent a technology that won't allow the weapon to fire at an unarmed person.
-
Apple and your service provider don't need your password to monitor your activities.
Luckily I possess no crApple device.
And, yes I know.
-
Can someone give an example where a government agency has hacked into an Apple product using this "back door" technology?
-
This poster needs to understand that once this court battle is decided, it becomes legal precedent. It affects future similar cases.
Agreed however based on the comment I don't think this concept is understood.
-
Can someone give an example where a government agency has hacked into an Apple product using this "back door" technology?
Link (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data)
-
Link (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data)
Not what we are talking about here. Apple has recently encrypted all there products and if your phone or computer is shut off no one can get in.
-
Not what we are talking about here. Apple has recently encrypted all there products and if your phone or computer is shut off no one can get in.
This is dumb. What if you forget your password? ??? ??? You have to buy a whole new phone?
-
This is dumb. What if you forget your password? ??? ??? You have to buy a whole new phone?
Yes!
-
Not what we are talking about here. Apple has recently encrypted all there products and if your phone or computer is shut off no one can get in.
We talk about the government monitoring your activities.
My link simply proved it's already in full force.
Another
Link (http://www.infowars.com/91497/)
regarding "if your phone or computer is shut off no one can get in."
Don't expect your phone to be any different.
-
We talk about the government monitoring your activities.
My link simply proved it's already in full force.
Another
Link (http://www.infowars.com/91497/)
regarding "if your phone or computer is shut off no one can get in."
Don't expect your phone to be any different.
I am talking about getting into a phone with 256 bit AES Encryption. It can't be done.
The link you provided is another example of something we are not talking about. APPLE ENCRYPTION!!!!
-
I am talking about getting into a phone with 256 bit AES Encryption. It can't be done.
Apart from the NSA having more than enough computing horsepower to manage that...
they get the key beforehand.
Link (http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-does-the-nsa-bypass-online-encryption/169916/)
-
Yes!
Buy a new phone ??? ???
How can I unlock my iPhone if I forgot the passcode?
Apple explains how to unlock the iPhone if you have forgotten the passcode or password in the manual for each model. For the iPhone 5c, for example, it is provided on page 155 as well as on the company support site. However, as this is a very frequently asked question, the official answers and additional help are below for your convenience.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/iphone/iphone-troubleshooting-repair-faq/iphone-how-to-unlock-open-forgot-code-passcode-password-login.html
The only way to regain an entry into your iPhone is to restore it. Yes, that’s going to delete all data but, incidentally, even when you are locked out of your iPhone, you can backup data from it.
http://www.igeeksblog.com/i-forgot-my-iphone-passcode/
-
Tim Cook to FBI
-
Apart from the NSA having more than enough computing horsepower to manage that...
they get the key beforehand.
Link (http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-does-the-nsa-bypass-online-encryption/169916/)
Even if they can in theory, it would be extremely impractical. The resources needed to crack 50% of the combinations of a single 256 AES key are unfathomable. (https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time_and_energy_required_to_bruteforce_a_aes256/)
That's the power of cryptography for you.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html
Sorry, no idea if that is a link or needs copy and paste.
This is an Apple PR stunt, they've unlocked many times before.
-
Even if they can in theory, it would be impractical. The resources needed to crack 50% of the combinations of a 256 AES key are immense. (http://www.getbig.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time_and_energy_required_to_bruteforce_a_aes256/)
Yes.
But I think they are at minimum 30 but more likely 50 yrs ahead of official computer hardware.
So for them it will be a relatively easy task.
Using general computer hardware this will be no fun.
-
Yes.
But I think they are at minimum 30 but more likely 50 yrs ahead of official computer hardware.
So for them it will be a relatively easy task.
Using general computer hardware this will be no fun.
I think this is probably a bit of a hyperbolic statement.
-
Yes.
But I think they are at minimum 30 but more likely 50 yrs ahead of official computer hardware.
So for them it will be a relatively easy task.
Using general computer hardware this will be no fun.
The government buys the same hardware everyone else does.
I used to put in stuff for the DoD... They didn't have magical super computers that were more advanced than anyone else.
-
Buy a new phone ??? ???
How can I unlock my iPhone if I forgot the passcode?
Apple explains how to unlock the iPhone if you have forgotten the passcode or password in the manual for each model. For the iPhone 5c, for example, it is provided on page 155 as well as on the company support site. However, as this is a very frequently asked question, the official answers and additional help are below for your convenience.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/iphone/iphone-troubleshooting-repair-faq/iphone-how-to-unlock-open-forgot-code-passcode-password-login.html
The only way to regain an entry into your iPhone is to restore it. Yes, that’s going to delete all data but, incidentally, even when you are locked out of your iPhone, you can backup data from it.
http://www.igeeksblog.com/i-forgot-my-iphone-passcode/
You have to set your phone for that level of security. I only started using a passcode for my phone about a year ago, but my data won't be wiped if there are more than a certain number of attempts.
-
The government buys the same hardware everyone else does.
I used to put in stuff for the DoD... They didn't have magical super computers that were more advanced than anyone else.
Yeah, industry makes all of the significant computing/technological advances and they are mainly for the consumer market. Whatever "advanced" computer tech the government has that the gp doesn't is either because it is cost prohibitive for the consumer market or there isn't a demand for it on the consumer market.
-
so if you wanted to be an asshole , just grab some dumb bitch or douchebag you hate, enter the password 10 times incorrect and hopefully they dont back up their phones and you will have ruined their day for a few days to come :D
-
How far advanced is military technology in relation to available consumer tech? (https://www.quora.com/How-far-advanced-is-military-technology-in-relation-to-available-consumer-tech)
-
This poster needs to understand that once this court battle is decided, it becomes legal precedent. It affects future similar cases.
Once repubs give obama the permission to open ONE phone, he has the power and ability to open a million of them.
Trump is the loudest voice calling for this ;)
-
How far advanced is military technology in relation to available consumer tech? (https://www.quora.com/How-far-advanced-is-military-technology-in-relation-to-available-consumer-tech)
Did you read this link? ???
-
Did you read this link? ???
Of course.
-
Yes.
But I think they are at minimum 30 but more likely 50 yrs ahead of official computer hardware.
So for them it will be a relatively easy task.
Using general computer hardware this will be no fun.
I think Snowden's revelations shows they aren't that far ahead. They have acres filled with servers but so do the private sector tech giants.
The most exciting thing I read in Snowden's docs is that they are heavily researching quantum computing since it will be one way of cracking cryptography.
-
Of course.
That link doesn't support the argument that the government is 30-50 years ahead of the general public when it comes to technology. ???
-
That link doesn't support the argument that the government is 30-50 years ahead of the general public when it comes to technology. ???
Why not?
The military is a part of the government.
30-50 yrs has been my personal estimation.
The max. mentioned of military personal itself was like 20yrs.
Some civilian came to the conclusion it is like 44yrs.
-
Why not?
The military is a part of the government.
30-50 yrs has been my personal estimation.
The max. mentioned of military personal itself was like 20yrs.
Some civilian came to the conclusion it is like 44yrs.
Most of the people with knowledge of or connections to the military said that the gap was pretty small and continues to shrink, if one exists at all. And the people who elaborated on the 44 years estimate said that was an outdated notion that applied to a research and development structure that largely doesn't exist anymore. And the guy who made the 44 years estimate just guesstimated based on things he'd read on the internet. The guy with the most military experience said the gap was down to 12-18 months from a previous average of 2-4 years.
What do you think technology that is 50 years ahead of high-end consumer technology even looks like?
-
Most of the people with knowledge of or connections to the military said that the gap was pretty small and continues to shrink, if one exists at all. And the people who elaborated on the 44 years estimate said that was an outdated notion that applied to a research and development structure that largely doesn't exist anymore. And the guy who made the 44 years estimate just guesstimated based on things he'd read on the internet. The guy with the most military experience said the gap was down to 12-18 months from a previous average of 2-4 years.
What do you think technology that is 50 years ahead of high-end consumer technology even looks like?
;D
I have no idea.
-
;D
I have no idea.
Have a look at Kurzweil's predictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzweil#2019)
-
Have a look at Kurzweil's predictions (http://www.getbig.com/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzweil#2019)
Very interesting, probably not too far off and partially scary at the same time.
Thanks.
-
Most of the people with knowledge of or connections to the military said that the gap was pretty small and continues to shrink, if one exists at all. And the people who elaborated on the 44 years estimate said that was an outdated notion that applied to a research and development structure that largely doesn't exist anymore. And the guy who made the 44 years estimate just guesstimated based on things he'd read on the internet. The guy with the most military experience said the gap was down to 12-18 months from a previous average of 2-4 years.
What do you think technology that is 50 years ahead of high-end consumer technology even looks like?
So you doubt that there are huge (but extremely well hidden) multi-billion dollar fabs out there that produce tech decades ahead of anything Intel or TSMC can produce, using principles that researchers worldwide have not even discovered yet?
-
So you doubt that there are huge (but extremely well hidden) multi-billion dollar fabs out there that produce tech decades ahead of anything Intel or TSMC can produce, using principles that researchers worldwide have not even discovered yet?
Yes, I doubt it. It's just not possible. The competition for tech development talent is too stiff and the only way to fund high-level,cutting edge research and development is to be a profitable corporation. Advancements in technology don't occur in a vacuum. They are gradual and built upon previous advancements, so it just doesn't make sense that there are top secret organizations using undiscovered principles to create decades in the future technology.
-
Yes, I doubt it. It's just not possible. The competition for tech development talent is too stiff and the only way to fund high-level,cutting edge research and development is to be a profitable corporation. Advancements in technology don't occur in a vacuum. They are gradual and built upon previous advancements, so it just doesn't make sense that there are top secret organizations using undiscovered principles to create decades in the future technology.
Agreed. This isn't like when the government was funding all of these top secret computer projects.
Even all of the ship building and newest aircrafts are designed and built by corporations.
Computing power is not built by the government. They are buying stuff built by Intel, AMD, and Oracle.
-
how long before the FBI supercomputers could crack this guys password ???
-
Yes, I doubt it. It's just not possible. The competition for tech development talent is too stiff and the only way to fund high-level,cutting edge research and development is to be a profitable corporation. Advancements in technology don't occur in a vacuum. They are gradual and built upon previous advancements, so it just doesn't make sense that there are top secret organizations using undiscovered principles to create decades in the future technology.
If the government does have it, it hasn't made its way to the White House ;)
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/626779A5-4A7A-49FF-906A-D1A2B549B405_zpsnekongjm.png) (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/626779A5-4A7A-49FF-906A-D1A2B549B405_zpsnekongjm.png.html)
-
Anyone care to offer an opinion as to why Apple claims this matter requires a "public discussion"?
-
Anyone care to offer an opinion as to why Apple claims this matter requires a "public discussion"?
Because it affects 2 things in my mind.
1. It's a social and legal issue for the entire country so people (citizens) should be involved.
2. PR nightmare if they just do whatever the government says.
I saw where Google backed them as well.
-
Also, to get out in front of the story.
A legal battle between the U.S Government and the biggest company in the world isn't gonna be a secret for very long.
-
So "discussion" doesn't mean they're looking to soften the stand they claim, because lo and behold they've found the public "thinks it's more important" to seek some "compromise"?
We're talking about a terror attack on U.S. soil being the spark for the entire thing, a fact which couldn't possibly stay out of the "discussion".
How would this "discussion" go, exactly?
-
Go apple!! Google CEO wants to give law enforcement citizens data!! :-\
-
So "discussion" doesn't mean they're looking to soften the stand they claim, because lo and behold they've found the public "thinks it's more important" to seek some "compromise"?
We're talking about a terror attack on U.S. soil being the spark for the entire thing, a fact which couldn't possibly stay out of the "discussion".
How would this "discussion" go, exactly?
"Terror attack" is a media created term. This was more of a disgruntled employee losing his mind.
Do you think this would have been averted if the government had access to his cell phone prior to the attack?
There was the kid who lost it in California and he openly posted on bodybuilding.com and no one did anything to stop him from acting out on his rage.
Or do you really think there's vital "terrorist" information on that phone?
If the US government wanted to shut down terrorist attacks on homeland soil there are many useful steps they can take to achieve such a goal. Mining a cell phone for information is the least important of these.
-
It's not about them not doing it in this isolated case, it's about including some kind of backdoor in all future products. If they did what the feds were asking them to do, it would be technically possible for anyone to get in which is essentially undermining their product.
-
It's not about them not doing it in this isolated case, it's about including some kind of backdoor in all future products. If they did what the feds were asking them to do, it would be technically possible for anyone to get in which is essentially undermining their product.
This. ^
They want a master key to everyone's data. So unconstitutional it is beyond belief .
-
How would this "discussion" go, exactly?
They used the term "discussion" at the beginning of an open letter in which they discussed this issue. They were not calling for a discussion with the public. They were saying that the moment called for them to discuss THEIR POSITION in public.
-
Apple encryption is the shit.
http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios-encryption
Android sucks on older devices. Upgrade your phones people.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/phone-and-laptop-encryption-guide-protect-your-stuff-and-yourself/
-
"Terror attack" is a media created term. This was more of a disgruntled employee losing his mind.
Do you think this would have been averted if the government had access to his cell phone prior to the attack?
There was the kid who lost it in California and he openly posted on bodybuilding.com and no one did anything to stop him from acting out on his rage.
Or do you really think there's vital "terrorist" information on that phone?
If the US government wanted to shut down terrorist attacks on homeland soil there are many useful steps they can take to achieve such a goal. Mining a cell phone for information is the least important of these.
I suspect that Apple has infested our government to the point they might as well be one and the same.
So I'm not entirely convinced this is what it's said to be, when it comes down to it.
-
They used the term "discussion" at the beginning of an open letter in which they discussed this issue. They were not calling for a discussion with the public. They were saying that the moment called for them to discuss THEIR POSITION in public.
So you have full faith they aren't looking to soften the position. Is that correct?
-
So you have full faith they aren't looking to soften the position. Is that correct?
I do. Why? Because how would buy a phone with a back door? Everybody was something on their phone, a nude pic, private texts, etc, that they don't want getting out. People are paranoid by nature.
-
So you have full faith they aren't looking to soften the position. Is that correct?
I have full faith that the meaning of that letter was not to call for a town hall meeting, which is what I said in that post.
-
I do. Why? Because how would buy a phone with a back door? Everybody was something on their phone, a nude pic, private texts, etc, that they don't want getting out. People are paranoid by nature.
Because the "bad guys" may steal your info or cause you trouble, right?
-
I have full faith that the meaning of that letter was not to call for a town hall meeting, which is what I said in that post.
What you said in the post, is this:
They were not calling for a discussion with the public.
What Apple says, is this:
This moment calls for public discussion
-
Agreed however based on the comment I don't think this concept is understood.
I have a better understanding of it than you. Search warrants are issued upon probable cause, always have been. It's nothing new. The search is justified they need the assistance of apple because of the encryption. It's that simple.
There is nothing in this case that will be legal precedent. The FEDS will get in. Apple is only delaying the inevitable.
-
What you said in the post, is this:
What Apple says, is this:
What I said in the post is this:
They were saying that the moment called for them to discuss THEIR POSITION in public.
Why did you clip that when you quoted me?
-
What I said in the post is this:
Why did you clip that when you quoted me?
Are you aware of the definition of the word?
-
I suspect that Apple has infested our government to the point they might as well be one and the same.
So I'm not entirely convinced this is what it's said to be, when it comes down to it.
That is a legitimate and valid point.
Usually these releases are "red herrings" to open the thought of what could be even though it has already happened.
I see your point.
-
*The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
*A conversation or debate about a certain topic.
You're welcome.
-
I have a better understanding of it than you. Search warrants are issued upon probable cause, always have been. It's nothing new. The search is justified they need the assistance of apple because of the encryption. It's that simple.
There is nothing in this case that will be legal precedent. The FEDS will get in. Apple is only delaying the inevitable.
I never said the FBI wouldn't get what it was asking for.
According to apple, in the article you said YOU DID NOT READ, the government is asking for a technology that apple says they don't have access to.
But you have a better understanding of the situation than I so....
-
Are you aware of the definition of the word?
They used the term "public discussion" at the beginning of a letter addressed to the public in which they discussed their position. There really is no debate about what it meant.
-
I have a better understanding of it than you. Search warrants are issued upon probable cause, always have been. It's nothing new. The search is justified they need the assistance of apple because of the encryption. It's that simple.
There is nothing in this case that will be legal precedent. The FEDS will get in. Apple is only delaying the inevitable.
This isn't what this case is about. Case is not about a search warrant. The phone is in the government's possession.
-
Are you saying they'll be refusing feedback, Al? Trying to figure out what you mean.
-
This is allll bullshit, they really want the technology to crack tom brady's phone for the next court case against brady and deflate gate
(https://www.gorillaradio.tv/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/marketing-genius.jpg)
-
This isn't what this case is about. Case is not about a search warrant. The phone is in the government's possession.
He means for the information inside.
-
This isn't what this case is about. Case is not about a search warrant. The phone is in the government's possession.
I think we all agree that the government gets what it wants at any cost. They will deal with the backlash after the fact. Ape and Google are at least letting the public think their voice and rights matter.
-
Are you saying they'll be refusing feedback, Al? Trying to figure out what you mean.
Where is the confusion? You are the one who asked " Why is Apple calling for a public discussion?" I told you that they're not. Will they refuse feedback? Who knows? Are they seeking it? NO. That's not what that letter says. It says, "Here's what the government asked us. We are taking this opportunity to lay out the issues publicly as opposed to keeping the matter private." The idea that they are looking to have some sort of townhall meeting figure out what they should do doesn't even make sense. That company has never done anything like that and if they wanted opinions there are tons of ways they could get them. It's a legal issue that most people don't even understand.
-
I think we all agree that the government gets what it wants at any cost. They will deal with the backlash after the fact. Ape and Google are at least letting the public think their voice and rights matter.
Not all. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the government will win in this case. It's possible, but I wouldn't even say likely.
-
Where is the confusion? You are the one who asked " Why is Apple calling for a public discussion?" I told you that they're not. Will they refuse feedback? Who knows? Are they seeking it? NO. That's not what that letter says. It says, "Here's what the government asked us. We are taking this opportunity to lay out the issues publicly as opposed to keeping the matter private." The idea that they are looking to have some sort of townhall meeting figure out what they should do doesn't even make sense. That company has never done anything like that and if they wanted opinions there are tons of ways they could get them. It's a legal issue that most people don't even understand.
So why do you suppose they chose that word, if they didn't mean it?
???
-
The government has people who can do this. If the government claims to want something on that phone, then let them find a way to get it.
-
So why do you suppose they chose that word, if they didn't mean it?
???
Because they ... discussed... the issue... publicly. As opposed to privately. In a letter addressed to the public.
Did you notice that there were no plans for a public debate/townhall meeting/ feedback website or hotline mentioned elsewhere in the letter? That would be mad simple for them to set up if that was the plan. Why only that one line, that doesn't even mean that in the context of the letter?
-
Because they ... discussed... the issue... publicly. As opposed to privately. In a letter addressed to the public.
Did you notice that there were no plans for a public debate/townhall meeting/ feedback website or hotline mentioned elsewhere in the letter? That would be mad simple for them to set up if that was the plan. Why only that one line, that doesn't even mean that in the context of the letter?
In case you missed it:
*The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
*A conversation or debate about a certain topic.
-
You are convinced Apple won't loosen up on their stand, and that's good. I'm glad you have faith in that.
-
yes, lets create the back door again to these devices
cant wait for celebrity nudes flap 2.0
-
You are convinced Apple won't loosen up on their stand, and that's good. I'm glad you have faith in that.
(http://theblitzbit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/t231278_NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg)
-
You are convinced Apple won't loosen up on their stand, and that's good. I'm glad you have faith in that.
That's not what I said, but it is literally the entire point of the letter. Which is another reason that I don't understand why you are so confused about their use of the phrase "public discussion". They are categorical about where they stand. The entire letter is explaining to the public exactly what the issues are and exactly why they are not complying. So, it's not as if they are looking for public input to take a stand or hedging their bets anywhere else.
-
(http://theblitzbit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/t231278_NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg)
LOL much clearer and more succinct.
-
That's not what I said, but it is literally the entire point of the letter. Which is another reason that I don't understand why you are so confused about their use of the phrase "public discussion". They are categorical about where they stand. The entire letter is explaining to the public exactly what the issues are and exactly why they are not complying. So, it's not as if they are looking for public input to take a stand or hedging their bets anywhere else.
Do you think they should expect to get it, after publishing that?
-
BTW, in past cases which Apple busted phones for LE, can anyone determine the reasoning vs. now?
I'm sure there's an answer, so would like to know. I understand those were different OS, and that they had known vulnerabilities, so why didn't Apple tell LE to go do it themselves with their own resources?
-
This is dumb. What if you forget your password? ??? ??? You have to buy a whole new phone?
That's one way to guarantee revenue for the future!
-
This is dumb. What if you forget your password? ??? ??? You have to buy a whole new phone?
No. You restore your phone to factory condition.
Your phone works, but all the data is wiped.
-
It's all show.
CrApple, Microshit and many others have backdoors for the government already incorporated in their products for many years.
If you want to make it a little harder for the government to spy on you use Linux.
This^^^And lets not forget that the Government probably has many workers working for Apple and many other tech companies. Gov workers probably helped design it. People probably believe that CERN's Large Hadron Collider has nothing to do with any government.
-
This^^^And lets not forget that the Government probably has many workers working for Apple and many other tech companies. Gov workers probably helped design it. People probably believe that CERN's Large Hadron Collider has nothing to do with any government.
I don't think this is true. The world has just changed too for me to buy into the overreaching, all-powerful gov't narrative. With a few exceptions, it's more profitable and prestigious to work for a successful private company than it is to work for the government.
-
I thought Getbig was all in favor of back doors.
Apple, please provide the corn.
-
Said he would open the phone on his lunch break if the Gov Hired him, plus free of charge
but in reality he said it will take him 3 weeks top if now he will eat his own shoe on live tv
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/k_n/McAfee.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2 (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2)
-
I don't think this is true. The world has just changed too for me to buy into the overreaching, all-powerful gov't narrative. With a few exceptions, it's more profitable and prestigious to work for a successful private company than it is to work for the government.
IMOP If you're deep undercover working for say some sort of CIA/FBI offset dark group that has infiltrated Apple etc, You're going to get a paycheck from that offset group and the company you infiltrated. So you're basically working for both. You'll get all the prestige and money that comes from working in the private sector anyway. It's not either or. It's both or even multiple if your a consultant for many tech companies...
-
Interesting article on who controls the internet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858793/Guardians-internet-seven-people-control-safety-world-wide-web-literally-hold-KEYS-internet.html
-
IMOP If you're deep undercover working for say some sort of CIA/FBI offset dark group that has infiltrated Apple etc, You're going to get a paycheck from that offset group and the company you infiltrated. So you're basically working for both. You'll get all the prestige and money that comes from working in the private sector anyway. It's not either or. It's both or even multiple if your a consultant for many tech companies...
I'm just not getting what the purpose of having a double agent infiltrate a consumer electronics company would be. Or why anyone working for an American company would feel compelled to be a double agent for the feds. :-\
-
Said he would open the phone on his lunch break if the Gov Hired him, plus free of charge
but in reality he said it will take him 3 weeks top if now he will eat his own shoe on live tv
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/k_n/McAfee.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2 (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2)
That article says he's running for pres. I guess this is his Trump moment.
-
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion on Friday seeking to compel Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to comply with a judge's order to unlock the encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters, portraying the tech giant's refusal as a "marketing strategy."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-doj-idUSKCN0VS2FT
-
Why can't Apple just unlock this one phone without giving the government anything but the unlocked phone with the data on it? I mean do they really have to change their OS so the government can unlock it on their own? The government should just approach Apple with a court order every time they need a phone unlocked.
-
Why can't Apple just unlock this one phone without giving the government anything but the unlocked phone with the data on it? I mean do they really have to change their OS so the government can unlock it on their own? The government should just approach Apple with a court order every time they need a phone unlocked.
I think I read that American government has over 100 court orders for over 100 different phones they want Apple to open. Ranging from terrorists to drug dealers. Looks like the Government is already trying to overreach and is using this terrorist phone to gain the public's acceptance...It's all a dog and phony show. The Government already has all those phones open and knows exactly whats on them. They just don't want the public to know they have it...
-
What if Apple doesn't have a "back door" to get into the phones? And it would cost them millions to build one etc. Why should Apple or any tech company have to front the bill to get info for a government org? Why not tell the Gov to go pound sand and get the info yourself?
-
What if Apple doesn't have a "back door" to get into the phones? And it would cost them millions to build one etc. Why should Apple or any tech company have to front the bill to get info for a government org? Why not tell the Gov to go pound sand and get the info yourself?
It does not.
That's the point really.
All of the vulnerabilities that the government speaks of to allow a "back door" are in the past and Apple has secured those. The reality is that this "Back door" they are asking for will have to be in a future release of the OS and does absolutely nothing to help them now.
Should another vulnerability arise that allows access to this version of OS (IE, a new found bug) then the government can use that to get in. Then Apple patches that vulnerability for the next OS version and the line is shifted again.
-
What if Apple doesn't have a "back door" to get into the phones? And it would cost them millions to build one etc. Why should Apple or any tech company have to front the bill to get info for a government org? Why not tell the Gov to go pound sand and get the info yourself?
Then they could tell the court that doing what is asked is too burdensome. The order itself says they can object on this basis. It also specifically asks them to provide an estimate of the cost. It ain't like the govt ain't got money. It can print all day.
No, this is just Apple posturing. They've been opening phones for the govt for years.
-
No, this is just Apple posturing. They've been opening phones for the govt for years.
No, they haven't. In the previous cases where the government asked for information from locked phones, Apple assisted because they could retrieve info without unlocking That isn't possible with the current OS.
-
Why can't Apple just unlock this one phone without giving the government anything but the unlocked phone with the data on it? I mean do they really have to change their OS so the government can unlock it on their own? The government should just approach Apple with a court order every time they need a phone unlocked.
1.) they can't, break into the iPhone since iOS 8.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/09/ios_8_encryption_why_apple_won_t_unlock_your_iphone_for_the_police.html
2.) the fbi WANTS a back door.
-
why doesn't the GOV ask FORD for a back door to access live audio record of the couple while fleeing ??? The SUV has Onstar which has a microphone in it, should be fairly simple to create a back door for something that doesnt exist to be created .....
(http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy310/SICsupraman/interdasting.jpg)
-
Every telecom company from Western Union on forward have instantly assisted the U. S. Government in their intelligence gathering.
During the Naval treaty Conference in the 1920’s, Western Union provided copies of cablegrams of the delegates to decryptors in the War Department…
-
why doesn't the GOV ask FORD for a back door to access live audio record of the couple while fleeing ??? The SUV has Onstar which has a microphone in it, should be fairly simple to create a back door for something that doesnt exist to be created .....
Exactly this ^
this isn't CSI cyber.
-
The Obama administration told a magistrate judge Friday it would be willing to allow Apple to retain possession of and later destroy specialized software it was ordered to create to help federal authorities hack into the encrypted iPhone belong to Syed Rizwan Farook.
"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/20/doj-would-allow-apple-to-keep-or-destroy-software-to-help-fbi-hack-iphone.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/20/doj-would-allow-apple-to-keep-or-destroy-software-to-help-fbi-hack-iphone.html)
-
What part of it doesn't exist does everyone not fucking understand?
Damn people are stupid when it comes to technology.
-
What part of it doesn't exist does everyone not fucking understand?
Damn people are stupid when it comes to technology.
Let someone say they cannot do it or do not have it under oath, until then, it's just bullshit.
-
No, they haven't. In the previous cases where the government asked for information from locked phones, Apple assisted because they could retrieve info without unlocking That isn't possible with the current OS.
Yes, they have. The government has for years been having Apple open locked phones for them. Just because they changed the kind of lock to a combination rather than a key lock doesn't mean they haven't been opening phones for the govt for years.
-
Let someone say they cannot do it or do not have it under oath, until then, it's just bullshit.
you are kind of ignorant went it comes to technology aren't you?
-
you are kind of ignorant went it comes to technology aren't you?
You are kind of ignorant when it comes to human nature and corporate profits aren't you? If you believe Apple doesn't already have a back door you are nuts. They don't want to be called out on their bs marketing strategy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/a-yearlong-road-to-a-standoff-with-the-fbi.html?_r=0
-
If you believe Apple doesn't already have a back door you are nuts.
Exactly.
The smartphone has been mainly developed to track its user's activities.
Its other functions are merely add-ons.
-
You are kind of ignorant when it comes to human nature and corporate profits aren't you? If you believe Apple doesn't already have a back door you are nuts. They don't want to be called out on their bs marketing strategy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/a-yearlong-road-to-a-standoff-with-the-fbi.html?_r=0
not at all. Only an idiot, like you, would believe that apple would have a backdoor on their devices. It is more profitable for them to not be able to unlock a device. You paranoid cunt. :-*
-
Yes, they have. The government has for years been having Apple open locked phones for them. Just because they changed the kind of lock to a combination rather than a key lock doesn't mean they haven't been opening phones for the govt for years.
No, they haven't opened locked phones for the government before. The method used to retrieve information from a locked phone is not immaterial. It is the entire point of this case.
-
What would be the advantage to having it, though?
-
What would be the advantage to having it, though?
There is no point, it is a legal liability, hence why they got rid of it in iOS 8.
-
There is no point, it is a legal liability, hence why they got rid of it in iOS 8.
Why they "got rid of it"? You mean why they worked to destroy the ground that hackers had gained with the previous OS?
Isn't that what happened, or am I missing something?
-
Why they "got rid of it"? You mean why they worked to destroy the ground that hackers had gained with the previous OS?
Isn't that what happened, or am I missing something?
you're missing a lot. And i do believe you are too stupid to understand it, so I won't try to explain it to you. ;)
-
you're missing a lot. And i do believe you are too stupid to understand it, so I won't try to explain it to you. ;)
They have it. They know they will be forced to turn it over. All this is just theater and a marketing ploy so they can pretend otherwise.
-
you're missing a lot. And i do believe you are too stupid to understand it, so I won't try to explain it to you. ;)
And you ain't no steer, so let's leave it at that.
-
They have it. They know they will be forced to turn it over. All this is just theater and a marketing ploy so they can pretend otherwise.
But what would be the advantage to having that?
-
And you ain't no steer, so let's leave it at that.
of course i got balls, unlike you my little stupid friend.
-
of course i got balls, unlike you my little stupid friend.
Fairly useless on a person such as yourself, though.
Perhaps you could exchange them for a brain.
(https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/05146136044bc4187716dbf75edfb1122b6413-wm.jpg)
-
;D
All in fun!
-
Fairly useless on a person such as yourself, though.
Perhaps you could exchange them for a brain.
(https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/05146136044bc4187716dbf75edfb1122b6413-wm.jpg)
very original joke there, ::) ::) just like what i would expect from a stupid fuck like you.
-
But what would be the advantage to having that?
The advantage would be you could open your employees cell phones if you wanted to, you could recover stuff that might be lost otherwise, if Tim Cook forgot his password or got locked out, you could open his phone and not get fired. I'm sure there are lots more people could come up with.
-
The advantage would be you could open your employees cell phones if you wanted to, you could recover stuff that might be lost otherwise, if Tim Cook forgot his password or got locked out, you could open his phone and not get fired. I'm sure there are lots more people could come up with.
What locations in the phone or what type of information can you imagine them going after, that could only be had by going into the phone itself? Can't be that much shit that could apply these days, no matter what the individual security settings. Or is there?
-
The advantage would be you could open your employees cell phones if you wanted to, you could recover stuff that might be lost otherwise, if Tim Cook forgot his password or got locked out, you could open his phone and not get fired. I'm sure there are lots more people could come up with.
For them, you mean? With their knowledge, you're saying?
-
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/21/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-refuses-to-use-apples-iphone-over-spying-concerns---report
-
They have it. They know they will be forced to turn it over. All this is just theater and a marketing ploy so they can pretend otherwise.
Your argument makes no linear sense. You're saying that they A) have been unlocking phones for the gov for years B)randomly decided to stop unlocking phones C) created a backdoor which, incidentally, also creates a legal liability for them D) engaged in a highly publicized fight with the government which would only draw attention to the alleged backdoor if it exists?
This is bonkers. If they've been unlocking phones for years, why randomly stop now? If they're so concerned with their marketing strategy, why create the key in the first place? Why draw attention to its eventual release to the government with a high profile court case that could possibly set a legal precedent?
-
Exactly.
The smartphone has been mainly developed to track its user's activities.
Its other functions are merely add-ons.
Most people on here think Facebook is just a place to stay connected with "friends". It's probably the most advanced piece of information gathering site but people will tell you it was just made for fun.lol
-
Most people on here think Facebook is just a place to stay connected with "friends". It's probably the most advanced piece of information gathering site but people will tell you it was just made for fun.lol
Truth. In fact lately I have been very impressed (and horrified) at how amazing their algorithms truly are. I have a tablet that I only use at home, for only one purpose, with a facebook account that I also only use for that same purpose (strongman-related stuff). And still I am now getting friend suggestions for bitches that I fucked once or twice years ago, and live dozens of miles away. That I did not even talk to on social media! Amazing stuff, but scary.
-
Most people on here think Facebook is just a place to stay connected with "friends". It's probably the most advanced piece of information gathering site but people will tell you it was just made for fun.lol
X2 One of the worst things to happen in modern society. Why anyone in a right mind would touch FB, I'll never know
Every time I see Mark Suckerberg, I have visions of stomping him into the concrete (as the saying goes, of course). I can't imagine disliking a person much worse than I do him. I understand he's an empty suit at FB, but there's just something about him.
And who do you suppose fucked his chinagirl wife? Perhaps a case of gay porn and a turkey baster, because no way a fruit loop like him is producing a child in any normal fashion.
-
you're missing a lot. And i do believe you are too stupid to understand it, so I won't try to explain it to you. ;)
:D
-
:D
His way of saying he can't explain it.
-
:D
His way of saying he can't explain it.
See, bob. Dude is stupid as fuck. hahaha :)
-
See, bob. Dude is stupid as fuck. hahaha :)
HTexan grasping to find Allies.
-
North Korea would be a powerful ally
-
Most people on here think Facebook is just a place to stay connected with "friends". It's probably the most advanced piece of information gathering site but people will tell you it was just made for fun.lol
This has nothing to do with what most people have been arguing in this thread and it's hardly a secret. Most people who use Facebook and then leave do so because of privacy concerns. Facebook isn't secretive about their information gathering.
Whether or not Facebook or Apple products gather a ton of information is not the issue. Whether that information is readily accessible by the government is the issue.
-
This has nothing to do with what most people have been arguing in this thread and it's hardly a secret. Most people who use Facebook and then leave do so because of privacy concerns. Facebook isn't secretive about their information gathering.
Whether or not Facebook or Apple products gather a ton of information is not the issue. Whether that information is readily accessible by the government is the issue.
Wouldn't that help show what Snoman said earlier, about the government and the corporations having a reason to mix?
-
HTexan grasping to find Allies.
take that dick out of your mouth when you say my name punk. :D
-
take that dick out of your mouth when you say my name punk. :D
Any particular reason you've been so preoccupied with subjects involving homosexuality in other threads in the past?
-
2 pieces of shite organizations involved Apple and the US government..both liars and both un-trustworthy.
If you think ShitApple does not have a way to retrieve the password then you are gullible, there is a binary file some where on the ios that has the password to match what you type in, or it is on the ShitCloud. Someone at ShitApple knows this, but I am sure 99.99% believe there is no crack.
This is a marketing ploy to sell more ios's to the masses.
The default password method is the "simple" password, you then have to enable the enhance password method that has the extra protection and delete option after 10 attempts.
-
2 pieces of shite organizations involved Apple and the US government..both liars and both un-trustworthy.
If you think ShitApple does not have a way to retrieve the password then you are gullible, there is a binary file some where on the ios that has the password to match what you type in, or it is on the ShitCloud. Someone at ShitApple knows this, but I am sure 99.99% believe there is no crack.
This is a marketing ploy to sell more ios's to the masses.
The default password method is the "simple" password, you then have to enable the enhance password method that has the extra protection and delete option after 10 attempts.
No publicly traded company would use this as a marketing ploy. Half of the people who have heard about this think Apple is aiding terrorists, hence the public letter discussed earlier. There aren't enough people interested in security to the level of wiping a phone if an incorrect password is guessed for this to have much significance as a marketing ploy for one of the largest companies in the world.
-
No publicly traded company would use this as a marketing ploy. Half of the people who have heard about this think Apple is aiding terrorists, hence the public letter discussed earlier. There aren't enough people interested in security to the level of wiping a phone if an incorrect password is guessed for this to have much significance as a marketing ploy for one of the largest companies in the world.
What about the millions of criminals and terrorists ? no interest in this??
-
X2 One of the worst things to happen in modern society. Why anyone in a right mind would touch FB, I'll never know
Every time I see Mark Suckerberg, I have visions of stomping him into the concrete (as the saying goes, of course). I can't imagine disliking a person much worse than I do him. I understand he's an empty suit at FB, but there's just something about him.
And who do you suppose fucked his chinagirl wife? Perhaps a case of gay porn and a turkey baster, because no way a fruit loop like him is producing a child in any normal fashion.
Zuckerberg is just the face of Facebook. He helps give it that "innocent" look. Just listen to the kid talk. Certainly not someone who is in charge of such a massive company. As far as the China wife, many have stated that Suckerberg is hung like a light switch and is very insecure about it. Not unlike IFBB's very own Gary Strydom who moved to an Asian country so he would "fit it".lol
-
What about the millions of criminals and terrorists ? no interest in this??
A fraction of the people who don't use their iphones to break the law.
-
-
Your argument makes no linear sense. You're saying that they A) have been unlocking phones for the gov for years B)randomly decided to stop unlocking phones C) created a backdoor which, incidentally, also creates a legal liability for them D) engaged in a highly publicized fight with the government which would only draw attention to the alleged backdoor if it exists?
This is bonkers. If they've been unlocking phones for years, why randomly stop now? If they're so concerned with their marketing strategy, why create the key in the first place? Why draw attention to its eventual release to the government with a high profile court case that could possibly set a legal precedent?
It is well documented that they have been opening phones for years and only recently stopped. Christ get a Google.
-
It is well documented that they have been opening phones for years and only recently stopped. Christ get a Google.
Opened phones on vulnerable operating systems. You could open those too. Nothing special.
They changed security methods and schemes and you can no longer do so.
-
Opened phones on vulnerable operating systems. You could open those too. Nothing special.
They changed security methods and schemes and you can no longer do so.
Not even that. A lot of the media have been misreporting that phones were opened for the government when that isn't what actually happened. Apple was aware of certain vulnerabilities and was able to access some information without unlocking the phones. When the media claim that Apple has unlocked 70 phones, they are talking about the times when Apple has extracted limited data from locked phones and handed over stuff from icloud. They never unlocked phones.
In other news, Bill Gates spoke out in support of the gov't in a Financial Times interview. He's backtracking now and saying that he was misquoted.
-
http://m.worldstarhiphop.com/apple/video.php?v=wshhd9NRI2B9ajz46c8i
-
http://m.worldstarhiphop.com/apple/video.php?v=wshhd9NRI2B9ajz46c8i
McAfee software is a joke...yet another disgusting liar has joined the party.
-
bump for pellius
-
No publicly traded company would use this as a marketing ploy. Half of the people who have heard about this think Apple is aiding terrorists, hence the public letter discussed earlier. There aren't enough people interested in security to the level of wiping a phone if an incorrect password is guessed for this to have much significance as a marketing ploy for one of the largest companies in the world.
when the price of your stock is rock solid and marketing for Apple is much different than samsung or a even Mercedes - Apple is more like tesla - $200/share, little to no main stream marketing, as long as hipsters like you your good type
Apple stock isnt somethign that changes a lot - watch the stock after they have a press release or one of their famous unveilings
marketing for apple is more word of mouth - they just want people talkign about them and if its a "me against the US govt' ploy then they get on the right side of ball when people start talking
-
when the price of your stock is rock solid and marketing for Apple is much different than samsung or a even Mercedes - Apple is more like tesla - $200/share, little to no main stream marketing, as long as hipsters like you your good type
Apple stock isnt somethign that changes a lot - watch the stock after they have a press release or one of their famous unveilings
marketing for apple is more word of mouth - they just want people talkign about them and if its a "me against the US govt' ploy then they get on the right side of ball when people start talking
Apple is one of the most aggressively marketed brands in America. They spend well over a billion $$ annually and that's right in line with Samsung. On top of that, their image is as meticulously curated as any brand this side of Disney. Just based on its sheer size Apple couldn't be all about hipsters, but the fact that you would link hipsters' perceived shared tastes with the image of America's largest corporation (by market cap) goes to show how meticulously Apple manages its image.
From a marketing standpoint, the public is hearing two different stories: Apple vs. gov't and Apple supporting terrorists. The potential misunderstanding this could create with the public is not something any big brand would welcome.
-
forgive me if this has been posted but iphone already has backdoors so how can this be an issue?
the FBI can get the data from NSA so what exactly is up with this? All these companies have rolled over a long time ago..hmmm I gather the spy agencies don't want the FBI stepping on their toes. Must be some fined grained legal issues going on. Hard to summon much concern over it.
-
well after spending five minutes on it. I think it comes down to legal precedent.
at the moment NSA can access all data without warrant and does so.
this case includes an order from a judge, so it's been authorized with some oversight, it goes into public record and so on. Basically the old fashioned way of doing police work (pre 911). This is why NSA opposes the FBI because it would compel them to do the same and adhere to a legal process. Or not who knows, it seems nobody cares about the fact that NSA is basically above oversight. Making more sense now.
-
well after spending five minutes on it. I think it comes down to legal precedent.
at the moment NSA can access all data without warrant and does so.
this case includes an order from a judge, so it's been authorized with some oversight, it goes into public record and so on. Basically the old fashioned way of doing police work (pre 911). This is why NSA opposes the FBI because it would compel them to do the same and adhere to a legal process. Or not who knows, it seems nobody cares about the fact that NSA is basically above oversight. Making more sense now.
Have you read something which says this, specifically?
-
They have it. They know they will be forced to turn it over. All this is just theater and a marketing ploy so they can pretend otherwise.
I've responded to a few posters in this thread in regards to why I think it's short-sighted to think Apple would use this as a marketing gimmick. There's another thread covering some of the issues in this thread and a poster in that thread posted this:
Pellius, legally this is a very simple issue. The FBI obtained a search warrant, issued by a judge to search the contents of ONE phone.
The warrant was issued based on probable cause, specific facts and specific circumstances related to one cell phone that was operated by one person. The FBI realized that they have only so many chances to try to crack the phones passcode. This is because apple phones have a security measure which erases the phones content if the wrong password is put in ten times. The FBI has asked apple to disable their security measure on this one phone so they can gather information about the couple who murdered 14 people in san bernadino.
This is not about every phone, it is not about making apple hand over their technology to the FBI, it is not about carte blanch authority for the FBI to search all phones. The FBI is not asking apple to decipher the passwword. All of that would not be authorized by a search warrant.
The FBI is asking apple to deisable the security measure on this one phone related to one specific event. It is not setting a precedent it's the standard by which all search warant have been issued for decades. The FBI already has the warrant they are asking for apples help.
Oddly enough if apple wins and the judge says apple cant be forced to unlock the security on this phone, then the FBI will have to figure out a way to break into the phone and if they do, they will then have the back door entry into everyphone. The FBI obviously has a strong case to search the phone. The judge may say to the FBI that they have the search warrant its upto tjhe FBI to figure it out on their own. I think apple picked the wrong battle to fight though in this particular matter. In my opinion apple looks like shit now for not helping out. I'd like to know what the family members of those 14 people think.
The poster has posted in this thread and it doesn't seem like he is that up on the intricacies of the case, which is why I didn't bother responding. But I did want to post this quote for you and the others who believe Apple is using this as a marketing ploy because, like I've said in other posts, I think this is probably how the majority of consumers (especially American consumers) who aren't following this case closely feel.
-
John McAfee Lying About Iphone Hack
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/john-mcafee-lied-iphone-apple-fbi/
Cliffs: After elaborating on his hacking technique, experts reviewed it and said it would not work. McAfee later admitted that his offer was a publicity gimmick and he was trying to draw public attention towards what he considers the government's overreaching. Cites the 700,000 views to his youtube interview as proof that it worked.
-
Exclusive video of FBI trying to crack Apple security (https://www.facebook.com/TheOther98/videos/1260294453981530/)
-
John McAfee Lying About Iphone Hack
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/john-mcafee-lied-iphone-apple-fbi/
Cliffs: After elaborating on his hacking technique, experts reviewed it and said it would not work. McAfee later admitted that his offer was a publicity gimmick and he was trying to draw public attention towards what he considers the government's overreaching. Cites the 700,000 views to his youtube interview as proof that it worked.
As I said earlier in thread..Mcaffee sofware is a joke..the muscletech of the pc world.
-
As I said earlier in thread..Mcaffee sofware is a joke..the muscletech of the pc world.
He lied about the software he could write and the ease of breaking into encryption.
Not the methodology used to crack software and hardware. The problem is time and resources.
A universal master key, is overstepping. The two losers of the smartphone market pretty much already have something similar in place. Blackberry already has one, Microsoft spys and folds like paper.
Hopefully, the 2 giants hold strong.
-
Apples Legal Doc submitted to the Courts .
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762120-Reply-Brief-in-Support-of-Apple-s-Motion-to-Vacate.html#document/p1 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762120-Reply-Brief-in-Support-of-Apple-s-Motion-to-Vacate.html#document/p1)
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-unlocks-terrorists-iphone-without-apples-help-1459202353 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-unlocks-terrorists-iphone-without-apples-help-1459202353)
FBI Opens San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone; U.S. Drops Demand on Apple
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department filed court papers Monday saying it had cracked the iPhone of a San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist, seeking to drop its legal case to force Apple Inc. to help them unlock it.
The move signals a temporary retreat from a high-stakes fight between Washington and Silicon Valley over privacy and security in the digital age.
The filing short-circuits a pending legal showdown over whether the government can force technology companies to write software to aid in criminal investigations, but it is unlikely to avert the long-term conflict between federal agents and technology executives over how secure electronic communications should be, and what firms should have to do to help the government access their customers’ data.
The decision by federal officials to drop the case comes a week after prosecutors bowed out of a planned courtroom showdown, telling the magistrate judge in the case that they may have found a new way to access the phone without Apple’s help.
In Monday’s filing, prosecutors revealed the method had in fact worked and Apple’s assistance was no longer necessary.
Justice Department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said the FBI “is currently reviewing the information on the phone, consistent with standard investigatory procedures.”
She also signaled that while this particular phone is no longer at issue, the broader fight over encryption-protected technology is likely to continue. “It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails. We will continue to pursue all available options for this mission, including seeking the cooperation of manufacturers and relying upon the creativity of both the public and private sectors,” she said.
An Apple spokesman didn’t immediately comment.
The dispute between technology companies such as Apple and the federal government has been brewing for more than a year. Firms increasingly have used encryption as a default setting for their products, and they have declined to help law-enforcement agencies open suspect devices in some cases.
That conflict came to a head in December, when investigators recovered the phone of Syed Rizwan Farook after he and his wife opened fire with rifles on a holiday office party in San Bernardino, killing 14 and injuring 22. Investigators couldn’t open the iPhone because of security features that don’t allow more than 10 guesses of an iPhone’s passcode.
The Justice Department eventually got a court order compelling Apple to help them bypass the passcode security features. The company fought the order, setting the stage for a possibly precedent-setting court fight on privacy.
As the two sides geared up for that fight, FBI officials said they had exhausted all possible avenues of getting into the phone before getting the court order against Apple.
In the public and legal debate that followed, the FBI argued the law doesn’t support a company making phones that are “warrant proof”—unable to be opened even with a signed order from a judge. Apple said it was fighting the order because to do what the FBI wanted would create a new security vulnerability for untold millions of iPhone users.
The filing doesn’t indicate what method the FBI used to access the data on the phone, nor does it say what, if any, evidence related to the attacks was found on it.
Officials have been tight-lipped about who offered the FBI a solution to the technical challenge, and how. A person familiar with the case said the method wasn’t developed by a government agency, but by a private entity.
The government is still engaged in a broader fight with Apple over what role, if any, the company should play in helping investigators access data on their customers’ phones.
Previous court filings indicated prosecutors were seeking similar orders against Apple involving at least 15 phones seized as part of unrelated criminal investigations around the country.
State and local prosecutors, most notably Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, have also pressed technology companies to help detectives access data on suspects’ phones.
-
http://9to5mac.com/2016/03/23/apple-cloud-infrastructure-servers-snooping/
Report: Apple developing at least 6 cloud infrastructure projects incl. servers to prevent snooping
Following two reports earlier this month detailing Apple’s deal to move iCloud partly to Google’s Cloud Platform, as well as the company’s efforts at building out its own cloud infrastructure, The Information today offers new details on the projects.
Adding to a report from VentureBeat earlier this week, today’s report offers more details on what Apple is doing with“Project McQueen” that could see the company replacing third-party vendors with more of its own cloud infrastructure. The Information reports that Project McQueen is actually just one of at least six internal efforts at Apple including building its own servers, networking equipment, and “systems that could one day help developers to power their apps.”
Apple has at least six projects underway to develop cloud infrastructure, including one codenamed Project McQueen designed to build its own data storage systems. Others include projects to build servers, networking equipment and systems that could one day help developers to power their apps. Apple can’t move off rival cloud services entirely until all the cloud elements are ready, although it will be able to limit its dependence on others if some of these were completed.
And when it comes to building its own servers, the report claims that Apple is partly motivated by the fact that it believes the servers it receives from third-parties have been “intercepted during shipping, with additional chips and firmware added to them by unknown third parties in order to make them vulnerable to infiltration.”
At least part of the driver for this is to ensure that the servers are secure. Apple has long suspected that servers it ordered from the traditional supply chain were intercepted during shipping, with additional chips and firmware added to them by unknown third parties in order to make them vulnerable to infiltration, according to a person familiar with the matter. At one point, Apple even assigned people to take photographs of motherboards and annotate the function of each chip, explaining why it was supposed to be there. Building its own servers with motherboards it designed would be the most surefire way for Apple to prevent unauthorized snooping via extra chips.
That gives another interesting angle to Apple’s motivation for wanting to develop and run its own cloud, especially given the recent controversy with the FBI over the San Bernardino case and encryption on Apple devices. But in the meantime Apple will still rely on third-parties like Google, Microsoft, Amazon and others to power iCloud. The report adds that sources with knowledge of Apple’s projects say the company is still likely “years away” from being able to leave its third-party partners entirely.
The full story from The Information (behind paywall) has more on the projects.