quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Do you understand the definition of the word ...propose?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Protip: No its not.

I said they replaced they SIF - I meant they replaced the SIF. I had lost the password, forgotten my itunes password and the only way to to gain access to the device was to replace the SIF. Which they did in 10 minutes - on a computer, and an iphone.

Perhaps I should be more specific. they reset the keychain password. Which is all they need to do for the FBI as well.

No. The FBI very specifically demands a custom firmware that bypasses the bad-password delay and disables the auto-erase feature:

quote:


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Giving the FBI the pw bypasses auto erase. It bypasses the delay and I suspect it will satisfy the FBI. Certainly, rather than oppose any kind of cooperation, apple could offer to do this.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Giving the FBI the pw bypasses auto erase. It bypasses the delay and I suspect it will satisfy the FBI. Certainly, rather than oppose any kind of cooperation, apple could offer to do this.

Is Apple opposing any kind of cooperation, or are they just publicly opposing the court order?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Giving the FBI the pw bypasses auto erase. It bypasses the delay and I suspect it will satisfy the FBI. Certainly, rather than oppose any kind of cooperation, apple could offer to do this.

Is Apple opposing any kind of cooperation, or are they just publicly opposing the court order?

Doesn't matter, even a little bit of cooperation hurts their business. Therefore they are legally bound (Ford v Dodge) to fight it tooth and nail. Either that or the shareholders may speak or they might get sued for conflict of interest.

ANYTHING they do which does not bring in maximum immediate profit to the business is frowned upon and can get you sued or even charged with fraud. You do not want to be a CEO these days. You migth THINK you are going to run things when you first ge tthere but the fact is the bean counters really run it.

T^T

quote:

It’s a subtle but critical distinction.

quote:

and Mr. Trump.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Protip: No its not.

I said they replaced they SIF - I meant they replaced the SIF. I had lost the password, forgotten my itunes password and the only way to to gain access to the device was to replace the SIF. Which they did in 10 minutes - on a computer, and an iphone.

Perhaps I should be more specific. they reset the keychain password. Which is all they need to do for the FBI as well.

No. The FBI very specifically demands a custom firmware that bypasses the bad-password delay and disables the auto-erase feature:

quote:


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.

Giving the FBI the pw bypasses auto erase. It bypasses the delay and I suspect it will satisfy the FBI. Certainly, rather than oppose any kind of cooperation, apple could offer to do this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Look mate,

Whether you like it or not, this is a PR stunt.

Apple standing up for electronic freedoms etc - buys it the admiration of EFF types at zero cost.

I've already told you the version of the IOS, and the architecture, and the fact that Apple can in fact comply with this order without jeopardizing the encryption of its product line. If it wanted to make a good faith showing - its response would be - judge - we've offered them the password on the phone and they refuse. The govt doesn't have the right to compel a backdoor. Please dismiss the motion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:


Here's the setup.

San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook owned an iPhone 5c, which may have been used -- probably was used -- in planning and perhaps even executing the holiday party terror attack with his wife, Tashfeen Malik.

That iPhone 5c, just like any other up-to-do-date iOS or Android smartphone, has disc-level encryption baked into the OS for users who want that level of privacy, for good or for ill.

Yesterday,U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to bypass the phone's security functions, and furthermore "to provide related technical assistance and to build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton key capable of unlocking the phone."

Here's what happened next:

Hours later, in a statement by its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, Apple announced its refusal to comply. The move sets up a legal showdown between the company, which says it is eager to protect the privacy of its customers, and the law enforcement authorities, who assert that new encryption technologies hamper their ability to prevent and solve crime.

In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federal government. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond publicly to Apple’s resistance.

The F.B.I. said its experts had been unable to access data on the iPhone 5c and that only Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the data permanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s security features.

The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’s former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search.

Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryption technology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’s assistance.

Mr. Cook said the order amounted to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strong encryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2016/02/17/apple-to-judge-drop-dead/

I do not have any special love for Apple, but thumbs up to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Is Apple opposing any kind of cooperation, or are they just publicly opposing the court order?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

It’s a subtle but critical distinction.

I don't think it's subtle at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'm not decided on the question of back doors. I lean against them.
But I'm against apple refusing to crack the phone.