Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

altitudinous wrote: post #142

haberman wrote: post #117

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking? Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the…

It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z. The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so…

Post by aljones » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:11 AM UTC

vectorjohn wrote: post #153

whybroke wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backdoor is not what is not mentioned today but it is what will be sought when Apple does make an unbreakable phone. If a loudly media backed ruling to force Apple to comply with the FBI is then followed by Apple making a phone which makes it impossible to comply with such requests in the future, it will much easier to get legislation or rulings requiring the all phones have an inbuilt backdoor. This is why the FBI i…

What Apple should have done is quietly comply and NOT set a precedent. Then quietly make it impossible to comply on later phones. Instead they're making a scene about an issue they probably will and should lose.

Post by tamana » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:13 AM UTC

prewett wrote: post #112

ignoramous wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But let's not kid ourselves about governments ever being fully (mostly, even) on the side of the people. Exactly. What kind of democracy is this?

It's not, it's a republic. In fact, the Founding Fathers considered democracy a terrible form of government. "Democracy is the most vile form of government" (James Madison) "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." (Benjamin Rush, signed Declaration of Independence) "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy..." (John Adams) "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willi…

Post by aljones » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:17 AM UTC

vectorjohn wrote: post #160

aljones wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now wait. If the passcode is complex then it is secure, which is a very typical requirement for security.

Which doesn't change regardless of the outcome of this FBI case.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:18 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #147

[deleted] wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

This argument just doesn't add up to me. Regardless of this court order, Apple already has possession of keys that can sign iOS updates to disable security features. So this "master key" already exists. Meanwhile the government is saying that Apple can delete the tool the moment after the court order is executed, so then what is there to steal? I just don't get the argument that this tool is any more of a "master key…