[flagged]
Serious question: What are the "valid concerns" about people securing their computing devices against third parties?
Think of the children
FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
31–40 of 565 posts
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#32It seems unfortunate that enhanced protection against physically attached devices requires enabling a mode that is much broader, and sounds like it has a noticeable impact on device functionality. I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means…
> I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source.
It's "attached" to the wifi and to the cell network. Pretty much the same thing.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you disagree with the facts of the article? Or is it propaganda simply because the facts doesn't support your narrative and ideological inclinations?
Selective amplification of true events as well as selective reporting are bread and butter of modern propaganda. It works a lot better than saying outright falsehoods, which - in the long-term - cause people to lose faith in everything you have to say. And there's always someone jumping to your defense - after all you did not outright lie...
> Selective amplification
You can't possibly know this is what happened here, it's an observational bias.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#34Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#35Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#36[flagged]
Wait, was this an oversight on his part about the biometric unlock? My MacBook biometric gets disabled after a bit and requires a password if the lid was closed for substantial amount of time.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#37[flagged]
Takeaway is to not enable biometric unlock if you are concerned about your data being accessed by authorities.
So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password?
I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line in the sand to draw
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#38Every time something like this happens I assume it is a covert marketing campaign.
If the government wants to get in they’re going to get in. They can also hold you in contempt until you do.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing that law enforcement cant easily access this on their own. Just feels like the government is working with Apple here to help move some phones.
Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled
#39[flagged]
Serious question: What are the "valid concerns" about people securing their computing devices against third parties?
This (I think) refers not to the people securing their devices against third parties but the vendors "securing" the devices against loss of profits.
Essentially, the question referenced here is that of ownership. Is it your device, or did you rent it from Apple/Samsung/etc. If it is locked down so that you can't do anything you want with it, then you might not actually be its owner.
___
_Ideally_ you wouldn't need to trust Apple as a corp to do the right thing. Of course, as this example shows, they seem to actually have done one right thing, but you do not know if they will always do.
That's why a lot of people believe that the idea of such tight vendor control is fundamentally flawed, even though in this specific instance it yielded positive results.
For completeness, No, I do not know either how this could be implemented differently.