61–70 of 381 posts
I suspect they didn't actually crack it. I think it's likely that they just realized the losing battle they were fighting. It sounded like a lot of public sentiment was against the FBI and they were unlikely to win the case (and it seemed like the information wasn't vital to them anyway) so they just gave an excuse to drop the case. This has an additional benefit: rather than having the "boundaries" here be defined b…
I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…
I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…
Can Apple counter sue for them to reveal how they accessed the phone? Surely, there must be a loophole in there somehow...
Nope. The government does not have to disclose investigative techniques. If Apple wanted to help the government, they could have, but they chose not to take that tact. Expecting the government to help Apple now is folly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll just say "can't comment on an active investigation" if they don't find anything to make the whole thing seem worthwhile.
To which it would be reasonable to ask, "so why did you hold this whole case in public, against Apple's wishes, if it is now so secret you can't even comment on it?"
Holding the case in public, and publishing the contents of the phone in public are very different things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there anything state actors can't break into? There will always be vulnerabilities to fix. Apple's and other companies' hope is not to fall too many steps behind the state actors.
PGP worked well enough for Snowden, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a huge number of side effects that would have to be dealt with, but this case has made me think that Apple should have the option to say, "changed your mind? Nooo, that ship (which you, the FBI, built and christened) has sailed, buddy, and you're on board. This is going before a judge, like it or not, and we're doing it now."
Except that's not how courts work. Apple is the defendant, the government is the plaintiff. The plaintiff should always have the right to end a case/action. Allowing defendant's to continue cases allows for highly malicious actions to occur.
Give a specific example of something the defense could do that is malicious to the plaintiff?
I feel like cases shouldn't be droppable unless both parties mutually agree, and the courts also must first agree.the courts should not agree if it's a case that could set a precedent that can have far reaching implications. What if next time, a smaller player than Apple was caught in this sort of case, and they can't fight back as easily? Then it'd be easier to setup a precedent favourable to one party. This seems l…
Big companies can still buy little companies to take on their lawsuits, or they can provide funding & resources to fight a legal battle as part of an investment. I suspect that Google bought YouTube in part to avoid precisely this situation. If Viacom had won their lawsuit against YouTube, it would have endangered Google's core business: they would become liable not just for copyrighted material that they know about,…
Who wants to take bets on how? My bet is they copied the flash, and are iterating passcode guesses until it slows down too much (or implodes, however it's configured) and then they reflash and iterate again. And it was only a 4 digit passcode, so it was pretty easy to do this. The next bet is whether they find anything relevant? My bet is no. Next bet after that is whether they admit it? My bet is they won't. But the…
Am I thinking right when it seems to me like the feds are kicking the can down the road? Even though the feds found an exploit that allows 'em to decrypt the current iOS, Apple's response is undoubtedly gonna be much-improved security in the next version. So in a few years when the feds demand that an iOS 10.x device be decrypted, this whole pageant will start over again.
Yes, but who knows when they'll ever get this good a case again?