81–90 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
The government owned the iPhone in question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by all accounts, received nothing of value for the money How can you know that?
come on do all internet comments have to be perfect? how about "by all public accounts to date". I'd have though that extra context wasn't necessary.
https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...
Same article on the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af23e3ea-07f1-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd... James Comey, director of the FBI, said on Thursday that the cost was “worth it”, but added that an accommodation needed to be made with Apple and other technology companies in the future, as paying outside technologists to find ways to access highly-encrypted messages on phones used by terrorist suspects was not “scalable.”
Also, if you don't release the attack vector, things get even murkier.
Plus, the government happens to be the entity that prints our money, as well as an entity that is essentially limitless in funds because it extracts it's budget from US.
Competition from firms may keep the price of breaking the iphone down, well within what the government can pay without anyone noticing (once this dies down). Nevermind companies that would LOVE to sell the NSA a single iphone exploit for anywhere close to $1M.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
The government owned the iPhone in question.
Same article on the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af23e3ea-07f1-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd... James Comey, director of the FBI, said on Thursday that the cost was “worth it”, but added that an accommodation needed to be made with Apple and other technology companies in the future, as paying outside technologists to find ways to access highly-encrypted messages on phones used by terrorist suspects was not “scalable.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
The government owned the iPhone in question.