Return to “This is why I will not own any Apple products!”
Okay, consider yourself trashed!Bitter Clinger wrote:I started a new thread as this one was getting too long and I wanted to give TomsTXCHL a fresh pallette with which to trash me personally.WildBill wrote:Just saw that "an outside party" will unlock the phone, so Apple is off the hook.
I guess it must not have been encrypted as well as some people thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/techn ... phone.html
See viewtopic.php?f=94&t=83351
The iPhone has a feature called restrictions that you can set a second passcode to access certain features.Soccerdad1995 wrote:At the risk of going on a slight tangent, I would pay good money for a phone that had two log-ins. Log-in A accesses everything on the phone, as normal. Log-in B appears as normal but only accesses the specific content I have designated, meaning specific messages, pictures, call records, contacts, etc., can be designated to not show up when log-in B is used.
For the life of me, I can not figure out why this type of device is not offered.
I would guess that the FBI has already hacked the phone and it doesn't have any useful information.parabelum wrote:Apple is playing dumb, and Feds are playing benevolent.
For Apple, this isn't about privacy as many of their customers phones have been hacked by outside rats. Mine was one of them.
For Feds, this is about control and dominance in the big data spectrum.
Both parties are playing us for stupid.
Apple or Feds could hire a hacker, and with the use of botnet network generating up to 9 password guesses per second, they could have that phone cracked in under 20 minutes.
Again, they play the people for fools.
Notice also how that clerk in Kentucky got jailed for refusing judges order, yet Cook proudly rejects this judges order and nothing happens.
I think the government position is to allow only them to have automatic decryption, while the rest of us must have semi-automatic.The Annoyed Man wrote:OK, I am SO going to steal that!ScottDLS wrote:If strong encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will use strong encryption...
There aren't very many. Most probably think too logically to be a good politician.Pawpaw wrote:When did you ever hear of a politician who was also a technical type? I can't think of one.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ists/?_r=0Among the 435 members of the House, for example, there are one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist, six engineers and nearly two dozen representatives with medical training. The case of doctors and the body politic is telling. Everyone knows roughly what doctors do, and so those with medical backgrounds escape the anti-intellectual charge of irrelevance often thrown at those in the hard sciences. Witness Senator Bill Frist, Gov. Howard Dean and even Ron Paul.
http://www.cultofmac.com/413192/court-e ... ncryption/The company’s response in court will be due Feb. 26 instead of Tuesday, said two people familiar with the timeline, who asked not to be identified because the matter wasn’t public. The federal magistrate who on Feb. 16 granted the Justice Department’s request for an order forcing Apple to help the FBI had given the company five business days to oppose her order.
I don't know about that, but if I were the FBI there is no way I would even talk to the guy.Redneck_Buddha wrote:WildBill wrote:I have been reading up on him. He is a big time whack-a-doo.Redneck_Buddha wrote:McAfee went nuts awhile back. Framed for murder in Belize, but still whack-a-doo,WildBill wrote:Interesting news - Anti virus software developer, John McAfee has offered to hack the phone for free.
It sounds like a publicity stunt to me.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mca ... ree-2016-2
http://nymag.com/following/2016/02/john ... phone.html
..and probably with a huge axe to grind against Apple.
I have been reading up on him. He is a big time whack-a-doo.Redneck_Buddha wrote:McAfee went nuts awhile back. Framed for murder in Belize, but still whack-a-doo,WildBill wrote:Interesting news - Anti virus software developer, John McAfee has offered to hack the phone for free.
It sounds like a publicity stunt to me.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mca ... ree-2016-2
http://nymag.com/following/2016/02/john ... phone.html
That is what the writ ordered.Redneck_Buddha wrote:Just throwing out wild theories here, but is there something they can develop that will only work with that phone's unique identifier? Guys who know just enough about these matters just to be dangerous want to know.
Android, I think your explanation is excellent.android wrote:I don't think so. It is a matter of removing the technical ways that you can be legally compelled to give up the data.
Apple built a bridge with a locked gate.
In the past, the .gov wrote court orders to force Apple to unlock the gate so they could cross the bridge. Apple learned from that so they didn't build a better gate, they burned the bridge.
So now they are writing a court order telling them to rebuild the bridge.
