A bunch of beachgoers in Argentina last week inadvertently killed an endangered baby dolphin when they scooped it out of the ocean and started taking pictures of it.
selfie culture is killing this world
That is hardly new. Remember when Walt Disney killed a bunch of lemmings?
i think Ex Machina was my favorite movie this year
the ending was perfect and it really cemented the rise of both Oscar Issac and Bill Weasley.
Yeah that movie is freaking awesome. The themes in it are pretty complex and the overall feeling it evokes is just creepy. Also uncanny valley like woah.
my favorite movie might surprisingly be Creed
not the "best" movie, but it was my favorite and i felt it
i felt it haaaaaaaaaaaard
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
In my last job, my team of two was supposed to crack an iPhone for a client, and it didn't really go anywhere. Our supervisor knew that it was process prone to failure and dead ends, but at some point executives from both companies got involved for some reason. We had to endure endless "just do it!" shit from this guy who kept demanding definitive answers and timelines, and just wouldn't accept that it was an incredibly difficult thing that could end up with no results and impossible to give a timeline for. The timeline is "how much do you have to left to spend on this?"
I once had my bosses bosses boss (a regional manager three steps down from a CEO) come to me (and at the time I was desktop fucking support, not a server admin) because a disgruntled employee had started an internet forum badmouthing our company and he wanted me to a) find it, b) find out who created it, and c) shut it down, from the internet, and remove it.
This was an actual request I was given, right after being asked to replace the toner in the copier.
In my last job, my team of two was supposed to crack an iPhone for a client, and it didn't really go anywhere. Our supervisor knew that it was process prone to failure and dead ends, but at some point executives from both companies got involved for some reason. We had to endure endless "just do it!" shit from this guy who kept demanding definitive answers and timelines, and just wouldn't accept that it was an incredibly difficult thing that could end up with no results and impossible to give a timeline for. The timeline is "how much do you have to left to spend on this?"
I once had my bosses bosses boss (a regional manager three steps down from a CEO) come to me (and at the time I was desktop fucking support, not a server admin) because a disgruntled employee had started an internet forum badmouthing our company and he wanted me to a) find it, b) find out who created it, and c) shut it down, from the internet, and remove it.
This was an actual request I was given, right after being asked to replace the toner in the copier.
I worked there about another two months.
You could, essentially, strongarm ISPs and whois and hosts if you have enough money to throw at lawyers.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
A bunch of beachgoers in Argentina last week inadvertently killed an endangered baby dolphin when they scooped it out of the ocean and started taking pictures of it.
selfie culture is killing this world
tbf dolphins are assholes
just like people
though i guess i would feel bad if that were a human baby and not a dolphin one
imo whilst it's the case that "the Feds cannot crack an off-the-shelf device like a new iphone huehuehue" resonates amongst a certain crowd - largely the crowd we walk in - you have to be quite sheltered to think that it'd be popular beyond these circles, esp when the FBI is choosing to pick this fight over homegrown Islamists deciding to pew pew whatever
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
In my last job, my team of two was supposed to crack an iPhone for a client, and it didn't really go anywhere. Our supervisor knew that it was process prone to failure and dead ends, but at some point executives from both companies got involved for some reason. We had to endure endless "just do it!" shit from this guy who kept demanding definitive answers and timelines, and just wouldn't accept that it was an incredibly difficult thing that could end up with no results and impossible to give a timeline for. The timeline is "how much do you have to left to spend on this?"
I once had my bosses bosses boss (a regional manager three steps down from a CEO) come to me (and at the time I was desktop fucking support, not a server admin) because a disgruntled employee had started an internet forum badmouthing our company and he wanted me to a) find it, b) find out who created it, and c) shut it down, from the internet, and remove it.
This was an actual request I was given, right after being asked to replace the toner in the copier.
my cousin just posted a link to an article about how a bunch of idiot beachgoers killed a tiny Franciscana dolphin that had beached, because they kept passing it around in a giant crowd for selfies
and dolphins, shockingly, need to be in the water to survive
this makes me really angry
fkn traumatic death too
that's like
if you were a mer person and brought a puppy underwater to show everyone
this was my first thought but it's not quite right, as dolphins do breathe air
i think the water requirement is something else? basically i think they need to stay hydrated or they will die pretty quickly, since their bodies only function aquatically
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
My other it coworker is already mad at me because he got cut and I didn't.
See that was supposed to be the deal.
Boss is in too high of a position for a two person shop.
Network manager gets posted, he gets it
and they keep 1 existing tech.
But then they decided to make it a regular it specialist position (because they are both gs-12's either way) without telling us
What's funny is that the CIA could probably (and has probably) busted an iPhone before.
BUT if the CIA got that data and handed it to the FBI, the FBI would have to show in court how they got said data.
Which in the end wouldn't matter because for all of snowden's leaked documents nothing will ever be done to change the CIA.
So yeah, the Feds should just get the CIA to crack it. They probably already have.
Not really - parallel construction is a thing.
They would doubtless love to have the capability for themselves and for lower-tier LEO as well, because the natural progression of this kind of thing is going from a one-of or limited use case in the light of legitimate terrorism to applying it broadly and without oversight to drug cases and political dissidence :rotate:
On that note, I'm watching The Wire again (Girlfriend has never seen it) and watching all the hoops the detectives have to jump through to clone pagers and tap Verizon payphones is hilarious, knowing that today they'd just say "Hey boss, can I borrow the Stingray for the weekend?" and a judge would never hear about it.
You're saying if the Feds, after being told no by apple, magically had the data they needed, Apple wouldn't sue (and likely win) to see how that data was obtained, which could affect how the data was used in the first place?
That makes no sense to me, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Well this is a publicized case, of course, but generally the formula goes
-Law enforcement benefits from intelligence administrations to gain evidence
-They do not want to declare the origins of this evidence, either because it was illegally obtained or because it would reveal their processes and allow criminals to defend against the tactic in the future
-The case moves forward with the evidence either being presented as coming from a different source (imaginary informants, etc) or the information gained is used to facilitate other, "legitimate" police work; ie the cops illegally learn about a criminal enterprise through warrantless wiretaps but are then able to use that information to set up legal surveillance.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
don't be fatuous
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
A bunch of beachgoers in Argentina last week inadvertently killed an endangered baby dolphin when they scooped it out of the ocean and started taking pictures of it.
selfie culture is killing this world
tbf dolphins are assholes
just like people
though i guess i would feel bad if that were a human baby and not a dolphin one
In my last job, my team of two was supposed to crack an iPhone for a client, and it didn't really go anywhere. Our supervisor knew that it was process prone to failure and dead ends, but at some point executives from both companies got involved for some reason. We had to endure endless "just do it!" shit from this guy who kept demanding definitive answers and timelines, and just wouldn't accept that it was an incredibly difficult thing that could end up with no results and impossible to give a timeline for. The timeline is "how much do you have to left to spend on this?"
I once had my bosses bosses boss (a regional manager three steps down from a CEO) come to me (and at the time I was desktop fucking support, not a server admin) because a disgruntled employee had started an internet forum badmouthing our company and he wanted me to a) find it, b) find out who created it, and c) shut it down, from the internet, and remove it.
This was an actual request I was given, right after being asked to replace the toner in the copier.
I worked there about another two months.
You could, essentially, strongarm ISPs and whois and hosts if you have enough money to throw at lawyers.
I couldn't even find the fucking website. My best guess it that it was hosted on someone's private server at home using their IP address. Real Deep Web shit they had going on there.
I am kind of shocked that the Fbi can't crack an iPhone themselves.
Were all those movies about hacking... wrong?!
Mostly what they're worried about is that too many attempts to brute force it will reset the phone.
The 5C has a hypothetical security vulnerability where it's possible to replace the phone's firmware with another, signed, firmware even though it's locked (not possible on newer models).
The restriction on how many attempts you get to unlock it, and the restriction on how fast you can enter those attempts, are built into the firmware (in newer phones this is built into the hardware and can't be circumvented in this way).
So what the FBI want apple to do is replace the firmware on that phone only with another which, while not unlocking it, makes it practical to brute force it into unlocking without the risk of the phone deleting all its data. It has to be apple that does it because only they can sign the firmware such that there phone will accept it.
right
but i still can't see how they can be compelled to essentially develop firmware through a court order
is well established you can't compel people to work against their will
It's a really odd situation though.
If the phone were a person, and they had information and refused to disclose it despite being granted full immunity, they could feasibly be held on a material witness warrant, and if they still refused they could be held in contempt and jailed indefinitely.
If the phone were some crazy high-tech safe, where doing anything to it would cause its contents to be destroyed, and even the safe company couldn't open it, the FBI could get the design drawings and schematics of the safe to figure out a way into it.
But a phone has become some nebulous extension of a person now, and the data in it held to a higher standard because of the ability of others to access it in day to day life in ways a safe full of information in your house couldn't be accessed, and coupled with the previous violation of that, rightfully or not, expected privacy by the government accessing someone's encrypted device surreptitiously it's held to this higher standard.
It's not even a higher standard thing (though I don't disagree). The hypotheticals you provided don't really apply because there is literally nothing they can do short of allocating development resources to create firmware to unlock it. Essentially, they are asking Apple to create firmware that bypasses this model's security for free.
There is literally nothing they can do to compel them to do something like that.
I honestly don't believe Apple doesn't already have the capability, but I can see why they wouldn't want to admit it. You know the first time Tim Cook got locked out of an iOS 8 device they created it.
I'm against them making Apple do whatever Apple doesn't want to do or whatever
but that tweet... that's not the same thing? is it? this isn't about companies selling out could-be terrorists, it's about getting into phones
not taking a stand either way, I don't see how the three hypotheticals listed are the same
That's the proposed reasoning for the key. So that they can get into phones of suspected terrorists. Unfortunately it's the biggest slippery slope all time.
the FBI should just ask the Chinese for access to whatever backdoors they put in while they were building the things
problem solved!
kind of the whole problem
The FBI wanting security faults purposefully built into phones in turn gives everybody else a better chance of hacking into your phone too
So whatever the legal merits of the argument, as a policy it's probably worse to make apple introduce these things than not.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
What's funny is that the CIA could probably (and has probably) busted an iPhone before.
BUT if the CIA got that data and handed it to the FBI, the FBI would have to show in court how they got said data.
Which in the end wouldn't matter because for all of snowden's leaked documents nothing will ever be done to change the CIA.
So yeah, the Feds should just get the CIA to crack it. They probably already have.
Not really - parallel construction is a thing.
They would doubtless love to have the capability for themselves and for lower-tier LEO as well, because the natural progression of this kind of thing is going from a one-of or limited use case in the light of legitimate terrorism to applying it broadly and without oversight to drug cases and political dissidence :rotate:
On that note, I'm watching The Wire again (Girlfriend has never seen it) and watching all the hoops the detectives have to jump through to clone pagers and tap Verizon payphones is hilarious, knowing that today they'd just say "Hey boss, can I borrow the Stingray for the weekend?" and a judge would never hear about it.
You're saying if the Feds, after being told no by apple, magically had the data they needed, Apple wouldn't sue (and likely win) to see how that data was obtained, which could affect how the data was used in the first place?
That makes no sense to me, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Well this is a publicized case, of course, but generally the formula goes
-Law enforcement benefits from intelligence administrations to gain evidence
-They do not want to declare the origins of this evidence, either because it was illegally obtained or because it would reveal their processes and allow criminals to defend against the tactic in the future
-The case moves forward with the evidence either being presented as coming from a different source (imaginary informants, etc) or the information gained is used to facilitate other, "legitimate" police work; ie the cops illegally learn about a criminal enterprise through warrantless wiretaps but are then able to use that information to set up legal surveillance.
Oh yeah I don't disagree with you there, we're on the same page. I was mainly referring to this specific case wherein if for any reason other than "we found the passcode" and there's a way to verify that was indeed the correct passcode, there's going to be a massive clusterfuck involved after.
imo whilst it's the case that "the Feds cannot crack an off-the-shelf device like a new iphone huehuehue" resonates amongst a certain crowd - largely the crowd we walk in - you have to be quite sheltered to think that it'd be popular beyond these circles, esp when the FBI is choosing to pick this fight over homegrown Islamists deciding to pew pew whatever
Yeah the choice of case with which to make an issue of it is not accidental.
That said, we've already moved beyond this stage, in terms of device security. New designs already make the assumption that is possible the manufacturer has been compromised so deliberately put breaking into the phone beyond their reach.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
I am kind of shocked that the Fbi can't crack an iPhone themselves.
Were all those movies about hacking... wrong?!
Mostly what they're worried about is that too many attempts to brute force it will reset the phone.
The 5C has a hypothetical security vulnerability where it's possible to replace the phone's firmware with another, signed, firmware even though it's locked (not possible on newer models).
The restriction on how many attempts you get to unlock it, and the restriction on how fast you can enter those attempts, are built into the firmware (in newer phones this is built into the hardware and can't be circumvented in this way).
So what the FBI want apple to do is replace the firmware on that phone only with another which, while not unlocking it, makes it practical to brute force it into unlocking without the risk of the phone deleting all its data. It has to be apple that does it because only they can sign the firmware such that there phone will accept it.
right
but i still can't see how they can be compelled to essentially develop firmware through a court order
is well established you can't compel people to work against their will
It's a really odd situation though.
If the phone were a person, and they had information and refused to disclose it despite being granted full immunity, they could feasibly be held on a material witness warrant, and if they still refused they could be held in contempt and jailed indefinitely.
If the phone were some crazy high-tech safe, where doing anything to it would cause its contents to be destroyed, and even the safe company couldn't open it, the FBI could get the design drawings and schematics of the safe to figure out a way into it.
But a phone has become some nebulous extension of a person now, and the data in it held to a higher standard because of the ability of others to access it in day to day life in ways a safe full of information in your house couldn't be accessed, and coupled with the previous violation of that, rightfully or not, expected privacy by the government accessing someone's encrypted device surreptitiously it's held to this higher standard.
It's not even a higher standard thing (though I don't disagree). The hypotheticals you provided don't really apply because there is literally nothing they can do short of allocating development resources to create firmware to unlock it. Essentially, they are asking Apple to create firmware that bypasses this model's security for free.
There is literally nothing they can do to compel them to do something like that.
I honestly don't believe Apple doesn't already have the capability, but I can see why they wouldn't want to admit it. You know the first time Tim Cook got locked out of an iOS 8 device they created it.
i mean if facebook uses the mic to spy on people for targeted ads, the govt wouldn't have much problem if they forced a company to do it
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
imo whilst it's the case that "the Feds cannot crack an off-the-shelf device like a new iphone huehuehue" resonates amongst a certain crowd - largely the crowd we walk in - you have to be quite sheltered to think that it'd be popular beyond these circles, esp when the FBI is choosing to pick this fight over homegrown Islamists deciding to pew pew whatever
also extending the complaint against Apple to local law enforcement and claims of hundreds of iphones sitting in evidence lockers that can't be accessed, and thus preventing police departments from "keeping people safe"
the PR on this is probably going to swing and we'll end up with fear winning out like it always does
like they aren't asking apple to hand over an encryption key to be able to access any iphone's data (because apple doesn't have such a thing), they are asking apple to develop and push firmware to this specific iphone to let the FBI bruteforce the passcode
(which could then be extended to other instances - hey apple, help us break into this drug dealer's phone... - but it's a limited method because apple has already designed new phones such that pushing new firmware is no longer a workaround to beat the phone's encryption)
I am kind of shocked that the Fbi can't crack an iPhone themselves.
Were all those movies about hacking... wrong?!
Mostly what they're worried about is that too many attempts to brute force it will reset the phone.
The 5C has a hypothetical security vulnerability where it's possible to replace the phone's firmware with another, signed, firmware even though it's locked (not possible on newer models).
The restriction on how many attempts you get to unlock it, and the restriction on how fast you can enter those attempts, are built into the firmware (in newer phones this is built into the hardware and can't be circumvented in this way).
So what the FBI want apple to do is replace the firmware on that phone only with another which, while not unlocking it, makes it practical to brute force it into unlocking without the risk of the phone deleting all its data. It has to be apple that does it because only they can sign the firmware such that there phone will accept it.
right
but i still can't see how they can be compelled to essentially develop firmware through a court order
is well established you can't compel people to work against their will
It's a really odd situation though.
If the phone were a person, and they had information and refused to disclose it despite being granted full immunity, they could feasibly be held on a material witness warrant, and if they still refused they could be held in contempt and jailed indefinitely.
If the phone were some crazy high-tech safe, where doing anything to it would cause its contents to be destroyed, and even the safe company couldn't open it, the FBI could get the design drawings and schematics of the safe to figure out a way into it.
But a phone has become some nebulous extension of a person now, and the data in it held to a higher standard because of the ability of others to access it in day to day life in ways a safe full of information in your house couldn't be accessed, and coupled with the previous violation of that, rightfully or not, expected privacy by the government accessing someone's encrypted device surreptitiously it's held to this higher standard.
It's not even a higher standard thing (though I don't disagree). The hypotheticals you provided don't really apply because there is literally nothing they can do short of allocating development resources to create firmware to unlock it. Essentially, they are asking Apple to create firmware that bypasses this model's security for free.
There is literally nothing they can do to compel them to do something like that.
I honestly don't believe Apple doesn't already have the capability, but I can see why they wouldn't want to admit it. You know the first time Tim Cook got locked out of an iOS 8 device they created it.
The ol' "we don't have a procedure for that." vs. "we don't have the capability to do that"
@Elldren yeah Gim nailed it. For 2 years in the WWF, King was feuding with Hart and King was the heel during that, plus ge was a heel on commentarg for a long time.
the FBI should just ask the Chinese for access to whatever backdoors they put in while they were building the things
problem solved!
kind of the whole problem
The FBI wanting security faults purposefully built into phones in turn gives everybody else a better chance of hacking into your phone too
So whatever the legal merits of the argument, as a policy it's probably worse to make apple introduce these things than not.
This is pretty much the core of apple's argument against it, along with: this will just be the first of many requests from numerous governments for the same
imo whilst it's the case that "the Feds cannot crack an off-the-shelf device like a new iphone huehuehue" resonates amongst a certain crowd - largely the crowd we walk in - you have to be quite sheltered to think that it'd be popular beyond these circles, esp when the FBI is choosing to pick this fight over homegrown Islamists deciding to pew pew whatever
Yeah the choice of case with which to make an issue of it is not accidental.
That said, we've already moved beyond this stage, in terms of device security. New designs already make the assumption that is possible the manufacturer has been compromised so deliberately put breaking into the phone beyond their reach.
'tis always possible to legislate against such devices
mandatory backdoor legislation does not have to be universally effective; it merely needs to be good enough to keep them away from consumer devices
0
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
A bunch of beachgoers in Argentina last week inadvertently killed an endangered baby dolphin when they scooped it out of the ocean and started taking pictures of it.
selfie culture is killing this world
tbf dolphins are assholes
just like people
though i guess i would feel bad if that were a human baby and not a dolphin one
I am kind of shocked that the Fbi can't crack an iPhone themselves.
Were all those movies about hacking... wrong?!
Mostly what they're worried about is that too many attempts to brute force it will reset the phone.
The 5C has a hypothetical security vulnerability where it's possible to replace the phone's firmware with another, signed, firmware even though it's locked (not possible on newer models).
The restriction on how many attempts you get to unlock it, and the restriction on how fast you can enter those attempts, are built into the firmware (in newer phones this is built into the hardware and can't be circumvented in this way).
So what the FBI want apple to do is replace the firmware on that phone only with another which, while not unlocking it, makes it practical to brute force it into unlocking without the risk of the phone deleting all its data. It has to be apple that does it because only they can sign the firmware such that there phone will accept it.
right
but i still can't see how they can be compelled to essentially develop firmware through a court order
is well established you can't compel people to work against their will
It's a really odd situation though.
If the phone were a person, and they had information and refused to disclose it despite being granted full immunity, they could feasibly be held on a material witness warrant, and if they still refused they could be held in contempt and jailed indefinitely.
If the phone were some crazy high-tech safe, where doing anything to it would cause its contents to be destroyed, and even the safe company couldn't open it, the FBI could get the design drawings and schematics of the safe to figure out a way into it.
But a phone has become some nebulous extension of a person now, and the data in it held to a higher standard because of the ability of others to access it in day to day life in ways a safe full of information in your house couldn't be accessed, and coupled with the previous violation of that, rightfully or not, expected privacy by the government accessing someone's encrypted device surreptitiously it's held to this higher standard.
It's not even a higher standard thing (though I don't disagree). The hypotheticals you provided don't really apply because there is literally nothing they can do short of allocating development resources to create firmware to unlock it. Essentially, they are asking Apple to create firmware that bypasses this model's security for free.
There is literally nothing they can do to compel them to do something like that.
I honestly don't believe Apple doesn't already have the capability, but I can see why they wouldn't want to admit it. You know the first time Tim Cook got locked out of an iOS 8 device they created it.
Tim Cook probably has a backup in iCloud, which you wouldn't do if you were a criminal with any brains.
+2
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
uuuuuugh
fuck video walkthroughs just give me text I want text where has all the writing gone ;-;
fuck gendered marketing
+8
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I'm against them making Apple do whatever Apple doesn't want to do or whatever
but that tweet... that's not the same thing? is it? this isn't about companies selling out could-be terrorists, it's about getting into phones
not taking a stand either way, I don't see how the three hypotheticals listed are the same
That's the proposed reasoning for the key. So that they can get into phones of suspected terrorists. Unfortunately it's the biggest slippery slope all time.
right. not so they can be told based on browsing history if someone might be a terrorist, which oddly all of those examples are based on
I see the similarities just... they are shitty hypotheticals imo. which is common for hypotheticals, I'm really not sure there's a need to come up with similar-but-not-the-same examples to convince people they shouldn't want Apple to do this.
Posts
That is hardly new. Remember when Walt Disney killed a bunch of lemmings?
my favorite movie might surprisingly be Creed
not the "best" movie, but it was my favorite and i felt it
i felt it haaaaaaaaaaaard
Professionally.
You could, essentially, strongarm ISPs and whois and hosts if you have enough money to throw at lawyers.
as a dolphin,
a gentleman never tells
this was my first thought but it's not quite right, as dolphins do breathe air
i think the water requirement is something else? basically i think they need to stay hydrated or they will die pretty quickly, since their bodies only function aquatically
See that was supposed to be the deal.
Boss is in too high of a position for a two person shop.
Network manager gets posted, he gets it
and they keep 1 existing tech.
But then they decided to make it a regular it specialist position (because they are both gs-12's either way) without telling us
and the comedy of errors begins
Well this is a publicized case, of course, but generally the formula goes
-Law enforcement benefits from intelligence administrations to gain evidence
-They do not want to declare the origins of this evidence, either because it was illegally obtained or because it would reveal their processes and allow criminals to defend against the tactic in the future
-The case moves forward with the evidence either being presented as coming from a different source (imaginary informants, etc) or the information gained is used to facilitate other, "legitimate" police work; ie the cops illegally learn about a criminal enterprise through warrantless wiretaps but are then able to use that information to set up legal surveillance.
I couldn't even find the fucking website. My best guess it that it was hosted on someone's private server at home using their IP address. Real Deep Web shit they had going on there.
I honestly don't believe Apple doesn't already have the capability, but I can see why they wouldn't want to admit it. You know the first time Tim Cook got locked out of an iOS 8 device they created it.
That's the proposed reasoning for the key. So that they can get into phones of suspected terrorists. Unfortunately it's the biggest slippery slope all time.
is it a skeleton key
kind of the whole problem
The FBI wanting security faults purposefully built into phones in turn gives everybody else a better chance of hacking into your phone too
So whatever the legal merits of the argument, as a policy it's probably worse to make apple introduce these things than not.
what if it's to figure out what really happened to all those socks you keep losing when you do laundry
Oh yeah I don't disagree with you there, we're on the same page. I was mainly referring to this specific case wherein if for any reason other than "we found the passcode" and there's a way to verify that was indeed the correct passcode, there's going to be a massive clusterfuck involved after.
Yeah the choice of case with which to make an issue of it is not accidental.
That said, we've already moved beyond this stage, in terms of device security. New designs already make the assumption that is possible the manufacturer has been compromised so deliberately put breaking into the phone beyond their reach.
i mean if facebook uses the mic to spy on people for targeted ads, the govt wouldn't have much problem if they forced a company to do it
also extending the complaint against Apple to local law enforcement and claims of hundreds of iphones sitting in evidence lockers that can't be accessed, and thus preventing police departments from "keeping people safe"
the PR on this is probably going to swing and we'll end up with fear winning out like it always does
(which could then be extended to other instances - hey apple, help us break into this drug dealer's phone... - but it's a limited method because apple has already designed new phones such that pushing new firmware is no longer a workaround to beat the phone's encryption)
The ol' "we don't have a procedure for that." vs. "we don't have the capability to do that"
oh
well in that case i'm willing to set fire to the 4th amendment
@STATE OF THE ART ROBOT but never, it should be emphasized, in Memphis
i can think of exceptions, but yeah, "generally" is the correct word for how much i am not okay with it
This is pretty much the core of apple's argument against it, along with: this will just be the first of many requests from numerous governments for the same
'tis always possible to legislate against such devices
mandatory backdoor legislation does not have to be universally effective; it merely needs to be good enough to keep them away from consumer devices
no further questions
Tim Cook probably has a backup in iCloud, which you wouldn't do if you were a criminal with any brains.
fuck video walkthroughs just give me text I want text where has all the writing gone ;-;
right. not so they can be told based on browsing history if someone might be a terrorist, which oddly all of those examples are based on
I see the similarities just... they are shitty hypotheticals imo. which is common for hypotheticals, I'm really not sure there's a need to come up with similar-but-not-the-same examples to convince people they shouldn't want Apple to do this.
this is incredibly annoying
it's nice to have a video for something really tricky and hard to communicate but i don't want to skip through a video to find things goddamn
Loooong time paaaassing
(they key is lunch)