This is why I will not own any Apple products!

[sjfcontrol]

http://www.macworld.com/article/3034355 ... ation.html

[Bitter Clinger]

http://www.macworld.com/article/3034355 ... ation.html

Nice! MacWorld. Was there nothing in the New York Times?

[android]

Apple has unlocked phones 70 times before says the feds.

Apple does not dispute the figures.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... efore.html

But what model and version of os? Older versions did not have the same security settings on by default . A phone with an older os may very likely be quite easy to get into

The article has a quote that Apple can unlock it and won't, which if true is where I disagree with them since they have a federal court order and the govt followed all required legal requirements ...but it still seems to be a lot of hearsay from both sides

What difference does which version of operating system does it make? They caved 70 times.

Flexible ethics. The hallmark of progressivism.

huge difference, the old operating system they have said could be gotten into...the new one added default security settings which they say they cannot.
plus the issue isnt that they will or wont get into this phone its that they wont write backdoor into their code for law enforcement.

Huge difference?

Don't think so. Flexible ethics.

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. (Well actually the bridge will burn itself after 10 failed attempts to unlock the gate.)

So now they are writing a court order telling them to rebuild the bridge.

[sjfcontrol]

http://www.macworld.com/article/3034355 ... ation.html

Nice! MacWorld. Was there nothing in the New York Times?

I would guess that the Macworld authors would know a bit more about encryption and Apple products than the writers at the NYT.

[WildBill]

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.

Android, I think your explanation is excellent.
Thank you for your post.

[Dave2]

Apple has unlocked phones 70 times before says the feds.

Apple does not dispute the figures.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... efore.html

But what model and version of os? Older versions did not have the same security settings on by default . A phone with an older os may very likely be quite easy to get into

The article has a quote that Apple can unlock it and won't, which if true is where I disagree with them since they have a federal court order and the govt followed all required legal requirements ...but it still seems to be a lot of hearsay from both sides

What difference does which version of operating system does it make? They caved 70 times.

Flexible ethics. The hallmark of progressivism.

YUP! Or as made famous during the Clinton years,"Situational Ethics".

Profit motive pure and simple for Apple. They have unlocked many phones before and the FBI is NOT asking for all phones, just this one.

For Apple's Cook, there is obviously no absolute standard against which all things should be measured. But then again, why should we expect him to actually adhere to any moral standards?

There is clearly NO "Do the right thing" moral obligation extant at Apple. Which is why I will never patronize them!

Which means you will not be patronizing Google or Microsoft either. They're standing behind Apple on this one. http://www.cultofmac.com/413014/compani ... cy-stance/

Good point, thanks. I was running out of companies to trash

So, which non-Apple, non-Android, non-Windows products will you be ordering for work?

[flechero]

I believe they could unlock that single phone without making the world vulnerable. (and have no facts to prove it) I could also argue both side of this as I think there are good arguments for both sides...

but once the person is dead, and a confirmed terrorist, I fail to see the need to keep his or her privacy And if it leads to crushing the rest of the network that helped, trained, financed them, great- crush them and take their resources as well.

I'm sure in the future, they'll just destroy the phones before they begin shooting or whatever.

[MechAg94]

I believe they could unlock that single phone without making the world vulnerable. (and have no facts to prove it) I could also argue both side of this as I think there are good arguments for both sides...

but once the person is dead, and a confirmed terrorist, I fail to see the need to keep his or her privacy And if it leads to crushing the rest of the network that helped, trained, financed them, great- crush them and take their resources as well.

I'm sure in the future, they'll just destroy the phones before they begin shooting or whatever.

They may be able to do that, but that isn't what the court order asks for.

[Dave2]

I believe they could unlock that single phone without making the world vulnerable. (and have no facts to prove it) I could also argue both side of this as I think there are good arguments for both sides...

but once the person is dead, and a confirmed terrorist, I fail to see the need to keep his or her privacy And if it leads to crushing the rest of the network that helped, trained, financed them, great- crush them and take their resources as well.

I'm sure in the future, they'll just destroy the phones before they begin shooting or whatever.

*headdesk* This has nothing to do with the "rights" of the terrorists.

[Solaris]

Profit motive pure and simple for Apple. They have unlocked many phones before and the FBI is NOT asking for all phones, just this one.

Phones with A7 chip and running IOS greater than 8.1.1 are much, much hard to break. This is why the FBI cannot do it themselves with a IP-Box.

If Apple unlocks this one, then the next court order will be to give the FBI the code to do it to all of them. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

[android]

So, which non-Apple, non-Android, non-Windows products will you be ordering for work?

[The Annoyed Man]

So, which non-Apple, non-Android, non-Windows products will you be ordering for work?

LOLZ. Too darn funny!

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

Android, I think your explanation is excellent.
Thank you for your post.

Hands down, the best illustration yet.

The issue boils down to whether or not you think that gov't should have the power to force you to rebuild what you've already destroyed - particularly if that consists of intellectual property. Can you be compelled to "remember" something you've not only forgotten, but have forgotten the method you used to create it in the first place? Well, sort of....... A judge can hold you in contempt and jail you until you remember, but if you've literally forgotten, nothing can make you remember what is no longer in your brain. If Apple destroyed all code and documentation for a previous bridge, it is not as simple as holding them in contempt until they provide what gov't wants. Because of the many changes in Apple iOS over the years, they wouldn't be compelled to RE-create something they once had; they would be compelled to create something entirely new.

iOS is Apple's property, and its users are granted a license to use it. Let's say I build a moat halfway down my driveway, WELL onto my property and off the public highway, and I also install a draw bridge across the moat which can be lowered whenever I grant a visitor a license to access to the rest of my property. By definition, that drawbridge is also well onto my property and off the public highway. Sometime later I decide that it was not only a mistake to make that access possible by drawbridge, but also my moat is too narrow and shallow. So I tear down the drawbridge and burn both the wood I made it out of and the plans I built it from, and I dig my moat even deeper and make it wider. Then one day the FBI comes along and says, "lower the drawbridge". My truthful answer is, "I cannot, I don't have one anymore". So the FBI says, "rebuild the drawbridge you once had". My truthful answer is, I no longer have the wood, I no longer have the plans, and even if I did, that drawbridge would not cross this moat!" So the FBI answers, "we want you to build a road-going mobile drawbridge which will not only span your moat, but then we can use it to defeat the moats of other private citizens". I respectfully tell the FBI to pound sand.....build it themselves.

That is a more detailed explanation.

[Bitter Clinger]

So, which non-Apple, non-Android, non-Windows products will you be ordering for work?

PERFECT!!!!!

For manufacturing drawings I will resurect the blueprint room as well. I love the smell of ammonia in the morning, it smells like victory!

[Bitter Clinger]

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.

Android, I think your explanation is excellent.
Thank you for your post.

Hands down, the best illustration yet.

The issue boils down to whether or not you think that gov't should have the power to force you to rebuild what you've already destroyed - particularly if that consists of intellectual property. Can you be compelled to "remember" something you've not only forgotten, but have forgotten the method you used to create it in the first place? Well, sort of....... A judge can hold you in contempt and jail you until you remember, but if you've literally forgotten, nothing can make you remember what is no longer in your brain. If Apple destroyed all code and documentation for a previous bridge, it is not as simple as holding them in contempt until they provide what gov't wants. Because of the many changes in Apple iOS over the years, they wouldn't be compelled to RE-create something they once had; they would be compelled to create something entirely new.

iOS is Apple's property, and its users are granted a license to use it. Let's say I build a moat halfway down my driveway, WELL onto my property and off the public highway, and I also install a draw bridge across the moat which can be lowered whenever I grant a visitor a license to access to the rest of my property. By definition, that drawbridge is also well onto my property and off the public highway. Sometime later I decide that it was not only a mistake to make that access possible by drawbridge, but also my moat is too narrow and shallow. So I tear down the drawbridge and burn both the wood I made it out of and the plans I built it from, and I dig my moat even deeper and make it wider. Then one day the FBI comes along and says, "lower the drawbridge". My truthful answer is, "I cannot, I don't have one anymore". So the FBI says, "rebuild the drawbridge you once had". My truthful answer is, I no longer have the wood, I no longer have the plans, and even if I did, that drawbridge would not cross this moat!" So the FBI answers, "we want you to build a road-going mobile drawbridge which will not only span your moat, but then we can use it to defeat the moats of other private citizens". I respectfully tell the FBI to pound sand.....build it themselves.

That is a more detailed explanation.

As long as your drawbridge was not owned by the city you lived in and used during the committment of capital murder by terrorists who are NOT ISIS affiliated, you seem to have a clear cut infallible argument.