FBI may have found way to unlock San Bernardino attacker's iPhone

[Keith B]

Don't know otherwise. Just seems awful strange that all the trouble they spent trying to get Apple to help now they are able to get in.

As I said in an earlier post, what the FBI wanted was a special version of software that could be loaded on a phone and it would allow access to the data. This would basically be a Pandora's Box and potentially allow ANY iPhone to be broken. Apple did not want to do that, and so the fight started.

Here is a customer letter from Apple explaining why they refused to cooperate with the FBI because of the type of request being made http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

[Bitter Clinger]

Don't know otherwise. Just seems awful strange that all the trouble they spent trying to get Apple to help now they are able to get in.

As I said in an earlier post, what the FBI wanted was a special version of software that could be loaded on a phone and it would allow access to the data. This would basically be a Pandora's Box and potentially allow ANY iPhone to be broken. Apple did not want to do that, and so the fight started.

Here is a customer letter from Apple explaining why they refused to cooperate with the FBI because of the type of request being made http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Strictly a shallow marketing ploy by Cook. And now Apple is exposed...what a surprise, NOT.

[Keith B]

Don't know otherwise. Just seems awful strange that all the trouble they spent trying to get Apple to help now they are able to get in.

As I said in an earlier post, what the FBI wanted was a special version of software that could be loaded on a phone and it would allow access to the data. This would basically be a Pandora's Box and potentially allow ANY iPhone to be broken. Apple did not want to do that, and so the fight started.

Here is a customer letter from Apple explaining why they refused to cooperate with the FBI because of the type of request being made http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Strictly a shallow marketing ploy by Cook. And now Apple is exposed...what a surprise, NOT.

Whatever you want to believe.

[Don T]

The whole issue of Apple vs. the FBI is one on which reasonable persons may disagree. Personally, I feel very strongly both ways.

It is interesting, however, to observe that many who feel strongly about 2nd amendment rights--not just for personal defense, but to protect us from an over-reaching government--are less concerned about other potential government overreach and possible loss of individual liberty.

Although it is probably not exactly analogous, I am reminded of Franklin's comment back in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I realize that some are motivated more by a desire for justice than by concerns for safety, so perhaps the disconnect is understandable.

[Bitter Clinger]

The whole issue of Apple vs. the FBI is one on which reasonable persons may disagree. Personally, I feel very strongly both ways.

It is interesting, however, to observe that many who feel strongly about 2nd amendment rights--not just for personal defense, but to protect us from an over-reaching government--are less concerned about other potential government overreach and possible loss of individual liberty.

Although it is probably not exactly analogous, I am reminded of Franklin's comment back in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I realize that some are motivated more by a desire for justice than by concerns for safety, so perhaps the disconnect is understandable.

Quoting Franklin out of context has been employed here before - to no end. Apple"s Tim Cook thought that he could take the atrocity of San Bernadino and turn it into a slot machine payout for Apple. Well, he lost - as was predictable. That does not obviate the fact that government has grown far too large and far too intrusive - especially under the corruption that is Obama. Regardless, if the data on that phone can be used to stop another attack on innocent civilians, then the right thing, the moral thing, to do would have been to turn it over. These judgement calls are not always black and white - that is what makes them so difficult and worthy of discussion.

[mojo84]

Do those of you that think Apple was in the right believe judges should not be able to issue search warrants in cases where there is justifiable reason to perform a search?

As far as making the argument this is the same as government overreaching and encroaching upon privacy and personal liberty, I believe that is not a valid argument. The government went through the court system and requested he order Apple to assist based upon probable justifiable cause to perform the search of the phone. I also understand Apple not wanting to be a part of breaching it's own security system as they believe it would open pandora's box. I also agree they should fight it up to the point of the judge ordering them to help.

There has to be some point when an individual loses some rights to privacy and protection from search and seizure. It has been established over time it's when there is justifiable probable cause (probably not the exact proper legal wording) and a judge issues a warrant or order. If not, then we need to do away with the search warrant process altogether.

[mojo84]

Although it is probably not exactly analogous, I am reminded of Franklin's comment back in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I realize that some are motivated more by a desire for justice than by concerns for safety, so perhaps the disconnect is understandable.

I believe one gives up a certain amount of liberty when one is known to have committed a terrorist attack. This is not a case of giving up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.

Is this another case of giving up liberty to purchase temporary safety? These things cut both ways.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... ery-221338

Second judge grants discovery in Clinton email lawsuit
By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/29/16 12:46 PM EDT
Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton's private email account was integrated into the State Department recordkeeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... z44JkZHM2p
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Right2Carry]

The whole issue of Apple vs. the FBI is one on which reasonable persons may disagree. Personally, I feel very strongly both ways.

It is interesting, however, to observe that many who feel strongly about 2nd amendment rights--not just for personal defense, but to protect us from an over-reaching government--are less concerned about other potential government overreach and possible loss of individual liberty.

Although it is probably not exactly analogous, I am reminded of Franklin's comment back in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I realize that some are motivated more by a desire for justice than by concerns for safety, so perhaps the disconnect is understandable.

Quoting Franklin out of context has been employed here before - to no end. Apple"s Tim Cook thought that he could take the atrocity of San Bernadino and turn it into a slot machine payout for Apple. Well, he lost - as was predictable. That does not obviate the fact that government has grown far too large and far too intrusive - especially under the corruption that is Obama. Regardless, if the data on that phone can be used to stop another attack on innocent civilians, then the right thing, the moral thing, to do would have been to turn it over. These judgement calls are not always black and white - that is what makes them so difficult and worthy of discussion.

Your wrong, Apple won and didn't give the government the backdoor they were seeking.

[Bitter Clinger]

The whole issue of Apple vs. the FBI is one on which reasonable persons may disagree. Personally, I feel very strongly both ways.

It is interesting, however, to observe that many who feel strongly about 2nd amendment rights--not just for personal defense, but to protect us from an over-reaching government--are less concerned about other potential government overreach and possible loss of individual liberty.

Although it is probably not exactly analogous, I am reminded of Franklin's comment back in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I realize that some are motivated more by a desire for justice than by concerns for safety, so perhaps the disconnect is understandable.

Quoting Franklin out of context has been employed here before - to no end. Apple"s Tim Cook thought that he could take the atrocity of San Bernadino and turn it into a slot machine payout for Apple. Well, he lost - as was predictable. That does not obviate the fact that government has grown far too large and far too intrusive - especially under the corruption that is Obama. Regardless, if the data on that phone can be used to stop another attack on innocent civilians, then the right thing, the moral thing, to do would have been to turn it over. These judgement calls are not always black and white - that is what makes them so difficult and worthy of discussion.

Your wrong, Apple won and didn't give the government the backdoor they were seeking.

Thanks for correcting me, I'm sure that you also believe John Kerry when he says we are beating ISIS because they attacked Brussels. Impeccable logic.

[WildBill]

Rather than continuing to bang my head or beat a dead horse, I'm hungry

[mojo84]

Rather than continuing to bang my head or beat a dead horse, I'm hungry

You sharing?

[WildBill]

Rather than continuing to bang my head or beat a dead horse, I'm hungry

You sharing?

Of course, my mother taught me well.

[Right2Carry]

The whole issue of Apple vs. the FBI is one on which reasonable persons may disagree. Personally, I feel very strongly both ways.

It is interesting, however, to observe that many who feel strongly about 2nd amendment rights--not just for personal defense, but to protect us from an over-reaching government--are less concerned about other potential government overreach and possible loss of individual liberty.

Although it is probably not exactly analogous, I am reminded of Franklin's comment back in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I realize that some are motivated more by a desire for justice than by concerns for safety, so perhaps the disconnect is understandable.

Quoting Franklin out of context has been employed here before - to no end. Apple"s Tim Cook thought that he could take the atrocity of San Bernadino and turn it into a slot machine payout for Apple. Well, he lost - as was predictable. That does not obviate the fact that government has grown far too large and far too intrusive - especially under the corruption that is Obama. Regardless, if the data on that phone can be used to stop another attack on innocent civilians, then the right thing, the moral thing, to do would have been to turn it over. These judgement calls are not always black and white - that is what makes them so difficult and worthy of discussion.

Your wrong, Apple won and didn't give the government the backdoor they were seeking.

Thanks for correcting me, I'm sure that you also believe John Kerry when he says we are beating ISIS because they attacked Brussels. Impeccable logic.

You don't know what I believe so stay in your lane.

[jailbird]

Don't know otherwise. Just seems awful strange that all the trouble they spent trying to get Apple to help now they are able to get in.

As I said in an earlier post, what the FBI wanted was a special version of software that could be loaded on a phone and it would allow access to the data. This would basically be a Pandora's Box and potentially allow ANY iPhone to be broken. Apple did not want to do that, and so the fight started.

Here is a customer letter from Apple explaining why they refused to cooperate with the FBI because of the type of request being made http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Strictly a shallow marketing ploy by Cook. And now Apple is exposed...what a surprise, NOT.

I'm not sure how Apple is exposed now. If this was an Android phone they would have had the data a long time ago. This was also an older phone without the hardware security that is in the newer phones.

You say this was a marketing ploy by Apple. I say this whole thing was a big show by the government in order to use the "we need justice" ploy to get new powers, just like they did with the Patriot Act. The guy destroyed his personal phone but not his work supplied one. The NSA already has all of his call and SMS records. It doesn't take a genius to work out that there probably wasn't anything useful on this phone. Of course the government will NEVER admit to that!

[bear94]

Either they're lying or they contracted a tech company to run a brute-force algorithm to open up the phone. I'm not sure if the iphone has brute-force protection but I'm sure its something they'll have to look into. One thing that is scary is how much people do not understand encryption. Anyone here that has made an amazon purchase, checked their bank account, or signed into a social media account from their computer or phone can thank encryption for protecting them against having their data stolen.