fbi has cracked the iphone

[raleighherdfan]

You don't think apple has a way to unlock that one phone ?

No. And why would they need to? I have no doubt they have the ability to open up their entire encryption (every phone) but again....this is supposed to be America. We are not (yet) Cuba, Russia, or China where the govt takes what it didn't create in the name of "the greater good".

Fidel Herdman? Herdman Sanders? Which name do you prefer to be called from this point further?

 

[extragreen]

"The jihad goat screwers ate using phones...in particular the iphone"

Link?

 

[i am herdman]

A great deal of hype and misinformation surrounds thecourt order requiring Apple to help law enforcement access the iPhone of the deceased San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook. Some of the misinformation has come from Apple CEO Tim Cook. Some people are claiming that giving in to law enforcement’s demands would be a crippling blow to the privacy of U.S. citizens. Here are five facts to put those fears in perspective:

1. The FBI wants Apple to write software that bypasses the device-wiping function that activates after 10 wrong passcodes have been entered. This is a security feature designed to protect data when a device is lost or stolen. The FBI wants to be able to enter all possible passcodes on this specific phone.
2. The FBI wants Apple to digitally sign and install the software. If the software is not digitally signed by Apple, the iPhone won’t accept the update. This is the key element of this case; without Apple’s digital signature, that iPhone will remain locked.
3. The software never has to leave Apple’s control and can be immediately destroyed after this one use. Apple claims that once the software is created, it is out there. But it could be “out there” only if Apple has reason not to trust itself or the people it would assign to do the work.
4. Nothing that the FBI has asked for would weaken encryption.
5. The case does raise the question of when a government can demand that a developer help circumvent security measures. This is a legitimate policy concern, and if the San Bernardino case sets a precedent that leads to frequent demands for such assistance, then there is a greater possibility that the software used might become more easily available.

That the FBI has to recruit Apple’s cooperation is a testament to the strength of Apple’s security measures. Apple’s resistance seems designed to position it as a champion of privacy, but the stance actually downplays the effectiveness of its privacy protections.

Ira Winkler is president of Secure Mentem and author of the book Spies Among Us. He can be contacted through his Web site, securementem.com.

 

[i am herdman]

Ugggh ohhh Raleigh: better read about conservatives and Trump saying Apple should do the right thing.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Joe-Scarborough-Conservatives-Angry-Apple/2016/02/17/id/714720/

 

[i am herdman]

GOP front-runner Donald Trump, on Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program, also agreed that Apple needs to unlock the phone.

"Can you imagine that here are the people that killed 14 people, other people laying desperately ill and in the hospital from what they did," he said. "These are two people radicalized, who were given a wedding party by the people that they killed.

"There's something going on. We have to be very careful, we have to be vigilant. But to think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cell phone, who do they think they are?"

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Do you guys really think Mossad/ Chinks/ Russians havent been trying to hack the Apple encryption for years already?

Of course they have. And if they now can, Apple has a black eye.

 

[i am herdman]

Of course they have. And if they now can, Apple has a black eye.

Folks, you know all that stuff Apple and Google has in the cloud? Somebody is using that data.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Wow. Joe Scarborough??

The FBI wants Apple to write software that bypasses the device-wiping function that activates after 10 wrong passcodes have been entered.

Didn't you suggest Apple already had this in there bag of tricks? As I correctly stated....No they didn't. This is an unprecedented demand combined with an attempt to sell the public propaganda because they knew it wouldn't hold up in the courts.

The case does raise the question of when a government can demand that a developer help circumvent security measures. This is a legitimate policy concern, and if the San Bernardino case sets a precedent that leads to frequent demands for such assistance, then there is a greater possibility that the software used might become more easily available

Seems as if "conservatives" who frequently point towards "slippery slope" legal arguments suddenly want to ignore this major one. Sorry Fidel Herdman. I am going to remain consistent. The govt fvcked up the phone after taking possession of it when Apple originally attempted to get them the info off of it.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Folks, you know all that stuff Apple and Google has in the cloud? Somebody is using that data.

So why does the Govt need a program to open a single phone? You are imploding your own propaganda created argument. By the way. This was discussed in one of the articles I linked.

Hail Fidel...........

 

[i am herdman]

So why does the Govt need a program to open a single phone? You are imploding your own propaganda created argument. By the way. This was discussed in one of the articles I linked.

Hail Fidel...........

Apple and Google are using. Somebody has access to it.

Now what if your family member was killed in California or had their legs blown off at the Boston bombing. Would you want Apple to help out more?

What if the FBI went to apple and said their is an imeminent attack and we know they are using these phones to communicate. We just can't pinpoint where. There will be major loss of lives. Would you expect Apple to help? Or hide behind some bull shit that is really just to protect their mystique and brand?

What Apple should have done was cracked it with the feds in silence. Wrapped everybody up in NDA's and we wouldn't be having this discussion and nobody would have known.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Apple and Google are using. Somebody has access to it.

Now what if your family member was killed in California or had their legs blown off at the Boston bombing. Would you want Apple to help out more?

What if the FBI went to apple and said their is an imeminent attack and we know they are using these phones to communicate. We just can't pinpoint where. There will be major loss of lives. Would you expect Apple to help? Or hide behind some bull shit that is really just to protect their mystique and brand?

What Apple should have done was cracked it with the feds in silence. Wrapped everybody up in NDA's and we wouldn't be having this discussion and nobody would have known.

Do you read and comprehend any of the articles posted? Apple has already said they would give access to their "cloud" information. Again in your scenario here (they change regularly) Apple would be able to give them access to active cloud information prior to a potential event and (most importantly) prior to a govt bureaucrat fvcking up the phone. In this case had an incompetent bureaucrat not changed the Apple ID assigned to the account....the cloud info would have been handed over.

As a family member I would be more pissed off that a buffoon screwed up during an investigation costing it information. With that said, a lot of wasted energy getting pissed off postmortem at a business who legally operates. You are describing a victim mindset of spewing blame where it doesn't need to be spread. You sure you aren't a democrat?

 

[i am herdman]

Do you read and comprehend any of the articles posted? Apple has already said they would give access to their "cloud" information. Again in your scenario here (they change regularly) Apple would be able to give them access to active cloud information prior to a potential event and (most importantly) prior to a govt bureaucrat fvcking up the phone. In this case had an incompetent bureaucrat not changed the Apple ID assigned to the account....the cloud info would have been handed over.

As a family member I would be more pissed off that a buffoon screwed up during an investigation costing it information. With that said, a lot of wasted energy getting pissed off postmortem at a business who legally operates. You are describing a victim mindset of spewing blame where it doesn't need to be spread. You sure you aren't a democrat?

No but I know there are lots of companies and people that won't help their country anymore. I have heard it straight from people that know that have asked for help from citizens. They go to businesses and they hear "we don't want to get involved". No we can't do that or this or we really don't care. Same for individuals. We don't want to do that. I had some moron tell me the other day I would never want to be in the military nor want my kid to do it because they yell at people and go kill people. THat is the mindset of people these days and many companies. They like all the rewards and protection but they want somebody else to do it.

Just like Apple. They sure loved the damn FBI a few years ago when a guy stole their prototype phone before it hit market. The loved that protection then. They sure loved the FBI finding that guy.

Has nothing to do with being a Democrat or Republican. The country comes first to me. And, I just thought Apple didn't do the right thing. I don't trust corporations anymore than I trust the government. Both can f88ck you in a heartbeat. I just think companies like Apple can do the right thing and I don't think they did the right thing in this case. They are going to end up f***ck*** us all because what is going to happen is the governments(around the world) are going to crack down on this and do more intelligence gathering and probably going to get the point they can shut down networks at some point if they need to.

Nope not a Democrat at all. Been a hard core Republican since Ronald Reagan was POTUS.

 

[raleighherdfan]

the governments(around the world) are going to crack down on this and do more intelligence gathering and probably going to get the point they can shut down networks at some point if they need to.

Obama signed this into law several years ago. Already done. It was somewhat fortified by the "net neutrality" decision last year too. (another little dirty secret deeply imbedded in the countless pages of b.s., sold to the rubes that believe in govt guaranteed consumer protectionism). You probably want to celebrate this govt overstepping action too.... so I'll step aside and let you stand proud.

 

[i am herdman]

Obama signed this into law several years ago. Already done. It was somewhat fortified by the "net neutrality" decision last year too. (another little dirty secret deeply imbedded in the countless pages of b.s., sold to the rubes that believe in govt guaranteed consumer protectionism). You probably want to celebrate this govt overstepping action too.... so I'll step aside and let you stand proud.

You know better than that. I will go along with what the courts decided. That doesn't mean I have to like what Apple did. I thought they did the wrong thing. To me it was a no brainer and shouldn't have been a court decision or batter. If I were Apple King for a Day I would have said hey smart people crack this phone and see what the dickhead terrorist are doing.