Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Ken H

The circumstances I read yesterday for this phone is that it was a 5C and that the three-try barrier was what is being discussed here. Not unlocking the entire phone.

What I read says that Apple can do this, depending on what version of iOS is involved. It would still be up to the FBI to finish the job of getting past the unlock code.

I am saying that I don’t have a problem with Apple removing the 3-try step (because the phone belongs to his employer and they have assented), but I am NOT in favor of making Apple give the FBI the ability to do this whenever they want. If you think differently, then fine. We’ll just have to disagree.


100 posted on 02/18/2016 3:50:17 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]


To: Gaffer
The circumstances I read yesterday for this phone is that it was a 5C and that the three-try barrier was what is being discussed here. Not unlocking the entire phone.

The point is, the court ordered Apple to develop something that does not currently exist, in order for the govt to get the data it is after. That's not the case with court-ordered openings of mailboxes, safe deposit boxes and the like.

Can the government legitimately order the Acme Safe Company to develop a method - currently not in existence - to get evidence contained in an Acme safe, in your opinion?

104 posted on 02/18/2016 4:13:26 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson