Posted on 03/11/2016 5:51:41 PM PST by Swordmaker
Oh come on. A team of 8 to 10 engineers, (also a made up number) in a high profile task, in a deeply litigious environment, working for a month. And working to change the entire nature of the company’s flagship product.
How could THAT cost over 150k? lol /s
“That code is worth, at a modest estimate, $150 billion, and probably much more. Are you willing for the government to pay that for it?”
Classic.
Not ubiquitous unbreakable encryption.
If it had been available to every dumb thug it would have been addressed by the Common Law and the Fourth Amendment, since a judicial system cannot function if can’t compel evidence.
Law must be passed to make the Fourth and encryption compatible, and soon. In the mean time the court must fulfil it’s functions in this new environment as best it can.
There was a judicial system, many thousands of years ago, that couldn’t compel evidence:
barbarism.
There’s NO Roe v Wade ‘right to privacy’ under barbarism.
He doesn't ever refute any points. He starts insulting people. . . and calling them names, to which we call him names in return in sheer frustration. NOT once has this ignoramus ever posted anything of value on these threads.
I think he ignores all ancillary costs. . . all he can look at is labor. He ignores completely the work these people were taken OFF of that has to go idle while they do work not for Apple's benefit. That has a high cost. There is overhead, there is R&D costs not even thought of in his world. . . Attorneys have to be involved. Management. Being an ex-CEO, I'd put it closer to $1 to 1.5 million to even start. That does not even begin looking at the on going support team that Jonathan Zdziarski outlines will be necessary. Apple did not even address the team necessary for the input from an external computer to get the passcode tries into the iPhone. . . that would have to a separate team, because it requires a hardware hack to get the system to ignore a hardware requirement to only accept the input from the touch screen. The FBI designated remote, remember?
“I find the ignorance coming from you BURNS. It is, frankly, mind numbingly, deeply painful to read, over and over again.”
Well, at some point you should ask yourself why you do it. You know I am right and it bothers you that you can’t overcome the fact that what you are doing is undermining the Constitution. You’re such a lost sad soul.
Au contraire. Implementing virtually unbreakable encryption is MUCH cheaper than implementing the “back door” you want.”
Never even one time uttered the phrase backdoor. Some fantasy of yours, I suppose. My argument is with your undermining the Constitution, a point I will make again. You supply yuour own auto erotic fantasies about back doors and cracking...have a ball. Just don’t include me OK, boys?
How else do you expect to go from encrypted data to decrypted based on a warrant, without a “back door”?
Insults are unwarranted.
“Cool, I just won, you couldn’t refute my point.
He doesn’t ever refute any points. He starts insulting people. . . and calling them names, to which we call him names in return in sheer frustration. NOT once has this ignoramus ever posted anything of value on these threads.”
You won? Won what? You still have no idea what I’m talking about, you are all wrapped up in your little cabal, running your mouths like old broken toilets, saying the same mind numbing irrelevant crap over and over like bleating sheep. I posted dozens of relevant thoughts to the point...which is, if you don’t adhere to the Constitution, you will eventually be owned by the big Corporate interests you so obviously worship. When we restore the SCOTUS and take back the country, you germs MIGHT come to your senses, but I doubt it. And when you say you won, do you mean all 10 of you, or just you, or what? What a dimwitted pack you turned out to be. This wasn’t even a fair battle of wits, what with you all being unarmed.
“Not ubiquitous unbreakable encryption.”
They knew of “one time pads” which are very old and even more secure than any modern encryption technique.
Seizing evidence under warrant doesn’t include compelling an unwilling third party to make sense of it.
“He doesn’t ever refute any points. He starts insulting people.”
And true to form, a few posts later, there it is again. And I gotta tell you. A year ago I wasn’t the biggest apple fan. But a few experiences this year have really changed my opinion. First, their behavior in this case. Second, the behavior of MS in windows 10. And third, though I cannot explain it, the Camera in a work issued 5s that I used.
On paper it seems less capable than my Samsung cam. But the reality is that something in it produced some of the most amazing cell photos ive ever taken.
A friend of mine overseas actually asked me if I had acquired a new camera.
The last year I have changed my position on their products. I till don’t get what’s different in the Apple camera. But I like it.
“How else do you expect to go from encrypted data to decrypted based on a warrant, without a “back door”?
Insults are unwarranted.”
Insults are unwarranted? Take a look down thread for some of the gems your little buddies have put up.
I’m talking about the FBI v Apple. It keeps getting broadened into something else by the gang here, though.
You don’t have to put in a back door to accomplish what was requested in the court order. If you can’t do what has been requested, as is contended, then you are creating something that will inevitably coerce the user into an untenable position v established law.
You can sell cars without brakes, but you WILL have consequences. That has been my point since the beginning.
You are putting up artificial barriers and claiming them to be unscalable. How convenient. You even have experts - real experts! - that conclude you should be able to create a product that will make a vast and essential section of the law unusable. I don’t know why, but it is your contention, from what the cabal tells me, that it will be created now because it CAN be and the Constitution will just have to adjust.
Wonderful. This is a replay of the discovery of the justification for abortion that was found in the Constitution. Once Abortion was high tech and “safe” for women, all of a sudden there became a “variation of the wording that must be obeyed.” You are proposing more corruption, based on your insistence that it must be done to protect us from the portion of the law that protects us from the law. Or is it against the law to ignore a summons? To refuse to submit to discovery without penalty, because it is no longer possible to produce it because of this marvelous new product that thwarts the law...from itself?
We’ll see how it comes out in the courts. And, this is the last time I put forth this proposition. I am talking about THIS case.
No, I know, for a fact, you are wrong. And you are wrong for all the wrong reasons. You don't have a strong grounding in the theory of WHY the Founding Fathers did what they did, and why the Constitution was made in the first place. . . without that you fall back on literalism. You can't find the basic philosophical meaning underlying it all.
You don’t have a strong grounding in the theory of WHY the Founding Fathers did what they did, and why the Constitution was made in the first place. . . without that you fall back on literalism. You can’t find the basic philosophical meaning underlying it all.”
Once again, you speak from your high horse without bothering to explain why you say what you do. Sound and fury signifying dick.
My point is confirmed. Just Don't Know is always this confrontational. His ignorance, when confronted, is always responded by insults and epithets toward the people who call him on his abysmally Just don't know nothing claims. He tries ham-handedly to turn things on anyone in sight, because he cannot admit his own very short comings. He's a legend in his now very small mind, expert at all he knows, which is so obviously very little, and he jealously guards that very little to assure it doesn't grow.
Larger pixels, with a black wall between them. It prevents bleed over from glare, and the larger pixels allow a greater light gathering capability.
Samsung got the idea about the larger pixels with their latest cameras, but they still haven't figured out to put a separating black wall in.
And again, you cannot post a civil post. You insult and denigrate. You are NOT a conservative. You post like a LIBERAL.
“And again, you cannot post a civil post. You insult and denigrate. You are NOT a conservative. You post like a LIBERAL.”
So, you still got nothing, eh genius?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.