No I don't. *I* unlike many people who discuss this issue, have actually READ the relevant filings.
I am one of the few people who actually know what the H3ll they are talking about.
The government asked for a tool to defeat the number of attempt limiter. They also asked that it specifically also be able to enter numerous codes without having to physically enter them into the keyboard.
But this does not constitute a "Back Door." It also does not constitute a tool which was to be given to the FBI. The FBI filing with the court explicitly said Apple could retain custody of the phone, custody of the software, and the FBI would never touch it.
Apple deliberately ignored these assurances and started an immediate fearmongering campaign based on deliberately ignoring these assurances.
The FBI said they wanted to be able to rapidly enter passcodes via wireless methods.
They did not say that. They left the means of bypassing the keyboard up to Apple to decide. Using a hardwired USB port was perfectly acceptable to the FBI.
"*I* unlike many people who discuss this issue, have actually READ the relevant filings without any comprehension of what I read."
There, fixed if for you, Just Don't Know. Now it's accurate. But this does not constitute a "Back Door." It also does not constitute a tool which was to be given to the FBI. The FBI filing with the court explicitly said Apple could retain custody of the phone, custody of the software, and the FBI would never touch it.
No, Just Don't Know. The FBI's filing was an ARGUMENT, not part of the court order. It has no probative or dispositive value other than a lawyer standing up and saying something. It is not even said under oath. It has no value. . . and holds ZERO weight. The only thing that has any force at this point is the ORDER SIGNED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE. Do you seriously think that a Jailer can legally say to a prisoner I don't care what your sentence says, what the Judge signed, I'm gonna let you go only a week into your court ordered sentence, because I'm satisfied you fulfilled it???? That's essentially what you are saying the FBI is saying with their argumentative filing by your giving it weight as having the power to change the COURT ORDER!
That is the pure essence of the rule of MEN rather than the rule of LAW!
FBI: "PFUUII! We are only going to comply with the part of the order we LIKE, not the order as written! So, Apple, we've changed our minds. You don't have to give us the software, keep it, just let us use it."
It doesn't work that way. If the FBI, who WROTE the original court order wants it amended, then they have to ask the judge to vacate the original and replace it with a new one, outlining their new court order with their new orders. . . and sign that one. It's not an optional thing, directed by what the FBI wants as they go along, as you seem to think. Try that with a judge someday, say about showing up sometime for a hearing about that traffic ticket. See how that goes over with the judge.