Posted on 02/17/2016 6:13:36 PM PST by AlienCrossfirePlayer
An Open Memo To Lou Dobbs
As CEO, Tim Cooks obligation is to execute the corporate mission. Briefly stated, a corporation must deliver product to customers and return on investment to shareholders. It is not his job to make the nation secure from geo-political terrorism. Your suggestion that Mr. Cook will be culpable when another attack occurs was a stinking cheap shot. Obama has the job of making us secure and is failing us. Today on the sister network Fox News Channel, Obama was heard calling for improved cyber security. Do you see an irony?
By resisting encroachment by the courts, Mr. Cook is executing the corporate mission. Apples customers dont want their data to be made less secure. Apples investors dont want their research dollars to be wasted. In short courts are demanding that Apple degrade its very excellent product. Leave Apple alone. American citizens want their private data to remain secure.
Ben Franklin: He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
“Investigators want to get into a passcode-protected cellphone used by Syed Farook before he opened fire on his office’s holiday party, killing 14 people in December. Farook and his co-shooter, his wife Tashfeen Malik, died in a gun battle with police. The order, handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, requires Apple to write a software that will bypass the self-destruct feature. That way, the FBI will be able to try different combinations in rapid sequence until it finds the right one. (It is widely believed that the phone may contain more information on the ISIS terror cell.)
The magistrate’s order requires that the software Apple provides be programmed to work only on Farook’s phone.”
This is more hysteria created by the tin foil hat crowd. It is simply a request for entry, just as is any warrant, issued for a specific reason to a specific one time only property.
“112 phones”
Oops, that’d be 1112 phones. Same question though.
Tim Cook a fudge packer?
“Why can’t Apple just unlock this one phone for the FBI?”
They can. They are using the incident to portray themselves as the power to the people corp. Which is Bull, because they have done it before.
As I understand it, it's not just unlocking the phone. The government wants Apple to produce a software that will bypass the phone's security encryption system.
Quote from Apple's letter on their website:
"We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software - which does not exist today - would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."
This is a discussion thread about a subject I am not real conversant on. I asked a sincere question since I assumed other people here were a lot more informed about the subject. Fortunately there were a couple of other very informed people who quickly brought me up to speed.
You on the other hand have contributed zero to this thread so a know nothing trying to diss on me.
I am involved on other threads where my degree in poly sci and international defense systems allows me to impart knowledge to others. Nobody is an expert on everything. See how that works?
“to work only on Farook’s phone”
That may be how the warrant is written, but not how the technology works.
The ability to circumvent the 10 entry limit is generally applicable to all phones.
Once they have it, they will be able to use it on whoever they want, whenever they want.
If they were using a PKI system and produced a key, then it’d be applicable to that phone only. But that’s not the case here, nor is it what’s being asked for.
“It really is amazing when you think of itâ€â€a 4-digit passcode is unbreakable by our government’s best and brightest. “
You don’t ‘break’ a passcode.
Why can’t Apple break this particular phone for the good of the country and help? Seems like a logical compromise.
Give it to some 10 year old. He’ll have it unlocked in minutes.
Thanx for the info guys.
“They can. They are using the incident to portray themselves as the power to the people corp. “
They probably already have the technology. Just don’t want anyone to know ...
Android is an open source software. If Google creates a backdoor, the phone vendors (ie. Samsung) can take it out.
“The government wants Apple to produce a software that will bypass the phone’s security encryption system. “
NOWHERE is ‘encription’ mentioned. Only a way to keep the phone from erasing after the allotted number of tries.
Excuse the dismissiveness, but if you had read even a tiny snippet of any news article on this subject, you would know it has nothing to do with Apple providing a user password.
You might be right, of course, but as I understand it, Apple will have to produce an iOS that can be installed on a locked phone. This iOS will have to include a “feature” that disables the ten (I think it’s ten) wrong pass codes and the phone destroys the data security feature. Once Apple produces this new, special iOS what’s to keep the government from requiring Apple to provide this now proven method to unlock any iPhone it might be interested in looking at?
What part of this do I have wrong? How can Apple, which doesn’t have the pass code, write a new iOS for only one phone?
I know that on phones with fingerprint recognition features, courts have said that the finger must be provided. I heard of a case in Norway where a court ordered someone to give his pass code, but I don’t know how that case ended up. Of course in the San Bernardino case, the one who knew the pass code is beyond the reach of court orders.
“That may be how the warrant is written, but not how the technology works.”
The technology needs to be changed to conform to the law, not the other way around.
A warrant has been issued to gather information that may or may not have some very valuable intelligence. Regardless of how the technology is written, it is legal.
Ok, it’s still pretty amazing that a phone protected by such a simple-seeming 4-digit pass code can thwart the resources of the U.S. Government.
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.