Posted on 02/19/2016 5:07:38 PM PST by rpierce
The Apple ID passcode for the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone was changed less than 24 hours after authorities took possession of the device, a senior Apple executive said today.
And Apple could have recovered information from the phone had the Apple ID passcode not been changed, Apple said.
If the phone was taken to a location where it recognized the Wi-Fi network, such as the San Bernardino shooters' home, it could have been backed up to the cloud, Apple suggested. ... The auto reset was executed by a county information technology employee, according to a federal official. Federal investigators only found out about the reset after it had occurred and that the county employee acted on his own, not on the orders of federal authorities, the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
If they already have such a key, the answer would be yes.
If I understand the issue correctly, they are asking the lock-maker to manufacture a universal key that currently does not exist.
“Anyone familiar with history knows that eventually being Jewish became illegal and 6 million Jews were murdered. Are you cool with that? It is a perfect example of law and order.”
To equate the Jew issue in WWII to an iPhone would mean saying if the Jews had the iPhones of today they...nevermind. You made a really dumb reach to make a point.
>>”They can only ask him to unlock one specific door,
I addressed that in response to your “THIS ONE PHONE” statement earlier. You said that you didn’t disagree with this part:
“In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”
This is more than one door, it’s a master key.
The shooter was a county employee.
Big fat fail on part of the county.
“Is it the lock-maker’s duty to give the government a master key?”
Why do you think master keys exist? Sometimes you gotta be able to gain entry and you want to be sure you can. Especailly if someone has paid a shitload of money for your professionalism. I don’t understand why people aren’t fed up to the teeth with the games Apple plays. They are despicable citizens of this country so they can sell to all the tyrants and war machines of the world. Don’t think this isn’t their mind with this free advertising this is giving them ISIS will be licking their chops to get these now more than ever.
It would require access to the servers and source code. I don't think that is going to happen.
I'm not even sure what language this thing is written in anyways, but I could probably figure it out.
Of course, the possibility exists that someone in the network that handles traffic for this site is just screwing with us, but I think they would have figured that out a long time ago if that was what is happening.
>>If they already have such a key, the answer would be yes.”
Give the government the master? I could see unlocking one lock under court order, but a master key to all their locks?
That doesn’t seem right.
YEAH, and those bakers too, send them to jail for not baking cakes for gay people, and publishers who refuse to publish certain articles or books, and...
Last I checked, there is a process for the government to hire a company to perform a job. It doesn't involve a writ.
And in the fullness of time we will likely get to see who was right all along.
This seems to contradict your earlier position:
“No. [”Is it the lock-maker’s duty to give the government a master key?”] They can only ask him to unlock one specific door, described in a warrant. “
I liked the previous reply better. :)
Boy, that thing about the autism spectrum applying to software coders is a really reliable rule of thumb.
Maybe, after you wipe your mouth, you can explain to the entire world of your lessor software engineers how, exactly, Apple is lying about what it would take to obey the requirements of the FBI.
That’s a request for proposals, not a writ. It is demanding, for free or fee, with no option as to declining the request. That’s not how a request for proposal is supposed to be done. They want to hire a company to perform this duty, publish the request and see if anyone answers. But a writ is not the right method.
Siri has a habit of hashing up what I dictate. I meant to say “but the court doesn’t have a right under the law to do so.”
Cook is dissembling in his opposition. Apple can make the universal key. They unlock it, then remove the key, carry it back to Apple and grind it down to nothing.
I have yet to see where the government is demanding permanent possession of the key. Send some agents out, watch Apple unlock it. The agents use Apple equipment to brute-force the pin. They unlock it and download all data. Apple takes the pone and re-installs the old Ios.
Chain of custody is preserved, the government gets the data, Apple retains the special IOS and can destroy it.
I making a comparison to you and all the others who say “the government can look at everything I do. I’ve got nothing to hide?. When government “evolves” and gets new leaders with “new” ideas, legislatures pass new laws, or there is a crooked prosecutor with a desire to make a name for himself you DO NOT want them to have access to everything about you.
The seem to be saying that to deliver the phone unencrypted would mean it has a completely different OS. And that OS could then be used to break into any iPhone.
That delivering the phone means delivering a tool to break iOS security.
That’s my take on FWIW.
It would seem a solution would be for Apple to deliver the unencrypted data, not the jiggered phone.
I'm kinda gonna have to side with the FEDERAL JUDGE on this one.
The Terrorists who had the phone are dead, (therefore no privacy rights) and the phone is actually the property of the San Bernadino County. The phone potentially contains evidence of accomplices or potential future targets or attacks, and all threats to Apple's product line or other people's privacy can be prevented.
I think this current publicity stunt by Apple management is for the purpose of marketing their phones as "unbreakable" and his objections have more to do with Apple's profitability in marketing unbreakable phones than it does with any other consideration.
If it does, then Apple just royally screwed up the process.
I have never said anything but. I am against warrant less searches. In order to be legal it must conform to the 4th amendment. On this issue, the amendment is clear. If you look back up thread you will NEVER see me contradict that amendment. It was Justice Scalia’s by the way.
Attentiveness to privacy in the digital age should thus be front and center for any jurist, whether focusing on the text of the Fourth Amendment, the purposes for which it was signed, or our new world that the Founders scarcely could have imagined. Regardless of whom President Obama appoints to the Court, privacy in the 21st century is something on which many bedfellows can agree.
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.