Apple engineers may have the last word

and if it's not evidence they can't use them as evidence (eg: for prosecution or search warrants)

--
  \_(?)_

as yeah, I forgot, in USA evidence is not needed against "terrorists".

--
  \_(?)_

They cannot force you to produce something that doesn't exist. If you think that's within their power, please show me the section of the Constitution that says they can.

They *already* have his phone's metadata (and who knows what else). They already have all they should need, and should have (and probably a lot more).

No, but their other customers do.

You've not read the rest of the Constitution, obviously.

Oh, good grief. Another loser Europeon. Idiot, no evidence is needed against the *DEAD*.

But they *can* use it (tainted evidence) to find other evidence.

:

to

Or

Actually, that 40% also supports you. The US government actually collects a bout 30% of GDP in tax. A lot of it is spent on defense (which benefits eve ry US citizen, though the members of the military industrial complex do bet ter out of it). You don't like the way a lot of it is spent, but that's dem ocracy for you (or the rather poor approximation to it present in the US).

ct

ply

er

k

It seems unlikely that having both the plain text and the enciphered text w ould be enough to let them crack the encryption scheme. That more or less w orked for Enigma, but dual key encryption is rather more robust.

.

A different America, which would look rather more like Canada and Australia , which would be no bad thing. Neither works as well as Germany or Scandina via, but having revolutions and invasions isn't much fun, and it can take a while to clean out the criminal element that comes to power after a revolu tion - it still hasn't happened in the US.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

But the messages do exist. They are hidden by Apple software. People could die if more loonies make suicide attacks. Apple could help the FBI access the messages, under court order.

Apple is making a business decision, not a moral one. "Moral" and "Apple" don't deserve to be in proximity.

Courts have the "reasonable" right to gather evidence.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

However, the content of the phone could lead to prosecutions of other individuals, and then the chain of custody could become an issue.

Sylvia.

Their updated OS could do the same. "Oops - we made a mistake - sorry."

Sylvia.

This is the fly in the ointment. *CAN* they be forced to create something that doesn't exist - something that will damage them, and their interests, irreparably. Just because a judge says they can be, doesn't make it so.

The intersection isn't null.

They have no right to force someone to create something that isn't in their interest.

That is why you run the sort of company you run and he runs the sort of company he runs. Too use your own logic, he must be smarter than you, he makes so much more money it makes you look silly.

I bet he makes more money than your wife too...

--

Rick

There is one thing you excel at, having opinions about things you know nothing about. If Apple could give the government what they want without compromising all security on these Apple phones I have no doubt they would. It has been explained many times how the government has asked Apple to provide them with a tool they can use on *any* similar phone. The government has not even asked Apple to help them with this one phone, but only to give them the ability to open many phones. Regardless, there is nothing Apple can do to reveal the data encrypted on this phone other than what the government is asking for. That's why they are asking for it. Some people just can't understand that.

--

Rick

The scenario has been described in detail: it involves updating the OS to a version that does not clear out the key storage after ten failed password guesses, and allows input of the password in a way more convenient than touchscreen.

The reason FBI needs Apple is software updates are signed, and the existing firmware won't update unless the new one is signed by Apple's private key. Apple of course also has the source to the OS, so it'd be easy for them to do the FBI-required mods, but in a pinch I imagine FBI could patch the binary themselves, so it's the private key that they really can't do without.

Most others did not need amendments. They have put those rights into their constitution from the beginning.

--
Reinhardt

r

The Australian Constitution was certainly written with the defects of the U S constitution in mind. I'm not sure that it avoided all of them, but it wa s written in the 1890's, and people have done better since. The German cons titution, written in 1948, is widely admired.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

1: indeed

2: you could not be more wrong,

3: Do you really think they want to use the data on the pbone to catch dead terrorists?

--
  \_(?)_

What the FBI wants is an OS hack to prevent erasing things if they try more than 10 times to key in the 4-digit phone unlock code. They would brute-force try all codes if they could.

And they only want it done to one phone, of a dead non-citizen terrorist and murderer.

I just read the Time Magazine interview with Cook on this subject. He makes no sense to me.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

No, they want a hack that can and will be used on all phones. This thread's odd, the same points get made over & over.

NT

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:55:45 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com Gave us:

Just as odd as you idiots making stupid contractions. This thread is odd, not "this thread's odd".

Sure, we know what you mean, but that is not the point. You are expressing yourself in a forum where what you type will be seen and read by many over a long period. The gang boy phone chat lingo paradigm is out.