or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

The difference is that I'm willing to wait to see if the evidence supports the allegations, rather than immediately believing all the FUD that I read on the internet, as you apparently do.
I'm not sure that follows. Which law does the use of strong encryption contravene?
 If you really want to be picky about this, Apple is a company. Company in the business context, is a singular, inanimate noun (not a collective noun), referring to a singular, inanimate entity. It is Apple. They are not Apple.
 Where are you going with this? 
Not necessarily irrelevant, but maybe misguided.
It's probably true that if there were an epidemic of bent phones from normal use then Apple would have to deal with it, and keeping a phone in a pocket is likely within the range of accepted normal use. But, I am quite sure that Apple tested these thoroughly - it's an obvious concern for a large, thin phone - so it would be surprising if this actually transpired.
That may very well be true IF they have the means, but if not, then no. The point is that there is currently no law, at least in the US, that requires them to have the means. Just a desire by certain agencies that they should.
Now you are just spouting legal terms that you do not understand.
No different to the subject refusing to divulge a hidden location, or the key to any encrypted content anywhere. It's not Apple's legal responsibility to ensure access to secure devices that they manufacture, any more than it is the responsibility of the author of a crypto method to provide a backdoor access mechanism.
It's strange - you don't know that this is even an issue, since all we have to date is very limited anecdotal evidence and a few tests that indicate very large forces are needed to induce permanent deformation, and yet you confidently assert that Apple must redesign or recall the phone. Not to mention the watch that hasn't even been released. It's really hard to take seriously anything you post these days.
New Posts  All Forums: