Apple counsel Bruce Sewell calls DOJ filing 'cheap shot' that seeks to 'vilify'

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2016
Apple's lead attorney Bruce Sewell on Thursday delivered some harsh words regarding a DOJ court filing in response to the company's refusal to cooperate in an FBI investigation, saying the government letter "reads like an indictment."


Apple chief legal officer Bruce Sewell offered testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee this month.


Sewell participated in a conference call with reporters just hours after federal prosecutors filed a formal response in the ongoing San Bernardino encryption case, which read like a point-by-point dismantling of Apple's claims. According to Business Insider, Sewell was not pleased.

"In 30 years of practice I don't think I've seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case," Sewell said.

He went on to say that the DOJ brief "reads like an indictment" of Apple and its encryption policies. In today's letter, prosecutors suggested Apple built unbreakable security safeguards into iOS 8 and iOS 9 in part to defy government warrants and proper law enforcement requests for data access.

"This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case," Sewell added.

Apple's general counsel also took issue with allusions to a purported working data access relationship with the Chinese government. He called those allegations untrue and baseless.

"We add security features to protect our customers from hackers and criminals. And the FBI should be supporting us in this because it keeps everyone safe. To suggest otherwise is demeaning. It cheapens the debate and it tries to mask the real and serious issues. I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds," he said.

Apple sparked a contentious debate over personal data privacy and national security last month when it refused to comply with a court order compelling its assistance in the FBI's investigation into last year's San Bernardino shootings. An iPhone 5c used by terror suspect Syed Rizwan Farook was seized as part of the operation, but agents are unable to thwart its iOS 9 passcode lock. The government sought, and won, a federal court order forcing Apple's help in unlocking the device, but the company has declined, saying that doing so would put millions of other iPhones at risk.

Sewell ended the call with a plea to what appears to be DOJ lawyers, asking the opposing legal team to refrain from escalating tensions further.

"We know there are great people in the DOJ and the FBI. We work shoulder to shoulder with them all the time. That's why this cheap shot brief surprises us so much," Sewell said. "We help when we're asked to. We're honest about what we can and cannot do. Let's at least treat one another with respect and get this case before the American people in a responsible way. We are going before court to exercise our legal rights. Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth."
brakkenjahblade
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    "Apple and its amici try to alarm this Court with issues of network security, encryption, back doors, and privacy, invoking larger debates before Congress and in the news media. That is a diversion. Apple desperately wants—desperately needs—this case not to be 'about one isolated iPhone,'"

    BigBrothersayWHAT?
    latifbpration allondorjbdragonradarthekatjustadcomicsmoreckjony0
  • Reply 2 of 45
    FACT 1. The US Government, FBI, CIA and other agencies FAILED to stop THESE Terrorists inside America kill innocent people.
    FACT 2. Apple, Inc. did nothing wrong in relation to this event - except unknowingly sell a phone to people with troubled minds.
    FACT 3. Alphabet agencies are INCAPABLE of admitting when they make mistakes, thus rendering themselves UNTRUSTWORTHY.

    This case is about INCOMPETENCE on the Federal Level of multiple agencies for failing to capture these Terrorists. Why can't our Senators and Congress-people questions the FBI why they failed the American people?
    baconstanganantksundarammanfred zornlolliverlostkiwilondorjbdragonewtheckmanbrakkenmoreck
  • Reply 2 of 45
    And wasn't the DOJ and LEOs all bitching 2 years ago about the LACK of security was causing iPhone to be the #1 theft item in the cities?
    latifbpanantksundarammanfred zornlolliverlondorjbdragonewtheckmanjustadcomicsbrakkenmoreck
  • Reply 4 of 45
    The police state:
    1. NSA, CIA, FBI: use national security as an excuse to collect all phone metadata, email metadata, email content, geopositional data. Store forever.
    2. Feel free to search collected info about anyone, anytime. There is no need for a search warrang. The Constitution is outdated. Provide information to local police if necessary to incriminate.
    3. If a terrorist attack takes place on the homeland, use "terrorism" as pretext to reinforce the need to expand data collection, surveillance, undermine encryption. Reinforce step 1.
    edited March 2016 baconstanglondorjbdragonewtheckmanbrakkenmoreckmrboba1badmonk
  • Reply 5 of 45
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    The US Government hired a terrorist, let a terrorist sneak right under their noses allowing that terrorist to work for it for x amount of time, and somehow this all happened because Apple can't unlock an iPhone? Apple is becoming their go to scapegoat complete and utter incompetence on their part. I've never been so embarrassed of my government in my life.
    edited March 2016 ration albaconstanglolliverlostkiwilondorjbdragonfotoformatbrakkenmoreckjdgaz
  • Reply 6 of 45
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Man, this read like a sick comedy presented by clowns with an expected audience of morons!!

    The FBI should commit ritual suicide; it's that shameful.
    latifbplolliverlondorewtheckmanbrakkenmoreckicoco3
  • Reply 7 of 45
    Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
  • Reply 8 of 45
    And wasn't the DOJ and LEOs all bitching 2 years ago about the LACK of security was causing iPhone to be the #1 theft item in the cities?
    Fantastic point. 

    Moreover, do these bozos realize: if we are not assured of security, why would we ever want to use our phone as a health, finance/payment, home appliance control, or automotive control device (to name just a few)? And if we can't, how many billions of dollars will US businesses like Apple leave on the table, in a set of industries in which the US is the undisputed leader? Don't they get it!?
    lolliverlondorbaconstangjbdragongenovellejustadcomicsbrakkenmoreckjony0icoco3
  • Reply 9 of 45
    That famous quote in Tora! Tora! Tora! about awaking a sleeping giant really applies here. Apple has a massive war chest and has never really spent much of it lobbying Washington. I think that's about to change.
    lostkiwilondorbaconstanggtrjbdragonjustadcomicsmoreckjony0badmonkpalomine
  • Reply 10 of 45
    Emericus said:
    Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
    I vehemently disagree. Unbreakable encryption is not yet illegal. The decision as to whether or not your phone can be accessed by LEO's can be made individually by your not creating a PIN or password.

    History has proven that it is never in the public's best interest to give government and law enforcement unlimited powers, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I for one would like the right to disagree with the government on issues without them being able to plant evidence on my phone to strong-arm me into compliance.
    lolliverlostkiwilondorbaconstangjbdragonlatifbpewtheckmanjustadcomicsbrakkenhlee1169
  • Reply 11 of 45
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Emericus said:
    Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
    The down side is Apple losing tens of billions and by extension the US losing tens of billions, every country in the world asking the same thing and every single communication being vulnerable to a hack. Considering the massive variety of info those phones could eventually have, including health info that even a warrant can't give away (HIPPAA), this weakening will provide a massive damper on the use of phones for sensitive data for the general public. Things like Apple Pay will become much less secure than they are now.

    They would have to not just weakened their software but also their hardware to fully comply with those POS liar at the FBI and the hundreds of existing demands that are in the pipeline and tens of thousands in the future.. Yes, their lying about the implications of this 100%..

    Funny how the FBI who just hand waved the briefs of dozens of companies with expertise in this areas as fear mongering didn't prove their point at all; if they say so I guess it must be true hmmmm.

    Why are they doing this; for NOTHING (as per the FBI). This phone has nothing at all on it, just the future 99% of future phones will be unlocked routinely, Most of these will likely be non violent minority criminals arrested for drug crimes. Why? Because US fracking prison are full of people there for that reason. You know that good ol' war on drug thing that's been such a "success"; one that's used to put craploads of minorities in jail. So, those millions of people will get their rights trampled on and have no right to privacy.

    In the end, every fucking terrorists will run their own encryption, because well, they have the motivation to do so, and less technically agile people living all over the world, especially in countries like China, Russia and even the US, will be thoroughly fucked up.
    edited March 2016 ration allolliverlondoranantksundarambaconstangjbdragonradarthekatjustadcomicshlee1169jony0
  • Reply 12 of 45
    ration al said:
    Emericus said:
    Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
    I vehemently disagree. Unbreakable encryption is not yet illegal. The decision as to whether or not your phone can be accessed by LEO's can be made individually by your not creating a PIN or password.

    History has proven that it is never in the public's best interest to give government and law enforcement unlimited powers, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. I for one would like the right to disagree with the government on issues without them being able to plant evidence on my phone to strong-arm me into compliance.
    The number one function of our society is not to catch criminals or 'terrorists". There is no reason for law enforcement to have rights to access our private data that are greater than our right to secure it. Law enforcement is subservient to society not the master of it. If I have to accept that criminals have access to firearms because law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, then we all must accept that some evidence of criminal activity may be aggregated on an encrypted device in exchange for our personal, financial and health information being equally encrypted.
    ration allondoranantksundarambaconstangjbdragonradarthekatjustadcomicshlee1169rogue cheddarmrboba1
  • Reply 13 of 45
    Emericus said:
    ... the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are).....

    The same would apply to manufacturers of paper shredders. They could make many forms of law enforcement access ineffective. So is fire or the manufacturers of matches, gas lighters, etc. It is not illegal to own and use a paper shredder or matches. Encryption on a phone is like a paper shredder where with the right key you can "unshred" the paper.

    Given that export of encryption software is no longer export-controlled, companies outside the US can and have developed their own versions. The current top algorithms AES and RSA have originally been developed outside the US. What that means is that crippling encryption on iPhones in the US would just cripple Americans. Foreign terrorists could easily load their own encryption software on the phone and thus "shred" communication from prying eyes or LEO.

    This really amounts to a tradeoff between privacy for all or privacy only for those you are cunning and able to use other means of hiding their intentions.

    edited March 2016 lolliverlondorbaconstangjbdragonradarthekatewtheckmanjustadcomicshlee1169icoco3badmonk
  • Reply 14 of 45
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 602member
    Emericus said:
    But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). 
    Then you're a perfect target for the FBI: people who fear terrorists enough to willing to sacrifice constitutional right. That IS the first step of 1984.
    Let the fear roll. Don't question authority. Don't question them how many ways they can hack and monitor you RIGHT NOW. No.. Just be docile and know that without getting to the iPhone the law enforcement can't function.
    Doh.. terrorists will never use iMessage on iPhone. They're using specialised software they trust. The government just want to get in on every pieces of electronic equipments they can, irregardless of the truth of how useless and how damaging that will be.
    londorbaconstanggtrjbdragonhlee1169jony0badmonk
  • Reply 15 of 45
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,611member
    Emericus said:
    Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
    Two things you seem to misunderstand or overlook:

    1.  You make it sound like unless the FBI can break phone encryption then we become drastically or even totally vulnerable to terrorism.  This is falling into the panic trap that they have set up to drive public opinion in their favor.  Law enforcement has a lot of other tools to fight terrorism, they have to accept that in a liberal democracy, nobody gets the draconian surveillance powers that they seek.

    2.  Even if they are able to force a backdoor to be built, it's not as if there are no alternative encryption systems that bad actors can deploy in their phones.  So if the FBI gets what they want, they shall have broken privacy and transactional security for hundreds of millions of law-abiding people in exchange for NOTHING.

    Too bad for the FBI, we're not as stupid and gullible as they hoped we would be.
    edited March 2016 londorbaconstangjbdragonration aljustadcomicsbadmonk
  • Reply 16 of 45
    Sky News has the info the FBI needs, unencrypted:

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/03/10/world/europe/ap-islamic-state-files.html

    but I guess they are still not interested. This was never about terrorism or national security or about the San Bernardino victims or their families.

    edited March 2016 londorgtrbaconstangjbdragonicoco3badmonk
  • Reply 17 of 45
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,657member
    Emericus said:
    ... On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
    Sorry, everyone has privacy/encryption or no one does. Do you give the cops a key to your house, just in case?
    ewtheckmanjustadcomics
  • Reply 18 of 45
    The DOJ and FBI are threatening to confiscate the source code to iOS and the signing keys. That's how desperate for power and control
    these despots are. 
    anantksundarambaconstangjustadcomics
  • Reply 19 of 45
    Emericus said:
    Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.
    Personally I think you are right. But I think Apple probably should unlock phones on a case by case basis. I am not quite sure where I stand on this whole issue. But as this unravels the one thing I do not want is the government agencies holding the key.
    rbonner
  • Reply 20 of 45
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,991moderator
    I feel I should post this on each article about this Apple/FBI case as a means to bring those newly engaging in this debate up to speed.

    What's going on and what's at stake?

    Here is what's going on.  First, the iPhone is locked by a password that is combined with a hardware key build into each iPhone at manufacture.  This hardware key is randomly generated and encoded into the silicon inside each iPhone AND IS NOT KNOWN EVEN TO APPLE.  So to unencrypt the data on an iPhone, you need the user password and the hardware key, which exists only in the phone's hardware.

    To decrypt the data on an iPhone you need to enter the password ON THAT IPHONE so that the password gets combined with that iPhone's hardware encryption key.  Taking the data off the phone and trying to decrypt it elsewhere won't work because you won't have the hardware key portion of the combined encryption key.

    So you need to enter each password guess into the iPhone you are trying to unlock.  And the iPhone has a security feature that wipes all the data in the phone after ten consecutive incorrect password attempts.  This feature is what makes a simple four digit passcode such a strong security measure.  Without that feature, it would be a simple process to manually sit there and try one password after another until you went through all 10,000 combinations.  The FBI, or a school kid with a couple extra days on his hands could break into any iPhone.  But if the phone erases itself after ten unsuccessful password tries, then you won't dare even try to unlock it, as you'll have only a 1 in a thousand chance of guessing the correct password and the consequences of that tenth incorrect guess is that you'll lose the data you're after.

    The FBI is demanding that Apple remove this security feature so that they can simply brute-force the password.  10,000 tries, even if done manually, wouldn't take very long.  Of course, they are also asking for two additional weaknesses.  One is to allow passwords to be sent to the phone electronically (wirelessly).  That would save time over manually sitting there trying one after another passcode.  And the other is to remove a delay the software inserts between passcode attempts, so that it could blast passcodes at the phone at a very fast clip.  You'd ask for these two additional weaknesses only if you are planning on turning this into a tool for law enforcement to use over and over.  So that puts the lie to the FBI's stance that they want this only for this one time.

    Apple is not being asked to use any method they want to just get the data.  Apple is be demanded to build a forensic tool for law enforcement's repeated use.  Apple, and those of us knowledgable about this sort of thing, knows that this tool will need to be maintained and documented, and submitted into evidence to be inspected by defense attorney experts, because defense attorneys will want to be certain that the tool does not modify the evidence it makes available.  This is how the tool will get out into the wild, and then none of us will have any security unless we install additional encryption software on top of the operating system.  Which criminals and terrorists will immediately do, leaving them safe from law enforcement search while leaving the vast majority of casual users open to those same terrorists infiltrating their phones and grabbing their bank account passwords, etc.

    Law enforcement will solve a few more crimes, committed by unwitting criminals who didn't think to add additional encryption on top of the weakened encryption in the operating system.

    Casual users like you and me and your kids and wife will be more subject to snooping by hackers, some of which will be working for the fund-raising departments of terror organizations.

    Terrorists will hold up this incident and the fallout from it as a major victory in their attempts to weaken and manipulate free society
    ration alewtheckmanjustadcomicsrbonnernolamacguyjony0
Sign In or Register to comment.