FBI reportedly accessed locked iPhone 11 Pro Max with GrayKey third party tool

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    Arszy said:
    Trumpski has to remember that if he trashes Apple, then that drags down the stock market, if the stock market drops, then he looks bad and that adversely affects his chances of getting re-elected.
    I suspect he does these things just so he can buy, then he undoes the damage and the stock recovers.  The ultimate insider trader.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 32
    citpeks said:
    The FBI and DOJ have no grounds for harassing Apple to build backdoors or cripple their security strategies if they (FBI/DOJ) can use third party entities to break into someone's iPhone. This is actually a good thing, in that it motivates Apple's security and privacy team to build iteratively more robust security into their devices.

    Like the case in Southern California, this isn't about the facts behind the investigation.  This is a dog and pony show put on for the stupid and gullible (including members of Congress), with the hope that it will somehow lead to a legal precedent or some sort of legislation.
    This. Only this.

    The Gov only use cases which they can spin up as terrorism to keep the people frothing, fearful and crying for what master tells them to say.

    some fella helping his brother out and going to jail because is not useful, so you let it go.

    there is no actual governing going on anymore.. it is just a cycle of negligence, polarising, fear making and then taking things away followed by more negligence.

    parties, sides, candidates - meaningless.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 32
    YP101YP101 Posts: 142member
    I wonder if iPhone has this much problem crack in and nothing mention to Android then android is open wide?
    I thought Apple opened iCloud server in China has back door.

    I am not sure of this is privacy issue here. Unless you are criminal.
    Facebook, Google, Amazon are read, view all you text and e-mail, video why Apple does not doing this to improve their Siri?(Maybe not..Maybe this is the reason Siri is not that good as others?)
    Anyway if supreme court said Apple need to open for those criminal's iPhone, iPad, Macbook then what?
    No one will buy Apple products?
  • Reply 24 of 32
    The reason is because they want to set up precedent for the coming surveillance state that they are setting up, based on envy of Russia, China, and North Korea.

    They want it all nice and legal.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 32
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Appleish said:
    The reason is because they want to set up precedent for the coming surveillance state that they are setting up, based on envy of Russia, China, and North Korea.

    They want it all nice and legal.

    And while waving the flag the whole time!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 32
    YP101 said:
    I am not sure of this is privacy issue here. Unless you are criminal.
    You just said that having no privacy (from the government) isn’t a privacy issue, and that only criminals have reasons to want privacy… Would you like a moment to rethink that?
    Soliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 32
    MplsP said:
    "Pundits speculate Trump, Barr and the DOJ are using the Pensacola case to rope Apple into a precedent-setting legal fight over encryption"

    If the above reports are true then this could well be the case and would be my guess.
    This is almost certainly the case.  It's not about this phone, or this crime.  It's about getting a court to set the requirement and precedent forcing Apple and others to provide backdoors for the government to use.

    Plain.  Simple.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 32
    citpeks said:
    The FBI and DOJ have no grounds for harassing Apple to build backdoors or cripple their security strategies if they (FBI/DOJ) can use third party entities to break into someone's iPhone. This is actually a good thing, in that it motivates Apple's security and privacy team to build iteratively more robust security into their devices.

    Like the case in Southern California, this isn't about the facts behind the investigation.  This is a dog and pony show put on for the stupid and gullible (including members of Congress), with the hope that it will somehow lead to a legal precedent or some sort of legislation.

    Exactly. If the DOJ/FBI had legal standing to force Apple to create a backdoor, then they wouldn't have to whine about Apple in the news. They're trying to get public opinion on their side (i.e., "You're with us, or your with the terrorists." also, "You shouldn't care if we can access your personal data—unless you're doing something illegal!!!") so that they can eventually get legislation passed which would legally require companies to build backdoors into all their consumer devices, effectively rendering any security protocols useless. Oh, and DOJ/FBI will SUPER-PINKY-SWEAR to respect everyone's privacy and to NEVER abuse their power!!
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobrabeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 29 of 32
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    Potentially, the “cracked” phone used only an easily guessable 4-digit numerical passcode, while the others use a alphanumeric password.

    A worst case 10’000 codes is doable by hardware, particularly since on average it should take only 5’000 guesses, provided that things like birthdays, etc. don’t yield a result before.
    Soliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 32
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    Apple needs to take this to the Supreme Court and stop beeping around.  The feds are going to try this blessyou again and again until they’ve established legal precedence.  What they’re demanding is unconstitutional.  Apple is already fulfilling their obligations.

    I think your trust in the Supreme Court somewhat misplaced, yes, the Supreme Court SHOULD declare back doors illegal, particularly in light of all the consequences beyond law-enforcement; but in recent years the Supreme Court was stuffed with candidates with a clear political agenda and in favor of an imperial presidency.
    So frankly, I would not bet on them doing the right thing, and I think that’s also why Apple is trying to avoid a court showdown.

    Before Trump, pointing towards similar demands then coming from oppressive regimes might have stopped the government, but with Trump’s admiration for strongmen like Putin, Erdogan, Kim, etc. that argument starts to lose power...
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobrabeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 31 of 32
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    rcfa said:
    Apple needs to take this to the Supreme Court and stop beeping around.  The feds are going to try this blessyou again and again until they’ve established legal precedence.  What they’re demanding is unconstitutional.  Apple is already fulfilling their obligations.

    I think your trust in the Supreme Court somewhat misplaced, yes, the Supreme Court SHOULD declare back doors illegal, particularly in light of all the consequences beyond law-enforcement; but in recent years the Supreme Court was stuffed with candidates with a clear political agenda and in favor of an imperial presidency.
    So frankly, I would not bet on them doing the right thing, and I think that’s also why Apple is trying to avoid a court showdown.

    Before Trump, pointing towards similar demands then coming from oppressive regimes might have stopped the government, but with Trump’s admiration for strongmen like Putin, Erdogan, Kim, etc. that argument starts to lose power...

    Just tell them China is modelling theirs after Trump's.    It'll stop them in their tracks.
  • Reply 32 of 32
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,139member
    bageljoey said:
    AI has been fine, but the regular media has been reporting this like Apple has all his data hidden in their care. Rarely is it explained that what they want Apple to do is create a broken operating system and load it onto the phone. 
    I don’t see why any reasonable person would agree to that. 

    You know, people can have conversations in their own houses and law enforcement has no way to access the information shared in those conversations after the fact. Maybe they should compel Google to record and store every conversation their devices pick up in case those conversations are needed later...
    Thanks for this.  Smart phones are devices that reside all of our intimate details, financial details, log ins, web searches, books, notes, contacts, conversations and photos.  It makes sense to me that it should have the same legal protection as our personal lives and spaces.  A constitutional amendment anyone?  Or at least a law?
Sign In or Register to comment.