tenly

sog35 said:

The amount of jobs and small companies Amazon has ruined is mind blowing.

Makes me sick that a company like Amazon can undercut the competition by selling goods below cost.
Amazon stays afloat because they pay most of their executives with stock options instead of cash.  And Wall Street keeps inflating Amazon stock, so they are part of the scam also.

How is selling goods below cost NOT anti-competitive?  How can other companies compete if Amazon is willing to take losses on every book they sell?

Is this situation not comparable to what Microsoft did in the 90's with web-browsers?  They sold Internet Explorer below cost (free) by bundling it into Windows  in a clear attempt to put Netscape and everyone else who were selling web browsers out of business.  But in that case, the government enacted restrictions against Microsoft to prevent the monopoly - so I don't get why in the Amazon e-books case they have done the opposite and they are PROTECTING Amazon's monopoly.

This is worse than ridiculous.  

It's just another attempt at fear-mongering and getting the less-intelligent segment of the general population on board with giving up their rights.  It would be completely laughable if that particular segment of the general population weren't so large...

A third co-conspirator?  What?  One that only got involved in the last 4 weeks since the iPhone was last backed up?  One that figured it was better to communicate on a work phone instead of the personal phone?  One which exclusively texted with iMessage - so there are no records of any phone calls available from the provider - or emails available from his ISP?

It sounds like something fabricated entirely in fantasy-land.  It wouldn't surprise me if this DA suggested the virus could be loaded into the the iPhone via its SD card or USB port.  (If he's going to make shit up - he may as well give the phone capabilities it doesn't have too!)

Seriousliy.  This idiot should be forced to produce reasonable cause for the asinine intimations or be relieved of his position.  Someone in his position should definitely not be allowed to make shut up out of thin air and then communicate it to the media.  His job title gives his ridiculous claims an air of credibility that they most certainly do NOT deserve.

The headline says that they are simply asking for "1 thing" but then the article elaborates that they are asking for "3 things".

[quote] the FBI is asking the company (for software that)...suppresses the subject phone's passcode attempt counter (AND) passcode attempt timer (AND) touchscreen input module. [/quote]

I know that none of us like it or want it to happen - but *IF* the FBI pursued legal action that requested just the first thing - disabling the counter - I think they would win based on existing laws and existing precedents (re: destroying evidence).  But - adding the second 2 demands (and then incorrectly claiming they only want one thing) - destroys their case and their credibility.  They will most certainly lose if they move forward with those exact demands.

Although annoying, I think all the new posters reflects that this article has been picked up and spread across many other websites.  DED deserves a bonus for this article.  It's eloquent (as usual), on target and although it's far from "clickbait" - it has obviously brought in many new "clicks" for AI.

For every new moron that posts their disagreement here, I have to assume that there are 50 new intelligent people that silently agree with and support the issues that Daniel brings to light.  They don't create an account and post anything because they have nothing new to add to the discussion.

Kudos Daniel!

There's one more possibility that someone mentioned early on in this thread.

Behind closed doors, Apple may have already agreed to help out the FBI.  The public "fight" that we are watching play out between Apple and the US Government may be a scripted fiction to prevent criminals from knowing their iPhone is no longer secure and more importantly to keep foreign governments from demanding the same capabilities.

When that suggestion was originally floated, I thought it was a whack-job conspiracy theory - but the deeper we get into the discussion, the more I see it as possibly the scenario with the least possible negative impact.  A public loss by Apple, would force them to comply - and then the world would know.  Criminals would find other solutions for encryption and privacy and foreign governments would line up screaming "Me too!".

One thing that's clear is that this issue is big.  How it gets resolved could be a watershed event in the history of the world.  How it gets resolved will have drastic, wide-ranging repercussions which will change the world - and most outcomes appear to be quite negative for our individual, inalienable rights.