CloudTalkin

sflocal said:

mknelson said:

sflocal said:

I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

All I can think of is that would be the licensing fee that Broadcom would have charged Apple IF Broadcom had licensed the CalTech patents?

Maybe, but whatever money Broadcom got from Apple I would think is irrelevant.  Broadcom sold x-number of infringing chips to Apple, and <insert other phone manufacturers), then each $1.40 in costs per chip is owed to CIT from Broadcom.  

A patent holder can sue anyone along the chain of alleged infringement.  In this particular instance, CIT can sue Broadcom who made the chips, Apple who uses the chips, and even end users who use the products that use the chips.  Obviously, there's no strategic advantage to suing end users or shipping companies that move the chips or any of the other ancillary touch points.  

I know you're probably saying to yourself, "but that's not fair".  You'd be right, but it would be pointless to make that observation.  The laws as currently constructed say that it's legal.  Here's a classic example of legal but even more unfair:  Microsoft v Datatern.  End users sued.

applesauce007 said:

Apple should appeal.
Broadcom could be sued but not Apple.

Unfortunately, that's not how the law works.

TheCodingArt said:

I understand compromise, but come on. This just makes iCloud a less desirable platform.

How does it make iCloud a less desirable platform?  It's not like Apple is removing encryption from iCloud.  It's never been encrypted and it performs as it always has.  No one is losing any functionality.  You are no less protected than you were before this article was written.  Remember, we're talking about iCloud backups.

Rant: More people need to understand the tech they use.  Half the hand wringing wouldn't exist if we did.  Not picking on you.  Just using your quote as a jump off point.
/end rant

cornchip said:

lkrupp said:

melodyof1974 said:

"If it's not Scottish is crap". My question is what if the phone doesn't turn on can the information still be extracted?

The answer is yes, probably. Let's face it, while Apple is ahead of the game when it comes to privacy and security it's not perfect. No digital consumer device is perfect when it comes to security and privacy. Governments and the bad guys have tons of tools at their disposal to get what they want, when they want it. All this talk about backdoors is about making it easier, not better for the authorities. All of your data is accessible if you live online at all, no matter what tricks you use to protect it. The only path to real privacy is to be off the grid and be completely cash based. Even then, you cannot escape the eyes of the government. They will find you if they need to. It may take years but they will find you. If that sounds depressing, well, unfortunately it is.

I just got a text yesterday from some rando asking if I’d like to sell my house (provided correct address). I asked how he got my info and he said he had access to various databases but ultimately “wasn’t sure”. So God only knows how much of my info is out there & easily accessible. Depressing indeed.

Off topic: Short answer: mostly all of it.  Apple's commitment to privacy, though admirable, really doesn't lessen the amount of your actionable info that is hoovered up.  That's not a knock against Apple.  It's a consequence of our hyper-connected society.  On tech sites, we tend to focus on Google and Facebook and their data gathering for ad placements.  Meanwhile, the real-real... it rarely registers in our collective consciousness.  The real-real is the world of data brokers.  Almost no part of your life is inaccessible to these people.  So God isn't the only one who knows how much of your -and mine... and his... and hers- info is out there.  Lots of companies know, and that is indeed depressing.  Here's a short article detailing some of the shenanigans that have gone on and continue to go on unabated. https://www.fastcompany.com/90310803/here-are-the-data-brokers-quietly-buying-and-selling-your-personal-information

On topic: I used to say it as a snarky aside, but now it seems more a stark reality to me.  I think the feds are running a false flag operation on the populace.  "We can't get in, we can't get in, oh noes, we can't get in."  What I think they really mean is "it's harder to get in than we'd like it to be and a backdoor would increase our efficiencies."  If the act is trivial to do, then it will be trivially done, imo.  

This one is going to be interesting.  There's no specter of "patent troll" here.  

gatorguy said:

Rayz2016 said:

CloudTalkin said:

flydog said:

CloudTalkin said:

HeliBum said:

Breaking encryption is against the law as a result of the DMCA, so I see Apple as having legal justification for this action if encryption is being broken to accomplish the hacks, which it likely is.

A DMCA takedown is a protective measure covering copyrighted material.  Encryption algorithms aren't copyrighted material and arent' subject to DMCA restrictions.  Apple probably knew that but figured some wonk at Twitter in control of takedowns wouldn't know that, so they gave it a shot.  It worked.  Unfortunately for Apple, it also came with the Streisand Effect.  It made Apple look as if they were abusing the DMCA.  That Streisand Effect probably made Apple reverse that decision PDQ.

Wrong 

Wrong how exactly?  Do you have contradicting information?

Have a look at Oracle vs Google. Algorithms are indeed subject to copyright, though the formula that the algorithm is implementing is not. For example, Apple can copyright an implementation of the Luhn algorithm (which they might do if they find a faster way to validate credit card numbers) but they cannot copyright the Luhn encoding process itself (and they shouldn't be able to). Since the encryption string is part of the code then copyright does seem to apply, which is probably what Apple was thinking.

Why wouldn't you guys do a search for "encryption algorithms can be copyrighted" or "cannot be copyrighted". Would stop the guesswork, right? 

It should be pretty clear we both researched the topic. It's not a simple binary. As I said, encryption algorithms cannot be copyrighted.  That is true.  As @Rayz2016 pointed out, an implementation of an encryption algorithm can be copyrighted.  Also true.  Couple that with the fact that 1201 Exemptions are a nebulous web of circular and contradictory rules... no, it wouldn't stop the guesswork.  We know Apple used DMCA to take down a tweet.  We know they quickly reversed that decision.  Everything else, all of our opinions regarding who, what, when, where, why... all guesswork.