mfryd

As others have mentioned, a variable aperture would allow the camera to use a smaller, not a larger aperture.  This increases depth of field.  It does not reduce it.  The rumor mentions the wide angle camera, and wide angles inherently have more depth of field. Therefore there is little depth of field advantage to a variable aperture on a wide angle smartphone camera.

A smaller aperture also reduces the light reaching the sensor.  This increases visible image noise.  With a small sensor image noise is already an issue.

Perhaps, more important is "diffraction".  This is an optical phenomenon that reduces overall sharpness.  It becomes more pronounced with smaller aperture diameters.  The iPhone wide angle camera already has a very small aperture diameter, thus further reductions will result in images which are visibly less sharp.  

The advantage of a wired mouse is that it can be used in a situation where multiple laptop users share a docking station.  At home, I have a desk with a large monitor, wired keyboard and wired mouse.  Any laptop user in my family can walk up to it, plug a single Thunderbolt cable into their laptop, and make use of the monitor, mouse and keyboard.   If the keyboard or mouse were bluetooth-only, users would need to go through a pairing process every time we swap who's sitting at the desk.   Apple's bluetooth keyboard can be used as a wired keyboard, so it isn't a problem.  It would be nice if Apple had a mouse that could be used as a wired mouse.

realjustinlong said:

I think having a basic understanding of the difference between executive orders and the passage of an actual law which you seem to be conflating shows your ignorance in basic civics. ...

One issue is that many people are worried that the judicial branch (including the Supreme Court) has more loyalty to Trump than they do the country/Constitution.  There have certainly been some recent rulings that are pro-Trump, and contrary to well established historical precedent. 

Similarly, Trump seems to have that same level of loyalty from the Republican party, which controls the House and Senate.  This combination appears to short circuit the checks and balances that we would get from three branches independent of government.

If these fears are correct, then Trump can issue whatever executive orders he likes.  If Congress doesn't object and the courts allow it, then it really doesn't matter what the law says.

It is clear that many people share this sort of fear.  As to whether or not the fears are justified, that's another matter entirely.

Even if Trump is able to use executive orders in this fashion, many are OK with this, as they expect to agree with whatever orders he issues.  Others prefer a system of checks and balances, even if that results in blocking some rules they would like to see. 

kellie said:

Apple gets warrants all the time to provide access to iCloud data.  Your phone may be a secure sanctum from the government because of the security built into the phone and software.  But unless you take the extra step of doing a single key encryption of your iCloud data, all of that iCloud data is shareable with the government when Apple is presented with a valid warrant.  

There’s also data in motion that the government has a better ability to hack not.  So I wouldn’t be too worried about backdoors on phones. The government has other ways a getting your data. 

Of course, not everyone stores data in the cloud.  If the data is not synced/stored in the cloud, then Apple cannot provide the information, even if they wanted to.   I know a few people who specifically avoid the cloud because they have significant privacy concerns, and don't trust the security of the cloud. Whether or not their concerns/fears are reasonable are a separate issue.

But even though cloud data can be unlocked with a warrant, that does not mean that data protections are completely useless.

For instance, suppose your phone is stolen.   A hacker is unlikely to be able to obtain a warrant to compel Apple to unlock the phone.  However, a hacker might be able to access the "back door" in order to get at your data.  Depending on what you have on your phone, that might give the hacker access to bank accounts, investment accounts, etc.

I have a lock on the front door to my house.  Someone who knows how to pick locks likely can get through the lock in under a minute.   This doesn't mean I shouldn't bother with a lock.   The fact that it is possible to bypass protection doesn't make the protection useless.  It limits the number of actors who can gain access, and it can slow down access for those who can ultimately bypass the protection.

But even if people have full access, one can always obfuscate the nature of communications by using code words.  An easy thing is to use private nick names for people / events, and euphemisms for actions.   Sending "Peter is taking Sally to the club" could mean that a hitman has been hired to eliminate a senator, or that the sender is planning to have sex with his wife.

vvswarup said:

mfryd said:

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

I fully expect 47 to push through a law requiring Apple to build in a back door. With that, there will go our security. 

How would you feel if the back door only was installed for non-American iPhones. Would you be comfortable with that? When you say "our security" are you talking about Americans, or citizens of the world, including Hamas?

Trump doesn't have the constitutional authority to create any law. Maybe you know that, but the way you worded it sounded like he has some degree of law-making authority.

It would be a challenge to install a backdoor for only non-American phones.

The iPhone gets a lot of security from the fact that the hardware/software architecture is designed to not allow backdoors.  If you change the underlying architecture to allow backdoors, then American phones will essentially have backdoors, we will just have to live with the promise that they won't be opened.

We know from experience, that US law allows the government to obtain search warrants without the subject knowing he is being surveilled.  We also know that Apple is a US based company and subject to US law.  Should Apple be presented with such a warrant they would be obligated to open the backdoor.

Thus, in practice, you can't have backdoors that apply only to non-US phones.

Now whether or not you think that Apple's level of privacy is a good or bad thing, is a different topic.

Yes, Apple is US based company and the law allows the government to obtain search warrants. But you're forgetting an important detail. A search warrant says that the government can search a particular premise and seize specific evidence of criminal activity that it expects to find. But that search warrant is in no way guarantee that the government will find what it's looking for. 

Let me give an example of the police searching soemone's home with a warrant. Armed with the warrant, the police can show up at someone's home and search it. The homeowner can't resist or obstruct the police in performance of their duties. If the door is locked, the police will ask the homeowner to open the door or the police will break down the door. But if the police can't break down the door, the homeowner can't be held criminally liable. 

If there is no back door, the search warrant will not allow the police to "open the door" to search the phone.

If there is a back door, then the police are able to open the phone and get the data.

Whether or not this is a good thing is a separate issue.