• Congress tells FBI that forcing Apple to unlock iPhones is 'a fool's errand,' sides with Apple
    31 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/N6HhfkR.png[/IMG] 1:52 minute video in source. [URL]http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/01/apple-fbi-congress-hearing-iphone-encryption-san-bernardino[/URL] [quote] [B]The Justice Department is on a “fool’s errand” trying to force [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple"]Apple[/URL] to unlock the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists, lawmakers told FBI director James Comey on Tuesday.[/B] [B]Lawmakers of both parties sharply challenged Comey[/B] as the House judiciary committee considered the FBI’s court order to unlock an iPhone owned by Syed Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in December and was killed by law enforcement. [B]Legislators repeatedly accused the Justice Department of overreaching its authority and undermining both privacy and cybersecurity[/B]. Several endorsed Congress passing a law settling the boundaries – [B]something Apple supports – and accused the [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/fbi"]FBI[/URL] of trying to circumvent Congress by launching a lawsuit against Apple.[/B] “Can you appreciate my frustration with what appears to be little more than an end-run around this committee?” asked Democratic congressman John Conyers. Representative Zoe Lofgren called FBI demands to weaken Apple’s security a “fool’s errand” that undermined cybersecurity. Comey, a well-respected figure in Congress, likened impenetrable digital encryption used to protect customer’s privacy such as that of Apple to a “vicious guard dog”. [B]“We’re asking Apple to take the vicious guard dog away and let us pick the lock,”[/B] Comey said. “It’s not their job to watch out for public safety. That’s our job.” [B]He said that neither Apple nor any other tech company ought to be permitted to create “warrant-free spaces” through the use of robust encryption[/B], particularly as mobile and software manufacturers increasingly render user keys inaccessible to themselves. [U][B]“The logic of encryption will bring us to a place in the not too distant future where all of our conversations and all our papers and effects are entirely private,” Comey said. [/B][/U] Testifying after Comey, Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel, countered the FBI director on multiple points, calling its court order “a way to cut off the debate” rather than engaging in it. “This is a security versus security issue, and we believe that balance should be struck by Congress,” Sewell said. Comey repeatedly conceded he had not considered several implications of getting a court to order Apple to unlock an iPhone 5C used by Farook. .... [B]“It won’t be a one-time request. It’ll set precedent for other requests from the FBI and any other law enforcement,” Goodlatte said. “Sure, potentially,” Comey said. [/B][/quote]This part makes no sense: [quote]“The logic of encryption will bring us to a place in the not too distant future where all of our conversations and all our papers and effects are entirely private,” Comey said. [/quote]If someone could explain this to me and reassure me that I am not an idiot, that would be appreciated. With that said, I am glad to see Congress taking a stand against the FBI's brazen and bizarre request to conscript Apple to develop a backdoor for them. With the legislator taking a stand against the FBI, a clear message is being signaled that Apple's backers do not only stem from fellow tech companies such as Microsoft or Apple's specific consumers, but arguably from one of the strongest branches in government; the legislative branch — who do not readily buy into the arguments put forth by the FBI. Aside from the executive branch (obviously, but still has no impact whatsoever in the case), who has the FBI's side inside the government? [URL="http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2016/02/25/apples-involuntary-servitude-n2124280"]Judge Napolitano[/URL] puts it best. [quote]There is no authority for the government to compel a nonparty to its case to do its work, against the nonparty's will, and against profound constitutional values. Essentially, the DoJ wants Apple to hack into its own computer product, thereby telling anyone who can access the key how to do the same. If the courts conscripted Apple to work for the government and thereby destroy or diminish its own product, the decision would constitute a form of slavery, which is prohibited by our values and by the Thirteenth Amendment. [/quote] [quote][B]The DoJ knows where this data on this killer's cellphone can be found, but if it subpoenas the NSA, and the NSA complies with that subpoena, and all this becomes public, that will put the lie to the government's incredible denials that it spies upon all of us all the time. Surely it was spying on the San Bernardino killers[/B].[/quote]
Yeah FBI can fuck off, I can understand wanting information about a terrorist act but creating and using backdoors in a widely used software is a good way to fuck up peoples' privacy. I'm glad Congress is backing Apple on this. [quote]“We’re asking Apple to take the vicious guard dog away and let us pick the lock,” Comey said. “It’s not their job to watch out for public safety. That’s our job.”[/quote] And damn this is some serious bullshit right here, encryption of private information is equivalent to a vicious guard dog?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49850395] This part makes no sense: [QUOTE]“The logic of encryption will bring us to a place in the not too distant future where all of our conversations and all our papers and effects are entirely private,” Comey said.[/QUOTE] If someone could explain this to me and reassure me that I am not an idiot, that would be appreciated.[/QUOTE] That's FBI-speak for "Stop making encryption we can't crack, you fuckers! We can't keep America safe unless we can spy on everyone! We need to be able to wiretap you and read your texts! BECAUSE TERRORISTS" [editline]oh also[/editline] [QUOTE]“We’re asking Apple to take the vicious guard dog away and let us pick the lock,” Comey said. “It’s not their job to watch out for public safety. That’s our job.”[/QUOTE] Literally, "you don't need privacy, Big Brother will protect you, just stop fussing and trust us". George Orwell confirmed for first dead human to achieve relativistic rotational velocity.
[QUOTE] “The logic of encryption will bring us to a place in the not too distant future where all of our conversations and all our papers and effects are entirely private,” Comey said. [/QUOTE] This sounds like something out of a future dystopian-themed comic book. "How DARE you deny us the right to access every one of your files or conversations you have" I am baffled that someone actually expressed such a sentiment.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;49850512]This sounds like something out of a future dystopian-themed comic book. "How DARE you deny us the right to snoop at every conversation you have" I am baffled that someone actually expressed such a sentiment.[/QUOTE] The FBI has been charged with keeping America safe from domestic threats. It's decided that the violation of [I]everyone's[/I] security is a justifiable cost to prevent violent incidents like the San Bernadino shooting that claimed under 20 lives. The CIA and NSA are known to agree and work together along with other intelligence entities domestic and foreign. He says it because law enforcement believes it. Thing is, they're not... [I]that[/I] wrong. Back in the day, it was tedious but relatively easy to spy on someone. Intercept their mail and steam it open before sealing it back up for delivery, stake out their place and observe them until they leave for work/etc. and then go and search their home, obtain records (with gag orders) from the suspect's various utilities/businesses they interact with, wiretap their phone, follow their car around, typical police work. Then consumers started being able to encrypt their own stuff and hide from law enforcement--which means criminals can, too. Ever since then, they've been at war with encryption because it will eventually make it near-impossible for intelligence-gathering by law enforcement (constitutional or otherwise), which leaves them more blind than they're comfortable with in predicting and responding to threats before they escalate into public incidents. However, they're trying to chew the leash off, this time. Preventing an incident that caused the violent deaths of 14 innocent people, which was certainly tragic and an absolute horror for survivors and the victims' families, is not justification for stripping at least a billion people of their privacy. There are more iPhone owners in China than there are American citizens, btw. At least there were a few years ago, and even if a fuckton switched to Android, Google would be next after Apple if the FBI gets their way, and China would be [B]more than happy[/B] to give Google the same treatment for its Chinese-domestic device images. Various other countries would undoubtedly follow suit. So a billion is no exaggeration. Sorry, boys, you can't win against strong algorithms and sufficient time to encrypt. Time to develop 21st Century policing, and it can't look like the (no Godwin) Gestapo. There needs to be a balance between access to encryption and authorized law enforcement access to private records for legitimate reasons, but the public doesn't like the idea of its privacy being shat on (and is ignorant of how badly it already IS) and law enforcement seems to arrogantly and patronizingly believe it knows best and we should just hush and trust them...in spite of a reliable stream of leaks, compromises, and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT"]flat-out abuses[/URL] coming to light, demonstrating that intelligence and law enforcement can't even keep the shit they've already got in check, never mind the vast additional reach they'd have if they could break smartphone device security whenever they wanted. This isn't even limited to the US, look at then-RIM/BlackBerry having to facilitate the Indian government spying on Indian BlackBerry message traffic or face a national ban, followed by several other copycat backdoors for nearby terrorism-troubled countries. But the problem is, even if the government, the tech industry, and the people all agreed on some reasonable compromise to strike a balance between protecting privacy while enabling law enforcement to operate efficiently enough to prevent incidents and save lives, you can't compromise with math. Rotating block ciphers cannot be reasoned with and do not make exceptions for a police badge. You have the key for Joe Drug Dealer's phone and can unlock it at whim, or you can legally compel him to decrypt it, or else you get to fuck off and brute-force it until potentially the sun becomes a red giant and devours the Earth.
While we're at it, does anyone here want to Toxx whether the FBI will be successful in requiring Apple to comply in procuring a backdoor? I say no; SCOTUS will likely side with Apple — and I am mulling to Toxx this one but due to my several pending Toxx clauses I may reconsider. [IMG]https://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-cmon.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49850440]Yeah FBI can fuck off, I can understand wanting information about a terrorist act but creating and using backdoors in a widely used software is a good way to fuck up peoples' privacy. I'm glad Congress is backing Apple on this. And damn this is some serious bullshit right here, encryption of private information is equivalent to a vicious guard dog?[/QUOTE] Better use scary imagery and words to try and get your way.
Apple should be charged with obstruction of justice tbh for intentionally withholding evidence.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49850749]While we're at it, does anyone here want to Toxx whether the FBI will be successful in requiring Apple to comply in procuring a backdoor? I say no; SCOTUS will likely side with Apple — and I am mulling to Toxx this one but due to my several pending Toxx clauses I may reconsider. [IMG]https://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-cmon.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] The FBI can win whatever cases up to the Supreme Court but as you said, the Supreme Court will very likely side with Apple on this one. So sure, I'll bite on this one and Toxx it.
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49850440]Yeah FBI can fuck off, I can understand wanting information about a terrorist act but creating and using backdoors in a widely used software is a good way to fuck up peoples' privacy. I'm glad Congress is backing Apple on this. And damn this is some serious bullshit right here, encryption of private information is equivalent to a vicious guard dog?[/QUOTE] Once again, the funny thing is that encryption is pretty much irrelevant to this case. The FBI didn't ask Apple to circumvent, disable, or add a backdoor to their encryption. They asked Apple to disable the wipes-your-phone-after-ten-failed-passwords feature so they could try to brute force the encryption. Let me repeat that: [b]Encryption is irrelevant to the case[/b]. This is all essentially theater on both sides. The FBI blusters about how it's wrong for a company to outright refuse to help law enforcement, Apple blusters about how they won't undermine privacy for security. The FBI could easily get the information off the phone by other means, and Apple could easily disable the aforementioned password-failure-wipe feature on this particular phone without giving the FBI that capability or even touching the encryption. This case is entirely about appearances for Apple ('we totally value your privacy, please ignore that we cooperated with PRISM') and setting precedent for the FBI ('if your security is safeguarding terrorists you have a responsibility to help us crack it'). The actual details of the case are irrelevant.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49850994]Once again, the funny thing is that encryption is pretty much irrelevant to this case. The FBI didn't ask Apple to circumvent, disable, or add a backdoor to their encryption. They asked Apple to disable the wipes-your-phone-after-ten-failed-passwords feature so they could try to brute force the encryption. Let me repeat that: [b]Encryption is irrelevant to the case[/b]. This is all essentially theater on both sides. The FBI blusters about how it's wrong for a company to outright refuse to help law enforcement, Apple blusters about how they won't undermine privacy for security. The FBI could easily get the information off the phone by other means, and Apple could easily disable the aforementioned password-failure-wipe feature on this particular phone without giving the FBI that capability or even touching the encryption. This case is entirely about appearances for Apple ('we totally value your privacy, please ignore that we cooperated with PRISM') and setting precedent for the FBI ('if your security is safeguarding terrorists you have a responsibility to help us crack it'). The actual details of the case are irrelevant.[/QUOTE] The FBI has the tools and power to bruteforce a 10,000 code passcode in just under 26 minutes, maximum. By removing the encryption-safeguards, the FBI can access anyone's iPhone in under 26 minutes. There being a 26 minute time-limit does not detract from the fact they can virtually access anyone's iPhone, should Apple be forced to comply.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49850447]That's FBI-speak for "Stop making encryption we can't crack, you fuckers! We can't keep America safe unless we can spy on everyone! We need to be able to wiretap you and read your texts! BECAUSE TERRORISTS" Literally, "you don't need privacy, Big Brother will protect you, just stop fussing and trust us".[/QUOTE] They're asking to be able to do their job, which is accessing information pursuant to a legal court order. And yeah, it's probably a bad thing if law enforcement can't gather evidence because everything is locked down. If some Wall Street bankers responsible for the 2008 financial collapse were finally put on trial but all the evidence on their computers was encrypted I hardly imagine the Internet would be collectively shouting stale 1984 memes when the government asks for help in accessing it. Compliance with law enforcement's legitimate need for access has been the legal requirement for telecoms and ISPs for years, the FBI is trying to use this case to set the precedent that the same requirement applies to tech companies. [QUOTE=Starpluck;49851025]By removing the encryption-safeguards, the FBI can access anyone's iPhone in under 26 minutes. [/QUOTE] Again: [QUOTE=catbarf;49850994]Apple could easily disable the aforementioned password-failure-wipe feature on this particular phone without giving the FBI that capability[/QUOTE] [I]Or[/I] Apple could even extract the information themselves and not disclose the method at all to the FBI. There is no reason why getting data off this particular phone with an in-house method will give the FBI the capability to do the same. There's nothing in the court order requiring that Apple disclose the method of disabling the secondary security features. In fact, Apple has [I]already done this[/I] with other phones on a fairly regular basis, but they refused this request because it was mandated by a public court order and thus couldn't be done in secret. There is plenty of evidence that Apple has cooperated with law enforcement in accessing phone data in the past, and [url=http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf]their own legal docs outline the process[/url], so the idea that assisting here will forever compromise all iPhones to the surveillance of the FBI is clearly false. Like I said before, this is all theater. Apple got caught doing what they've always done and decided to Take A Stand, the FBI decided that this case is clear-cut and sensational enough to Set A Precedent, the actual technical details are irrelevant.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49851047][I]Or[/I] Apple could even extract the information themselves and not disclose the method at all to the FBI. There is no reason why getting data off this particular phone with an in-house method will give the FBI the capability to do the same. There's nothing in the court order requiring that Apple disclose the method of disabling the secondary security features. In fact, Apple has [I]already done this[/I] with other phones on a fairly regular basis, but they refused this request because it was mandated by a public court order and thus couldn't be done in secret. There is plenty of evidence that Apple has cooperated with law enforcement in accessing phone data in the past, and [URL="http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf"]their own legal docs outline the process[/URL], so the idea that assisting here will forever compromise all iPhones to the surveillance of the FBI is clearly false. Like I said before, this is all theater. Apple got caught doing what they've always done and decided to Take A Stand, the FBI decided that this case is clear-cut and sensational enough to Set A Precedent, the actual technical details are irrelevant.[/QUOTE] This is no longer possible in this specific case, as Farook's iPhone runs on iOS 9. This extraction you put forth is only possible on devices running iOS 7 and previous. Apple has extracted data from 70 iPhone's in the past, yes. On devices running iOS 7 and previous, Apple actually has the capability to extract data, including (at various stages in its encryption march) contacts, photos, calls and iMessages without unlocking the phones. That last bit is key, because in the previous cases where Apple has complied with legitimate government requests for information, this is the method it has used. It has not unlocked these iPhones — it has extracted data that was accessible while they were still locked. Despite your suggestion for Apple to continue this practice, this is no longer feasible for devices running iOS 8.0 and later. The process for doing this is laid out in its white paper for law enforcement. Here’s the language: [IMG]https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/screen-shot-2016-02-18-at-4-12-20-pm.png?w=680&h=289[/IMG] In this particular case, the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone runs on iOS 9, thus making it ineligible for Apple's routine data-extraction that you suggested for Apple's in-house team to perform.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49850994]Let me repeat that: [b]Encryption is irrelevant to the case[/b].[/QUOTE] Except for the part where Apple would be making it easier for the FBI to break the encryption. Without that feature the encryption is kinda a completely moot point.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49851114]In this particular case, the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone runs on iOS 9, thus making it ineligible for Apple's routine self-extraction that you suggested Apple's in-house team to perform.[/QUOTE] The act of extracting data from an iPhone is routine to Apple, irrespective of the technology involved. Apple's statements about commitment to privacy and refusing to cooperate with the FBI and thereby set a dangerous precedent directly contradicts their previous cooperation. In what way does it matter whether the in-house team is extracting data from an iOS 8 phone or using a different method for an iOS 9 phone, if the end result in both cases is giving the FBI the data without also giving them the method of extraction? [QUOTE=Alice3173;49851151]Except for the part where Apple would be making it easier for the FBI to break the encryption. Without that feature the encryption is kinda a completely moot point.[/QUOTE] The encryption is already a moot point when [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/24/apple-iphone-hacks-encryption-san-bernardino-hardware-fbi/80812466/"]the FBI already has the ability to extract the data[/URL]. But all this talk about the FBI wanting to force Apple to put a backdoor in their encryption so they can spy on everyone at will is simply wrong. They want Apple to disable a physical security measure, which will only give them the ability to brute force this individual phone, and won't let random Chinese hackers or the NSA break your encryption remotely by knowing the secret handshake. If Apple complies and disables that feature, the FBI will be able to break the encryption on this phone. They will not, however, be able to access [i]your[/i] phone the same way, unless they legally seize your phone pursuant to a criminal investigation and submit it with a court order to Apple for a repeat performance. That's not nearly as scary as the rampant misinformation that the FBI will have the ability to spy on everyone at will. The real implication that the tech industry is worried about is that it would be setting the public legal precedent that tech companies must comply with law enforcement to bypass security measures on their own devices, which could embolden countries like China to make similar demands of Apple. Like I've said, it's about posturing and public policy, not the specifics of the case. Apple could comply in a way that gives the FBI no ability to apply that solution to other phones, and the FBI could extract the information without Apple's help. But each wants to set a legal precedent that supports their position. This is a serious issue and I can see merit to both sides, but all this 'FBI HATES ENCRYPTION, 1984 ORWELL SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE' betrays a complete misunderstanding of the issue from the perspective of the general public.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49851395]The act of extracting data from an iPhone is routine to Apple, irrespective of the technology involved. Apple's statements about commitment to privacy and refusing to cooperate with the FBI and thereby set a dangerous precedent directly contradicts their previous cooperation. In what way does it matter whether the in-house team is extracting data from an iOS 8 phone or using a different method for an iOS 9 phone, if the end result in both cases is giving the FBI the data without also giving them the method of extraction? [/QUOTE] It is no longer possible to extract data from an encrypted iPhone that runs on iOS 8.0 and later. The data that was previously accessible while a phone was locked ceased to be so as of the release of iOS 8, when Apple started securing it with encryption tied to the passcode, rather than the hardware ID of the device.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49851441]It is no longer possible to extract data from an encrypted iPhone that runs on iOS 8.0 and later. The data that was previously accessible while a phone was locked ceased to be so as of the release of iOS 8, when Apple started securing it with encryption tied to the passcode, rather than the hardware ID of the device.[/QUOTE] Right, but it's well-documented that Apple could force an OS update signed to the particular phone to disable the secondary security, and then extract the data by brute-forcing the encryption. The means of access has changed from iOS 8, but either way, they have the means to extract the data, and in the past they've demonstrated the willingness to apply those means in compliance with the FBI's court-authorized requests. The fact that they're not shows that there's more to this story than glib statements about commitment to user privacy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49851515]Right, but it's well-documented that Apple could force an OS update signed to the particular phone to disable the secondary security[/QUOTE] Source on that documentation? AFAIK this is basically the reason they can't do this; they can't force OS updates to any particular phone anymore.
Seems to me that Congress told the FBI to fuckoff for right now The bit about how Apple shouldn't create warrantless spaces demonstrates they still don't want to give up, more that both Democrats and Republicans agree that the FBI and justice department overstepped on this one and need to go through them to get the authority to compelling apple Take this with a grain of salt though, this doesn't mean every congressmen supports apples stance, there are plenty that think they should be compelled to do whatever the government wants, this was just one group coming out against it
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;49851697]Source on that documentation? AFAIK this is basically the reason they can't do this; they can't force OS updates to any particular phone anymore.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/"]Here's an explanation[/URL]. It's the same method (forced firmware update) they used with earlier versions of iOS, just to a different purpose- they can't bypass the password protection entirely like they used to, but they can expose it to a brute-force attack. Keep in mind also that this is a 5C which lacks the Secure Enclave of newer phones, which makes it easier to compromise.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49851835][URL="http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/"]Here's an explanation[/URL]. It's the same method (forced firmware update) they used with earlier versions of iOS, just to a different purpose- they can't bypass the password protection entirely like they used to, but they can expose it to a brute-force attack. Keep in mind also that this is a 5C which lacks the Secure Enclave of newer phones, which makes it easier to compromise.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the link. It's really a theory from one guy with lots of technical knowledge, but an interesting read none the less.
[quote]“The logic of encryption will bring us to a place in the not too distant future where all of our conversations and all our papers and effects are entirely private,” Comey said.[/quote] where is the problem
[QUOTE=phygon;49852737]where is the problem[/QUOTE] We're already to that point, at least for the foreseeable future; the very encryption Apple is using is publically available and anyone can use by themselves with a stronger password which cannot reasonably be brute forced.
I really don't get how the American government works. Are the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc independent entities that can try to have it there way and do whatever they want while other branches of the government just can say "Nah, uh. Don't do that. I don't approve of that, please stop" As much controversy and backlash there is on this topic the FBI should just fuck off.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;49853233]I really don't get how the American government works. Are the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc independent entities that can try to have it there way and do whatever they want while other branches of the government just can say "Nah, uh. Don't do that. I don't approve of that, please stop" As much controversy and backlash there is on this topic the FBI should just fuck off.[/QUOTE] It was initially for Checks and Balances, No One Branch can have all the power. I said Initially because Senate GOP Broke the Judical Branch because... fuck Obama.
[QUOTE=phygon;49852737]where is the problem[/QUOTE] Obviously only terrorists need and support privacy. You are not a terrorist, are you?
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49853364]Obviously only terrorists need and support privacy. You are not a terrorist, are you?[/QUOTE] everyone is a potential terrorist SON
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;49853233]I really don't get how the American government works. Are the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc independent entities that can try to have it there way and do whatever they want while other branches of the government just can say "Nah, uh. Don't do that. I don't approve of that, please stop" As much controversy and backlash there is on this topic the FBI should just fuck off.[/QUOTE] Select agencies fall under executive authority, select agencies fall under congressional authority, most fall under presidential though, as he has often been granted the right to name their heads, Congress however retains control through charters and appropriations bills, like they mandated to the FAA on their annual budget to regulate drones
[QUOTE]The DoJ knows where this data on this killer's cellphone can be found, but if it subpoenas the NSA, and the NSA complies with that subpoena, and all this becomes public, that will put the lie to the government's incredible denials that it spies upon all of us all the time. Surely it was spying on the San Bernardino killers.[/QUOTE] The NSA has nothing to win here, that's why the FBI wants Apple to give them the evidence -- parallel construction. The NSA either does have the info but won't reveal it, in which case that surveillance of the perpetrators didn't stop the mass murder from happening, or it doesn't have the info and by default failed to detect the plot at all despite the massive volume of surveillance they already perform. [QUOTE=EvilMattress;49854159]everyone is a potential terrorist SON[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://facepunch.com/image.php?u=220975&dateline=1366826530[/IMG]
It's really disgusting that the FBI thinks they have the right commandeer the software engineering department of a private company to do their dirty work for them. Who reimburses Apple for the cost of paying their staff to essentially moonlight? What happens if Apple agreed but all the staff decided to go on strike in protest? What if a rogue employee decides to write code that wipes the phone completely as soon as it's loaded? Do they get in trouble alone, or does Apple? The whole plan was a disaster
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.