Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge: Apple must help US hack San Bernardino killer's phone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    I wonder how much blood will be on the hands of Apple and their bosses before they are compelled to comply?
    That's a very good question. I'm surprised they're fighting this so hard-their liability will be through the roof.

    And its not just terrorism; agencies at all levels are struggling to deal with the new phones. Given that serial sexual predators are a very common phone issue, Apple is going out on a limb on this.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      A very easy warrant. Phones have become so culturally embedded that the owner being arrested is general sufficient to get a warrant.

      We've gotten warrants for phones seized from people who were simply at the scene.
      However that is immaterial here.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        However that is immaterial here.
        Everything here is immaterial.

        But some might find it interesting.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          Everything here is immaterial.

          But some might find it interesting.
          I meant to the Apple case.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            A very easy warrant. Phones have become so culturally embedded that the owner being arrested is general sufficient to get a warrant.

            We've gotten warrants for phones seized from people who were simply at the scene.
            I agree, it is an easy warrant. I sign them pretty frequently.

            I am a little more sympathetic to Apple than most others here.
            It seems that the government is asking Apple to give it a way to access all phones not just this one.
            This could result in significant harm to Apple's business and I think Apple is wise not to trust the government to keep the method of hacking their phones confidential.
            Trusting the government to use this information only for good purposes (like in this instance) is a risky move. We trust the IRS not to disclose our information, but we know it will when it is politically useful.

            I also wonder if this is also being done for show in the hopes it convinces consumers that Apple will do a better job of protecting their information that other companies.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              That's a very good question. I'm surprised they're fighting this so hard-their liability will be through the roof.

              And its not just terrorism; agencies at all levels are struggling to deal with the new phones. Given that serial sexual predators are a very common phone issue, Apple is going out on a limb on this.
              I don't think that Apple could be held liable for criminal acts of others.
              Since Apple has no knowledge of what is on the phone, it cannot be held responsible for failing to disclose that information.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                I agree, it is an easy warrant. I sign them pretty frequently.

                I am a little more sympathetic to Apple than most others here.
                It seems that the government is asking Apple to give it a way to access all phones not just this one.
                This could result in significant harm to Apple's business and I think Apple is wise not to trust the government to keep the method of hacking their phones confidential.
                Trusting the government to use this information only for good purposes (like in this instance) is a risky move. We trust the IRS not to disclose our information, but we know it will when it is politically useful.

                I also wonder if this is also being done for show in the hopes it convinces consumers that Apple will do a better job of protecting their information that other companies.
                The thing is, the CEO lied in the article I read. He said that there is no backdoor to cell data systems to date, and that isn't true. My agency has the Cellbrite system which can hack anything except Apple phones from mid-15, and we're getting up update soon that will access any but the latest model.

                The thing is that there's no remote access option; you have to have physical access to the phone.

                Apple has deliberately set up their newest phones to defeat Cellbrite and similar systems.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                  I don't think that Apple could be held liable for criminal acts of others.
                  Since Apple has no knowledge of what is on the phone, it cannot be held responsible for failing to disclose that information.
                  But if they are deliberately building a product to shield serial sexual predators from prosecution, to use one example, couldn't subsequent victims sue Apple?
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                    I don't think that Apple could be held liable for criminal acts of others.
                    Since Apple has no knowledge of what is on the phone, it cannot be held responsible for failing to disclose that information.
                    But have they not been informed that the phone was used by crimnal elements.
                    you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                    CPO Mzinyati

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                      But have they not been informed that the phone was used by crimnal elements.
                      Yes, they have. My agency is one of many who have formally advised them.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                        But if they are deliberately building a product to shield serial sexual predators from prosecution, to use one example, couldn't subsequent victims sue Apple?
                        No. Of course I am assuming that they are not building for the purpose of shielding sexual predators.
                        They are building a product that might be misused by the criminal element.
                        So long as Apple doesn't intend to assist the criminal act, I don't see how they could be held liable.
                        The criminal act is the cause of the harm, not the misuse of the product.

                        I would liken it to selling a car that can go 200mph.
                        If people are later killed by someone driving that car 200mph, the seller or manufacturer of the car wouldn't be held responsible for the accident.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                          But have they not been informed that the phone was used by crimnal elements.

                          I think that Apple's knowledge must be more detailed than what they have.
                          The phone was used by criminal elements, but Apple doesn't have any knowledge about what criminal acts might be disclosed on the phone.
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            The thing is, the CEO lied in the article I read. He said that there is no backdoor to cell data systems to date, and that isn't true. My agency has the Cellbrite system which can hack anything except Apple phones from mid-15, and we're getting up update soon that will access any but the latest model.

                            The thing is that there's no remote access option; you have to have physical access to the phone.

                            Apple has deliberately set up their newest phones to defeat Cellbrite and similar systems.
                            I think it is perfectly legal to set up a phone that resists access.
                            I think it is a selling point even if I would rather the government have the information on that phone.

                            I was unaware of the lies and agree that was a poor move.

                            I also was unaware that remote access wasn't an option.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              I also was unaware that remote access wasn't an option.
                              Its not an option for Cellbrite-style systems. I won't vouch for what the Feds can deploy.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                                I also wonder if this is also being done for show in the hopes it convinces consumers that Apple will do a better job of protecting their information that other companies.
                                No one should doubt for a second that Huawei wouldn't give the Chinese government similar access or Samsung the Korean government similar access.

                                However there is precedent for this: Blackberry gave certain governments the digital keys to its phones.
                                http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...ackberry-india

                                http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-emails-secure

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X