Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before - The Daily Beastgrandstanding and media publicity by Apple
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before - The Daily Beastgrandstanding and media publicity by Apple
Not similar. Different iOS versions.
No, Apple Has Not Unlocked 70 iPhones For Law Enforcement | TechCrunch
The California case, in contrast, involves a device running iOS 9. 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. FaceTime, for instance, has been encrypted since 2010, and iMessages since 2011.
So Apple is unable to extract any data including iMessages from the device because all of that data is encrypted. This is the only reason that the FBI now wants Apple to weaken its security so that it can brute-force the passcode. Because the data cannot be read unless the passcode is entered properly.
If government asked a local craftsman around here to come to the aid of his country to top terrorism by opening a door or build a key...there would be a fight to see who would be first in line to do it for free.
Sure they would. You can say that because none of your local Craftsmen can do it, and its not your software or business.
No, Boris. Someone is not grasping at straws just because you don't agree with them.
The last few years before retiring, all the principals were required to use a Blackberry and carry it at all times, even when off work. The Blackberries belonged to the school system and returned to the school system at the end of employment. The system had rules as to how they should be used and how they could not be used. While limited private use was acceptable, it was recommended that we have primarily use our privately owned phones for personal business and socializing.
Can you read? Nothing you said has anything to do with that post. Who cares who owned your "Blackberries" or "Rasberries." They did not own the software. Period. Has nothing to do with "Rules" or who can use what phone for what purpose. If your going to comment, at least read what your commenting on.
Bottom line is that even if you own the HARDWARE you don't own the Operating system, and the owner of that system software, is under NO Obligation to let you access anything on it or reverse its operation for you, just because you own the phone.
Listen, Apple is a scummy company. Apple employs slave children to make their phones, paying them pennies per hour, where those children work in terrible conditions.
Apple doesn't pay taxes in the US so that it can make money for its wall street friends.
Apple represents whats wrong with America, so does it surprise anyone that it sides with terrorists?
That's not the way a lot of people see it, and is just your opinion, which you can voice.
Apple believes in making money and the safety of US citizens is a distant second.
I don't know of any Company that does not believe in "Making Money" but if you know of one, please feel free to enlighten me. would be more rare than a real live DODO Bird.
If Apple did NOT care about its users, then why would they even offer an encryption program?
Let me ask you a simple question. If the other phones the Terrorists smashed, are not endangering anyone, then why would this one single phone be a danger to anyone? Can you answer that? Just curious.
Boy, You really are naïve. Who do you think points Government in their Directions? You? Me? Hardly. Its Big Business and how much influence they have on Congress.
Doesn't bother me if Apple knows what I like, what I buy, or where I live. I also believe they can not see any Data I have that's secured by encryption. No one needs to know that or have access to it, and that includes the Government.
I would think about your comment on "Kissing the Butt of Big Business." Will you do that when you go to the Polls on election day? Wall Street will be there, so take some Lip Gloss.
This is about Freedom of Privacy Its a Constitutional Right. Due Process can not be abused, and Apple has a right to not be forced into being a Police State Entity. Its that simple.
No, like most of your posts, the world is not as simple as you think it is.
Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism expert, has stated more than once that all digital communications of everyone in the U.S., are recorded and stored. All of them. Every text message, chat session, email, and phone call made by anyone in the United States, is recorded and stored.
Now you tell me WHY the FBI needs a back door for any phone when they already have everything they need?
Come on, naysayers, think. This isn't about this one phone. This is about something else altogether.
They need to know what the his top score was on Angry Birds. Or if he has candy crush? Maybe his last Spotify playlist?
Can you read? Nothing you said has anything to do with that post. Who cares who owned your "Blackberries" or "Rasberries." They did not own the software. Period. Has nothing to do with "Rules" or who can use what phone for what purpose. If your going to comment, at least read what your commenting on.
Bottom line is that even if you own the HARDWARE you don't own the Operating system, and the owner of that system software, is under NO Obligation to let you access anything on it or reverse its operation for you, just because you own the phone.
The continued shortcomings of your posts in many threads is this -- when you post something, I read it, and I can usually understand why you believe something, even if it is different than what I believe. You don't seem able to do that with almost anybody. Every opinion that you have is not THE exalted opinion. Other people's opinions are just as important as yours, and often just as valid. But your common reaction is to just insult others.
It appears that my post went over your head. So I'll spell it out for you. If the terrorist had owned the phone, I could agree more (though not totally) with your position. But he did not own the phone. The phone was owned by the agency he worked for, and was to be used for business purposes. If he misused property that was not his, in my opinion he has no right to privacy. The right to privacy would be for his personal property.
This is my last communication to you until you start showing all posters in all threads that you can at least consider other points of view and show posters at least a modicum of respect. I think we all owe that to other posters on this forum.
Sure they would. You can say that because none of your local Craftsmen can do it, and its not your software or business.
Were you sticking out your tongue when you typed that? Your juvenile response proves the point flew right over your head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
grandstanding and media publicity by Apple
