oh and yes, I inadvertently upvoted his comment again
Printable View
oh and yes, I inadvertently upvoted his comment again
It seems Apple has an out with the "unreasonably burdensome" clause at the end.
Pretty soon we're gonna have to get you on an aiding and abetting charge of some kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
Damn sausage fingers have a mind of their own :)Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Personally, I don't like the idea of anyone outside of Apple being able to crack the encryption that protects my Apple Pay. I would just as soon keep my bank number and card number out of the hands stores that I shop at. The subpoena needs rewording. It reaches too far. All the FBI needs is the data. They can preserve chain of custody without a remote tap. Once the device is open, it's all their's. I'm perfectly comfortable with the army of cyber security tech geeks @ the FBI being unable to decrypt a 5c.
I turned off that auto-erase shit on my 6+ because, in my developing sinility, I might space my code & overchew my fingers.
By the way: the owner of the phone is dead, right? So why didn't the geniuses just use the corpse's fingers to open it?
I had an old android phone that was mostly wiped by a drunk GF that kept trying to upload some spanish music videos on it while I was sleeping. It was annoying and time consuming, but the important stuff was backed up and replaced in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
I can't see anything important being on the work phone in question. I assume anyone he contacted from it could be gotten from the phone company...no?
I'm thinking he used a numeric password, not a fingerprint.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
There is a short-term, and a long-term issue here, the short-term one being the access to the data on phone, the long-term issue being Apple's proprietary technology.
I am not an expert on this, but if the Court order is followed, does it mean that technology that belongs solely to Apple -ie its Proprietary Technology- would no longer be secret/protected? It would be of importance to Apple because the corporation may lose control of a key valuable asset, rather as if a trading company on Wall St were forced to disclose the algorithms it uses to analyse market data to add value to its trades.
It just so happens that some people have been predicting the demise of Apple precisely because it clings to its proprietary technology in a computing industry where sharing across platforms with a standardized language promotes growth -and popularity with consumers. I believe that this is often referred to as Investor's Dilemma, the odd situation where the very factors that lead to a company's spectacular success contain within the business model the seeds of its own destruction; it may also be part of Disruptive Innovation, where a new innovative product in effect wipes the floor with its competitors without being able to guarantee its own survival in the long term Two links below on this.
My view is that the brand, Apple, will survive, but that the corporation is less than 10 years away from a crisis which will result in a buy-out with Apple technology modified to be transferable across platforms in ways it cannot be at the moment.
Perhaps the law, by entering Apple's secret world, is going to present the company with a new suit of clothes?
Apple and the Investor's Dilemma -a long academic piece but interesting nevertheless-
https://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/
Disruptive Innovation here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disrup..._of_disruption
Many of you probably already read this, but here's also a CNET article, that answers a lot of questions in layman's terms, that some of us have asked:http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-versu...n-a-tizzy-faq/
this gave me a good laugh. if only the feds had someone as smart as you working for themQuote:
Originally Posted by hippifried