Google CEO Finally Chimes In On FBI Encryption Case, Says He Agrees With Apple (gizmodo.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google CEO Finally Chimes In On FBI Encryption Case, Says He Agrees With Apple (gizmodo.com)

Posted by whipslash on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @02:27PM from the not-so-fast-snowden dept.

An anonymous reader writes: After Tim Cook's eloquent letter explaining why Apple wouldn't help the FBI get encrypted data from the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, the internet looked to Google to take a similar stand. Now Google CEO Sundar Pichai has posted five tweets that seem to show he agrees with Cook.
Edward Snowden had previously suggested that Google's silence meant Google had "picked a side, but it's not the public's."

255 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Is he really agreeing? by rsborg · 2016-02-17 14:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm glad Sundar is agreeing this is an important issue... however, there are a lot of wiggle words in his phrasing.

Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy

Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
1. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Soulskill · 2016-02-17 14:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Agreed. While it's nice to see him bring it up, it's definitely a weaker stance than Apple's. Pichai also says being required to enable hacking "Could be a troubling precedent." Well, yes. It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.
  Users understand that if a company is legally bound to compromise privacy to work with law enforcement, they're going to do it. Nobody at Apple is going to go to jail for obstruction of justice. But it counts for something when they say that's the only way they'll do it, and when they put up a fight in court.
2. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
  Yes. It runs counter to their business model. Google's business model is to have access to all of its product's (users) data in order to sell advertising space to its customers (advertisers). Privacy reduces Google's profits.
3. Re:Is he really agreeing? by sinij · 2016-02-17 14:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Google and privacy are not on speaking terms.
4. Re:Is he really agreeing? by SJHillman · 2016-02-17 14:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But Google is still reading Privacy's emails.
5. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.
  Why? He works for his own interest, not yours. His interest and your interest rarely (if ever) coincide. It's naive to think otherwise. The best way to deal with any corporation (and the hollowed out people who occupy "executive" positions) is to treat them as you would treat a psychopath: with profound distrust.
6. Re:Is he really agreeing? by BoogieChile · 2016-02-17 14:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah! Don't give us that thoughtful, nuanced debate crap! We want flat-out binary statements, black and white bold, simplistic determinations, otherwise who are we going to know who to shake our pitchforks and flaming torchs at?
7. Re:Is he really agreeing? by 110010001000 · 2016-02-17 15:03 · Score: 2
  
  Google doesn't give a shit about your privacy. This whole thing is a joke. Apple and Google were the ones giving the NSA access to their user databases! If you think these mega corporations are on your side you are a fool.
8. Re:Is he really agreeing? by grim4593 · 2016-02-17 15:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Any statement that Google wants to make will need to be proofread by multiple people and then vetted by lawyers, not just to ensure they don't overstep some legal bounds but also to make sure there wouldn't be anything in it that the shareholders could target later if there is some backlash.
  It would not surprise me if Apple had been developing their response in anticipation to the judges request for some time.
9. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Curunir_wolf · 2016-02-17 15:42 · Score: 2
  
  It would not surprise me if Apple had been developing their response in anticipation to the judges request for some time.
  Well they're already paying lawyers to work on the case, and other similar ones (one FBI agent mentioned to an ABC reporter that he had upwards of 150 smart phones he was holding on to until a crack was available). So, why not pay a couple more billable hours to vet a policy statement?
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
10. Re:Is he really agreeing? by MightyMartian · 2016-02-17 16:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm a pitch fork manufacturer in a a black and white world, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:Is he really agreeing? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-02-17 16:28 · Score: 2
  
  TRUE
12. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Some issues, like the right of the general public to be free of invasive spying by powerful organisation, whether they be government or corporate, have absolute answers.
13. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Shadow99_1 · 2016-02-17 17:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well my parent's believe Apple are being a bunch of dicks about this and should just comply. I doubt they are the only ones. While you and me may believe privacy is worth fighting for I bet most companies would rather get a good feeling for the general consensus first. From a pure 'business' perspective that's the right thing to do when not specifically on the spot like Apple is.
  Apple had no good option to go with, spend lots of time and effort trying to make it possible with no return or make this a public case of privacy for their users and the government is 'bad'. Looking at those of course they go 'User Privacy!' as a rallying cry. You need to remember while peopel may run then, a company is a collective entity that is entirely selfish.
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
14. Re:Is he really agreeing? by fustakrakich · 2016-02-17 17:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  When they *put up a fight*, is it for real, or a publicity/marketing gimmick while the press is paying attention?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
15. Re:Is he really agreeing? by davester666 · 2016-02-17 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  He's not really agreeing. It amounts to "it might be bad. not for me to say one way or the other. other people should talk about this."
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
16. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Toonol · 2016-02-17 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, civilized and lawful people often have interests that coincide. That's how Google made billions of dollars. Exchange and cooperation for mutual benefit.
17. Re:Is he really agreeing? by tlhIngan · 2016-02-17 19:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well my parent's believe Apple are being a bunch of dicks about this and should just comply. I doubt they are the only ones. While you and me may believe privacy is worth fighting for I bet most companies would rather get a good feeling for the general consensus first. From a pure 'business' perspective that's the right thing to do when not specifically on the spot like Apple is.
  Apple had no good option to go with, spend lots of time and effort trying to make it possible with no return or make this a public case of privacy for their users and the government is 'bad'. Looking at those of course they go 'User Privacy!' as a rallying cry. You need to remember while peopel may run then, a company is a collective entity that is entirely selfish.
  To which you point out to your parents Tim Cook's letter, which is linked off the front page of apple.com. In it he details why he's making the stand, and even more importantly, why he's "being a dick". He even addresses terrorism itself. It's a very insightful and thoughtful message that explains why Apple does not want to roll over and be the FBI's pet. And he even details why encryption is not just optional on a smartphone, but mandatory. And heck, Apple did give up the data they could - the iCloud backups, which were obtained legally by a warrant.
  As for the "user privacy" stance - after the Snowden revelations, it's the only stance Apple can take. It's also beneficial, since it's the stance Apple can take to differentiate their products from their competitors.
  But think of it this way - if they didn't care, why did they go through all the trouble of the secure enclave? And to make it an extremely paranoid one at that - giving it the ultimate power to wipe the phone if attacked? (Error 53 is such an attack - perhaps a modified fingerprint sensor is trying to find a way to break the secure enclave code and allow it to run arbitrary code, allowing full access to the system without the system knowing. The secure enclave is paranoid as it should be). It's why later phones rely on it to do the 10 authentication attempts and wipe, and why the enclave enforces the delays between attempts.
  If anything, this issue should go to the Supreme Court to be decided there, putting to rest all those legislation trying to put backdoors in encryption products and other things.
  And yes, there is a chilling effect - it spreads wider than just Apple, but to everyone. Not just iOS, or Android, or Blackberry, but to the very foundations of what the Internet provides. Because it's not just encryption, but efforts like HTTPS Everywhere, Lets Encrypt and other services,
18. Re:Is he really agreeing? by phantomfive · 2016-02-17 19:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
  Probably, considering that violating privacy is their primary source of income. Eric Schmidt actually came out against privacy.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
19. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple picked a side.... and it's Apple's
  Google picked a side... and it's Google's.
  The FBI picked a side... and it's the FBI's.
  Read it. Learn it.
  What they say is not what they do. Apple would sell you out in a flat second - if they thought it would benefit them one penny in their earnings and no consequences. So would Google - if they thought it would benefit them one penny in their earnings and no consequences.
20. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  Not only that, but Google is still looking at his private parts.
21. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  >>It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.
  > Why? He works for his own interest, not yours....
  Umm, that doesn't stop it from being nice, does it?
22. Re:Is he really agreeing? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-17 20:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's because Google isn't currently fighting in court with the FBI. I'm sure his lawyers have told him to phrase it that way, in case Apple loses and Google is next. No point giving the FBI ammunition to use in future legal arguments.
  In any case, Google is in a stronger position than Apple because its secure storage on its Nexus devices has firmware in ROM. It can't be modified or updated like Apple's, so there is no way they could introduce a back door or remove protections like rate limiting or a maximum number of incorrect guesses. It's in the silicon, so the FBI's current argument won't work.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:Is he really agreeing? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-17 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have any evidence that Apple and Google gave the NSA access? According to the Snowden leaks, the NSA, with GCHQ's help, were intercepting data as it flowed between data centres and using exploits to get into accounts.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
24. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jandersen · 2016-02-17 21:09 · Score: 2
  
  Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
  Don't you think that queston is a bit naive, all considered? Google, as all companies, can only be assumed to be working in the interests of their owners, and even that is an ideal case, as we know from the all to common examples of CEOs lining their own pockets to the loss of their shareholders. Google is not you friend - they don't care about protecting your privacy or freedom, they collect people's data for their own profit; if they are unwilling to share this information, it is because they consider the data an important part of their business model. If sharing the data at some point turns out to be profitable, that is what will happen.
25. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jandersen · 2016-02-17 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  ...Apple are being a bunch of dicks about...
  If I may intercede here - shouldn't we, in the interest of public decency in publishing, stop calling people 'dicks' and instead refer to them as, well, how about 'dickerels'? Hmm, or perhaps 'Richards'?
26. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  In any case, Google is in a stronger position than Apple because its secure storage on its Nexus devices has firmware in ROM.
  Google is in a stronger position than Apple because their storage contains the search histories, and likely the private emails, and possibly documents of a great many of the people who would like them to open up back doors. It would be very easy for them to quietly remind the anti-privacy advocates how strong encryption protects them and how a back door would be a very bad idea.
27. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Stuarticus · 2016-02-17 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  That and dodging tax.
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
28. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jcr · 2016-02-17 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  If they admit that privacy is important, then the rather uncomfortable fact that Android isn't securable might get brought up.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
29. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2016-02-17 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  ts secure storage on its Nexus devices has firmware in ROM. It can't be modified or updated like Apple's
  Well, the only reason that iPhone didn't have the specialized hardware is it is 4 gens old. iPhones lead the way on specialized encryption hardware.
  I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I'm not sure what other phone to use to protect my privacy. Windows 8 was great, no one used it so no malware. But 10 is not...
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
30. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  You are really F'n stupid to think this is a good thing.
  Well maybe you will grow up some day and realize privacy is just not that important.
31. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 22:34 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, civilized and lawful people often have interests that coincide.
  Yes, but as wealth isolates them from the rest of society their perspective becomes warped, their interests skewed away from mutual benefit, and their focus changes to maintain their position. Power corrupts them and exaggerates both their tendency and their capacity to act like psychopaths. It's Feudalism 2.0.
32. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 23:19 · Score: 0
  
  Android is as 'securable' as IOS is. But this depends on hardware. To my knowledge, nobody makes an android device with a 'secure enclave' like the iPhone has.
  Port android to iPhone hardware, or add a 'secure enclave' to some existing android device, and you'll get the same kind of security. I.e. the device manufacturer can unlock it if they want to. Others, including the police, can not. If they want to, they can even lock themselves out, at the cost of disabling firmware update.
33. Re:Is he really agreeing? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-17 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Apple have the ability to update the firmware on their Secure Enclave, their implementation of secure storage. They have issued firmware updates that adjust the time delays between attempts before. That means that the firmware is in flash memory somewhere and can be updated, which is a huge security flaw.
  Check the datahsheets for other secure memories and ARM CPUs with secure storage. Very few of them have any mechanism to update the firmware, which is usually hard coded into a ROM.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
34. Re:Is he really agreeing? by peragrin · 2016-02-17 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  To install a new OS patch you have to have the pin. if the Pin was known then you don't need apple's help anyways.
  If you can't update the firmware then you can't provide bug fixes. so if you do have a fault it is permanent.
  Security that can't be patched will be hacked. security that can be patched will be hacked.
  So if you can be hacked either way isn't it better to go with the one you can fix easier?
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
35. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jafiwam · 2016-02-18 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  But think of it this way - if they didn't care, why did they go through all the trouble of the secure enclave? And to make it an extremely paranoid one at that - giving it the ultimate power to wipe the phone if attacked? (Error 53 is such an attack - perhaps a modified fingerprint sensor is trying to find a way to break the secure enclave code and allow it to run arbitrary code, allowing full access to the system without the system knowing. The secure enclave is paranoid as it should be). It's why later phones rely on it to do the 10 authentication attempts and wipe, and why the enclave enforces the delays between attempts.
  "Caring" isn't needed. It makes economic sense to make the phones secure for two reasons 1) it sells more of them 2) it keeps Apple from having to work with every dumb little request from law enforcement about tookie and where he got the weed. Not to mention what the prop-up-it's-own-power surveillance-state will try to do "in secret."
  There are probably MILLIONS of lawful (circumstances, or by warrant) searches of Apple phones in the US alone each year, some of them will take attention of three or four Apple employees if they are easy ones. To avoid this massive financial loss they have to make the phones easy to get into (and worth stealing now for various other reasons) or impossible to get into and that fact known by everybody.
36. Re:Is he really agreeing? by stealth_finger · 2016-02-18 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.
  Why? He works for his own interest, not yours. His interest and your interest rarely (if ever) coincide. It's naive to think otherwise. The best way to deal with any corporation (and the hollowed out people who occupy "executive" positions) is to treat them as you would treat a psychopath: with profound distrust.
  He wants people to use his companies products, if people don't trust them they won't. There are planty of contenders who would love to see google fall to take their place. Hell, maybe bing might even get a shot /snigger.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
37. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  If there are no consequences then it's the rational, correct thing to do. However, most people and companies are not so shortsighted that they completely discount everyone else's utility in the long term. Oppressing people, spying on people, etc. are not without future consequences in terms of economic hardship, war, reversion to the dark ages, etc. Only a very tiny number of distant futures turn out well under a brutal surveillance police state and I doubt anyone but the FBI is stupid enough to think they can thread the needle of fate carefully enough to reach that future.
38. Re:Is he really agreeing? by gtall · 2016-02-18 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  "That means that the firmware is in flash memory somewhere and can be updated, which is a huge security flaw"
  You mean as opposed to being burned into the hardware where any security flaw is there forever?
39. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Shut the fuckerel up..
40. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  If you make the code simple enough you can demonstrate that it has to work right.
41. Re:Is he really agreeing? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Point of order...
  That's how they *kept* it. Not how they made it.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
42. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Shortguy881 · 2016-02-18 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  There was nothing thoughtful or nuanced about his tweets. It was just a wishy washy way of not taking sides. At no point in the rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
43. Re:Is he really agreeing? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  No. Now stop being a dick.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
44. Re:Is he really agreeing? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  To install a new OS patch you have to have the pin.
  
  That's not necessarily true, is it? Isn't only a portion of the data encrypted? Meaning, the user's data? For example, on Linux, it would be the /home folder that one might have encrypted instead of encrypting the everything. So, if the rest isn't encrypted, couldn't they just pop the memory, read it, find the appropriate sectors, and slap a new firmware on it - then return it to the device, power it on, and have at it?
  Err... I reread that and I'm not sure I can articulate that more clearly. Sorry but hopefully it makes sense. I am not, by any means, an expert but it seems that might be a viable solution. I'm sure they understand the file system and how data is stored. If they encrypt the OS then it's a computational overhead that would slow the device down - so it seems unlikely that they'd encrypt it, but it might be. If it's an entirely separate firmware then that may not work but, again, there's computational overhead that would be a bit of a performance hit, did they make that choice? Buggered if I know - I've mostly just been pondering how I'd consider going about it if it were up to me and I actually knew what I was doing. (It is not and I do not.)
  Even if they had to manually peel back layers and read with a big ol' microscope, they might just be able to do it - at great expense, risk, and duration.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
45. Re: Is he really agreeing? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Is it? How about if they have a lawful, just, warrant?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
46. Re:Is he really agreeing? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  Are you not familiar with their posts? In my effort to be polite, I'll say this; They make some very strong claims from time to time and do not generally provide citations. However...
  It is known, not really conjectured, that Google did, in fact, cooperate with the NSA on at least one occasion. As near as I can recall, there's at least one instance where they did so and I've gone ahead and found a link.
  http://www.salon.com/2014/11/1...
  Now, do not read into that what I did not say. It's important to note *how* and *why* Google assisted and cooperated with the NSA - at least in that one particular instance. If you don't want to read the link, basically some server in China was attacking Google and their users. Google traced 'em, shared the data with the NSA, and gave them technical assistance (probably).
  So, you can say that Google has cooperated with the NSA and be completely factual. Except, it's not as it seems. I suspect that's the case here - and he may not even be doing it intentionally and not have actually read the story.
  I've heard other accusations and traced them down - they're often just conjecture. I've read quite a bit of the Snowden stuff and, if I recall correctly, you're recounting it well enough. The NSA was grabbing the data without Google's consent or aid - so far as I know. In fact, seeing as I'm providing citations, let me find an article for that....
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  In that article (and all the others that I know of that are generally factual) it points out that the NSA was *secretly* doing so - that means that Google was not aiding them. However, if you squint just enough (and never bother to ask for citations) then you can *factually* claim that Google has cooperated with the NSA. They have. Err... It's just that it was probably the right thing to do at the time.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
47. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  This is all smoke and mirrors.
  If I designed a safe, is it my job to be ordered to break into it?
  If one nation state request this, what then when China, or Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia, or any host of less than stellar nation states request the same?
48. Re:Is he really agreeing? by cayenne8 · 2016-02-18 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That and dodging tax.
  When you say "dodging"..that implies something illegal.
  As far as I can tell, everything they, as well as any other responsible company does, is perfectly legal. It would not make sense for a company to not take full advantage of the current tax laws.
  Do you yourself not take every deduction you can? Do you voluntarily pay more in tax that you really need to?
  If you don't like the tax loopholes, have your congress-critters change the laws. Hell, make it really easy and transparent.
  You made $x...you pay $y.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
49. Re:Is he really agreeing? by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-18 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the slides released by Snowden, and look at how GCHQ gained access to European companies through criminal hacking, it seems most likely that what they are saying is that they managed to gain a foothold inside those companies' networks. Not with cooperation, but by breaking in.
  It's impossible to know exactly what happened, but what we don't have to concrete evidence of collaboration against the users, at least in Google and Apple's cases.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
50. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you've ever worked in a position where you interact with the public or make press-releases (even in some parts of academia) then you will find that your "statements" are vetted by an actual PR specialist and by a lawyer - though sometimes that may be a single person, depending on the size of the company and your budget. You can bet your ass that Cook's letter was heavily vetted, used specific verbiage, and the version online is not the one authored by him personally.
  In fact, when you see them speak in public - even if they're taking questions, everything is *very* scripted. Especially if they're working with an elected officials and communicating with the public. They do not say things "off the cuff" and remain in their position for very long. Even a small company (say with just ~220 people) may very well have consulted with a PR specialist in the past and may have any outbound communications vetted by an employee if they're meant for (or might possibly see via FOIA or similar) the public.
  You're never, ever getting a "heart-felt" or "real" and "honest" or "true to the users" type of message. You're getting a very scripted, albeit well acted sometimes, message. It's controlling the narrative while ensuring that they don't say anything that might bite them in the ass later. It's about not painting yourself into a corner, it's about putting a positive spin on it (if needed), it's about ensuring that you're painted in the best possible light. Everything, and I do mean everything, is intended to be vetted by someone if it's for public consumption.
  In fact, you can often tell when it wasn't done properly. We call them gaffs, blunders, or stupid. They end up unemployed or given a "lateral promotion" or, perhaps, simply no longer allowed to interact with the public. They write letters of apology. They write letters saying that they were speaking on their own and did not represent the company. They write letters expressing that they're sorry for their mistaken quotes or sometimes say that things were taken out of context. They seldom actually go out and say those things and, if they do, they usually do not allow for questions afterwards.
  If you do get one that opens up to questions, even those are heavily anticipated and scripted. They will spend a few hours (or more!) going over the possible questions, working on the responses, and anticipating things. A good one will actually have practiced orating them, will be able to speak as if they're not reciting but are actually expressing and articulating, and will be more a thespian than an orator. Depending on their size, they may actually have hired an acting coach at some point and learned how to portray an image with body language, intonation, facial expressions, and vocal projection. I'd estimate, having no numbers to go by, that the majority of executives for large companies (those that interact with the public or journalists) will have done so.
  It's not uncommon for them to bring in an instructor and give lessons to a group of them, often at some sort of retreat type of deal. They may be with reps from other companies and have all gone to a conference just to get better at it. And that's *still* heavily vetted by a PR specialist (not the same thing as a PR person from the company) and a legal professional or even a whole legal team.
  I know the latter portion of this because I have a lady friend who's a professor at a rather famous acting school and she also does those sorts of lessons. I've known her for ages and ages - I've even mentioned her before. She's taught me many things, some of them quite handy. I'll share one for you...
  If you want to warm up your tongue, then tongue twisters are actually good. Her favorite, and what she teachers her students, is this:
  "I'm not a fig plucker but I'll pluck figs 'til the fig plucker comes."
  Said quickly and with clear enunciation is a good practice - it's also good for a good chuckle which can help relieve some nervous tensions.
  At any rate, Slashdot's being grouchy so
51. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm glad Sundar is agreeing this is an important issue... however, there are a lot of wiggle words in his phrasing.
  
  Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy
  Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
  Frankly speaking it's more accurate than Apple claiming the FBI wants them to install a Backdoor.
  What the FBI asked for is a custom OS build which won't wipe the data after X number of failed attempts, and removes the added delay between guesses so that they can ATTEMPT to brute force it. Now for the record I think Apple is completely right to tell them to fuck off. But that's not a back door, and even IF they end up doing it, it doesn't necessarily compromise the device's security or hurt the privacy of users.
52. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jellomizer · 2016-02-18 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is actually doing something very odd. It is trying to protect its customers!
  Any backdoor made into the system will be abused. Apple tried to make the system so they can't access the data. Apple may not be able to do such changes. Because how will they get past the security to even load the update to the phone? Which should require human interaction which would mean they will need to login.
  What I really don't get... If the FBI really needs this data they should take a different approach.
  Take the Flash Chip out of the device. Plug it into a separate computer, copy the encrypted data. Send it to the NSA or an other Super computer and break the encryption the old fashion way.
  iOS is a Unix based OS. There isn't any Magic about it, just good security design.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
53. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Stuarticus · 2016-02-18 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  Is dodging bullets illegal as well doctor lawyer?
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
54. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Is dodging bullets illegal as well doctor lawyer?
  That might well depend on who's shooting at you. If a government representative is shooting at you, under government approved situation and guidelines, I wouldn't be surprised if there *is* a law that makes dodging illegal (probably passed as a rider in a bill relating to gun control) ;)
55. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, it costs money to process those requests, but the government pays them to do it. In fact its a *profit* center for the telco's, and if apple were forced to do it, it would be for them as well.
56. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. If you check the second link (it's a bit long) that's what is disclosed by the paper. In fact, all the reputable publications that I've read (and that's a lot) indicate that they did it without Google's aid - as far as we know. The Snowden documents are quite specific - in that specific case. The NSA intercepted the data without permission.
  According to the first link, Google did lend assistance to the NSA, technically. However, they did so when they were being attacked, their users were being attacked, and their password system had been compromised and was being abused. So they can say that Google worked with the NSA, and it's technically true but most people won't actually look into it and see that it's not the Snowden incident but something totally different. In short, and as you know (so stated more to ensure others see the reality), we have absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Google aided the NSA with bulk data collection and we have evidence that says that the NSA did bulk data collection without Google's assistance.
  Giving the benefit of doubt means that I'll say that they might not have known the difference. But, I am not sure what would motivate people to make it seem worse than it really is. The NSA did not, as far as anyone can prove, get help from Google for their spying. They did get help from Google in an entirely different matter. I really do not know what would motivate people to make it seem worse? It's bad enough as it is, there's no reason to make it seem worse by posting disinformation.
  I don't know why they, and others do it, but they do it often. If anything, I think it will turn people away from caring if they find out that people are being disingenuous or misleading. I really do not know why they'd do it -- but 'tis good that you noticed.
  KGIII - I've run out of posts for a minute. I imagine that you know that after 50 posts it put you in the penalty box even "Excellent" karma. Logan (whipslash) has stated that he intends to either eliminate that for the highest karma rating or increase the number. I imagine it is not high on the priority list.
57. Re:Is he really agreeing? by avandesande · 2016-02-18 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  More than that you have to remember that google doesn't design hardware encryption schemes, so while they can provide support in spirit, it is not their area of expertise.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
58. Re:Is he really agreeing? by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-02-18 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. It's kind of sad, especially considering that only a few years ago the Google response to this sort of thing was: "Fuck these guys... The US has to be better than this." Not exactly eloquent, but nicely unequivocal.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
59. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2016-02-18 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  (1) How? I've heard about this, but never seen a demonstration I believe in. Any proof seems just to immortalize the assumptions/conditions handled, and is just as prone to bugs as the code. Note, otherwise, someone would have made a proof to code compiler.. See, "No Silver Bullet".
  (2)Can it be that small? Everything relies on libraries, etc. Even well known libraries seem to have security holes. How do you take that into account?
  .
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
60. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe they have the benefit of a view unobstructed by the daily struggles you suffer from, and are able to see beyond the next paycheck. Your arrogance in assuming that your viewpoint is superior automatically excludes it from any serious consideration.
61. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
  Google's entire business is spying on users to sell them shit they don't want. They're basically the pot trying not to call the kettle black but needing to for PR purposes.
62. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's nice to say you would in theory like a thoughtful nuanced debate, but when are you actually going to have it? During a court case which requires settling it? During a news cycle about the issue? During an election year? If not now, when, Google? The debate is happening all around you, and you can participate at any time by making a statement. Apple's statement advances the debate. They don't discuss whether there might be a debate or not. They participate in it. Google's wrings hands, "if only there were a debate to participate in. Maybe, some day, there will be. tweet tweet." It's not enough.
63. Re:Is he really agreeing? by luis_a_espinal · 2016-02-18 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  >>It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it. > Why? He works for his own interest, not yours....
  Umm, that doesn't stop it from being nice, does it?
  Don't be a party pooper. Never be the one to stop someone from finding a cause to bitch about ;)
64. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jcr · 2016-02-18 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Android is as 'securable' as IOS is.
  What's your next guess?
  nobody makes an android device with a 'secure enclave' like the iPhone has.
  That's a big part of Android's problem, but a bigger issue is the fact that most Android devices don't get OS updates.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
65. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  I never thought I would say this but with Google being so on the fence and Microsoft's outright spying, I am seriously considering buying an Apple product for the first time in my life.
66. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Apple had no good option to go with, spend lots of time and effort trying to make it possible with no return or make this a public case of privacy for their users and the government is 'bad'.
  It's more accurate to describe first option as "spend lots of time and effort to break iPhone security with no return, afterwards nobody else will buy iPhones because they are insecure".
67. Re:Is he really agreeing? by JazzLad · 2016-02-18 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  You're hitting the daily limit at 0905? Heh, increasing it may not be enough for you :)
  
  Insightful as usual, I was not aware of the level of scripting/vetting, but I am certainly not surprised based on my own (rather limited) experience.
  
  --
  "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
68. Re:Is he really agreeing? by malditaenvidia · 2016-02-18 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Apple is actually doing something very odd. It is trying to protect its customers!
  It's almost as if they're doing it for free PR with next to no negative consequences to themselves. What a bunch of American heroes.
69. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Arrogance? What a bizarre and baseless claim.
70. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Dread_ed · 2016-02-18 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  It appears we have reached the precipitous drop of the slippery slope that is the Google moral compass. From "Don't be evil" to "Do the right thing" we have descended to "Aww, fuck it!" in predictable fashion.
  Based on many past and recent revelations of their activities I think we can safely say these would be better said as commands and with the subtext revealed:
  "Don't be evil (That's our job!)"
  "Do the right thing (It's easier for us to manipulate you when you do!)"
  And while were on the subject, Why the hell is the FBI even concerned about what is in the iPhone of the shooters? They already legally have access to and possession of:
  1) A list of everyone they talked to on the phone, how long they talked, and the exact location of all of these people.
  2) Every subsequent person that those people talked to, and for how long, and their exact location; to whatever degree they want to take it.
  3) The complete contents of every email and text that passed through their provider.
  4) The complete recordings of every phone call that passed outside of the US to foreign recipients.
  5) Their complete browsing history. Also, their usage telemetry to the degree that it was recorded.
  6) Varied personal details from the apps they had installed on their phones.
  All of the above data (and possibly more that I am unaware of) is legally captured and available to law enforcement from various sources, none of which are in the phone. If that doesn't give them everything they need I can scarcely imagine what helpful items they might find, short of an auto-documentary video naming a list of co-conspirators. And lets face it, that's supremely unlikely.
  Scenarios keep playing out in my head:
  1) US law enforcement doesn't have the ability to decrypt the phone, wants to make Apple help them do it. (too obvious, not enough intrigue)
  2) US law enforcement has the ability, but is looking for some parallel construction through Apple's compliance so that no one knows they have rooted every encrypted device in the US.
  3) Is apple just putting up a front to save face (and $$$!), all the while participating with US intelligence and law enforcement to subvert encryption technology?
  4) If the FBI wins the case, could this be a good thing in the long run? It could bring personal security, 4th amendment issues, and government/corporate overreaching to the conversations of many Americans that just don't give a damn.
  5) As a citizen, would an alliance between the tech giants and the US government be foreshadowing of fascism to come? And, would they make the best of oppressive bedfellows, with the force of law exerted through the person-hood of a corporation?
  6) I like making lists.
  Lastly, the biggest problem I have with this is that this case appears contrived to make sure that the discussion of the rights of "the people" are decided in a case where "the people" have no standing. I wouldn't be surprised if this case was chosen specifically by law enforcement to make sure "the people's" interests were being represented by dead terrorists, and the only other parties with standing are the FBI and a company who has already been caught in bed with secret government information gathering programs. Yes you read that right, our future rights to search and seizure are being determined in a case where the government can say "if you believe in privacy and encryption, you are supporting terrorists."
  So yeah, basically were fucked, and there's not a bunch that Google and Apple can do about it. Maybe the EFF and ACLU can combine forces? The EFF AL-U?
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
71. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  That's where things get tricky.
  Yes, their actions are legal, but only because they specifically wrote the laws to legalize their actions (or paid to have them written)
  Legal or not, their actions are extremely dishonest.
72. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Lenny369 · 2016-02-18 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  I remember reading Snowden docs on the PRISM program which specifically said that Google allowed the NSA to install physical servers next to routers at at least one Google datacenter. No I can't cite it now, but it was very thorough.
73. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  He wants people to use his companies products, if people don't trust them they won't.
  No, what he wants is to gain money and power. He's not in it for anything else.
  
  There are planty of contenders who would love to see google fall to take their place.
  No, this is a silly narrative of corporate "battle". The "contenders" don't care if Google rises or falls. They, too, only care about gaining money and power. If it's by doing the same thing as Google, then fine. If it's by doing something different, then also fine.
  There's no value in being fooled into a serf's perspective. Cultivate a capitalist's perspective.
74. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, that doesn't stop it from being nice, does it?
  It's not possible for it to be nice. It's like being locked in a room with a venomous snake and declaring the snake "nice" because it didn't bite you. The snake is neither nice nor nasty. It is neither good nor evil. It is simply a snake. It's naive to anthropomorphize a snake, and it's just as naive to anthropomorphize a corporation.
75. Re: Is he really agreeing? by KGIII · 2016-02-18 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  I have read (I think) every last one that has been released. I do not recall that. If you scroll up to my first post, you'll see that I provided citations for what I know of - and the citation that Google did *not* do that for Prism but that it was done without their knowledge and not in their location (they intercepted the data as it came out of Google's trunk).* I believe you, but I do not believe that. Not without evidence, at any rate. I've paid pretty careful attention to this since the news first broke.
  So, without a citation I'm not really able to add much. I don't know what to say except maybe check your sources? You could be right, I could have missed something. The newspaper citation listed in my first post could be mistaken. I could be mistaken. The other poster could be mistaken. But, I'm gonna need a citation if you want me to believe you. I've just double checked (I happened to look and see you'd just replied - I was gonna close the tab) and I didn't see anything - but I only spent a few minutes looking.
  * That has to be one of the strangest sentences that I've ever typed. I'm pretty sure it was intercepted on their line and not in their DC.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
76. Re: Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  Then the judge orders the phone's owner to decrypt it or face jail time.
  There should never be backdoors built into any encryption just because some law enforcement agency might need access to it some day.
77. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 18:34 · Score: 0
  
  Privacy is only unimportant to people who have nothing of value, whether that be experiences, material possessions or anything in between. Those people tend to be children and losers.
  By the way, since privacy is so unimportant to you, let me install cameras throughout your house and stream the videos to a publicly accessible site. Oh and give me all of your login names and passwords for every account you have.
78. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-19 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  If Apple complies, the world will lose trust, Apple will go out of business, and the terrorists will still have encryption via other means.
  My quick question: If Apple complies, this phone is then decrypted, and the call logs or whatever reveal another encrypted phone, will the cycle of demanding decrypting *that* phone with a court order repeat? Where does it stop? I'll bet I can guess... It stops with an Obamaphone!
79. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-19 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  oh, I forgot to mention that "Obamaphone" is a registered trademark of Osama Bin Obama who already owns stock in the Obamaphone
  company, and is currently stacking the SCOTUS with pre-pocketed justices. And it's all perfectly 'legal'.
80. Re:Is he really agreeing? by jellomizer · 2016-02-20 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well they are not getting all good PR. There are a lot of people want to think they are safe. They want the government to spy on the bad guys and their neighbors, to make sure nothing bad can happen. (They just forget if their neighbors are being spied on, so are you)
  While the tech industry is with Apple. This isn't necessarily popular with average Joe.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Snowden says its all kabuki theater by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:34 · Score: -1

Snowden's docs say that everything ever transmitted to or from every phone is already sitting on a NSA server somewhere.
1. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by thoughtlover · 2016-02-17 14:40 · Score: 3
  
  That doesn't mean the content that's captured is unencrypted... iMessage, etc...
  
  --
  No sig for you! Come back one year!
2. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by AHuxley · 2016-02-17 15:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Funny after helping with PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... all the big brands are now out in public rediscovering the 4th Amendment.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by 110010001000 · 2016-02-17 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Give me a break. They are "capturing" it from Apple itself and it is unencrypted there. They aren't sniffing data, they are getting it from the endpoints directly.
4. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by GuB-42 · 2016-02-17 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA should provide a backup service then. This would be the only service where you can ask for a restore from before you even subscribed.
5. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by MikeMo · 2016-02-18 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, no. Everything sent to Apple is encrypted. The iCloud backup is encrypted. I'm too lazy to Google for the multiple, multiple references to this, but here's one.
6. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you sorry? To me that sounds like cause for celebration.
7. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  You might notice on that same page that the data is separately encrypted during transmission, decrypted, and then re-encrypted with an Apple-held key before storage for most of their products (IMessage being the exception that uses end-to-end encryption). That is why Apple was already able to give the shooter's previous ICloud backups to the FBI. Most stuff that Apple stores are in ICloud are things it holds the decryption key for.
Rulers of corporations... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:37 · Score: -1

are obviously Republicans, and Republicans want strong encryption so they can hide their criminal activity.
1. Re:Rulers of corporations... by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-17 15:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I get that you're trolling, but I just came in from walking the dog and was listening to some Right Wing talk radio in between periods of the Blackhawks-Rangers game. All the Right-Wing jackoffs are going on about how Tim Cook should be jailed for contempt or treason or something or other and how a corporation giving up encryption keys and backdoors is the same as if the local cops come to your door with a warrant and we should trust the NSA and FBI and all the three-letter agencies to make sure it's only the information on one phone that is decrypted.
  It just shows they don't mean a bit of it when they say how they hate Big Government. They just want Big Government on their own terms.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Motherfucking+Shit · 2016-02-17 16:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Want to see smoke come out of someone's ears? Ask one of the Tim-Cook-is-a-traitor, we-can-trust-the-government crowd why the FBI shouldn't break into the gun store owner's phone, where the San Bernardino shooters bought some of their firearms and brass, just to make sure nothing hinky is going on with him or his shop. You can watch the disconnect happen in their brain. "BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT..." Exactly! "AND IT WOULDN'T HELP THE CASE..." Exactly!
  
  --
  "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
3. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Lakitu · 2016-02-17 18:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As I get older, I'm beginning to hate people who repeat these kinds of analogies more and more. It is simply not analogous. All of the hypothetical scenarios provided are nothing like asking Apple to produce an FBI-specific iOS capable of being brute-forced.
  Apple probably helps law enforcement conduct reasonable searches all the time, but doing so in this case is more analogous to creating some kind of sci-fi time ripple that instantaneously retrofits (future-fits?) every single other person's home, past and future, to be constructed only of balsawood or whatever is easy enough for some knucklehead to brute his way through. Working with the law enforcement agencies in the past in decades past did not also simultaneously blast legislation through the Congress outlawing everyone in the future from having the same kind of housing, or safe, or hidey-hole where they kept their information that was too hard for the feds to get to. That is essentially what the FBI is asking Apple to do here.
  Not only that, but the government has shown that they have no real limit as to what they will ask for. This encryption is too difficult and prevents the FBI from doing their jobs, and why shouldn't they be able to do their jobs when they can just read all of Syed Fuckhead's text messages thanks to the NSA, anyway? Well guess what retards, Apple might never have started default-encrypting everything if it hadn't been made painfully aware to everyone in the world that the NSA was illegally snooping on all of your messages in the first place. The encryption arms race is spearheaded by the NSA, and the FBI should forward all of their crybaby memos to them instead of thanking them for being given the ill-gotten gains from their massive surveillance programs.
  That's also completely ignoring the fact that it might not even be possible for Apple to do what they want done, since it's not clear that Apple could update the OS as requested on an already locked device.
4. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Toonol · 2016-02-17 18:53 · Score: 2
  
  You realize that this is one issue where nearly all the Republican and Democrat politicians agree?
5. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Black+Parrot · 2016-02-17 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but it takes a Master Troll to troll both sides at once.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
6. Re:Rulers of corporations... by BitZtream · 2016-02-18 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  It just shows they don't mean a bit of it when they say how they hate Big Government. They just want Big Government on their own terms.
  And you think this is different than any other politician? You seem to imply that with your wording, but if you think this is a 'republican' thing or 'right wing' thing, you're blind as a bat on the surface of the sun.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
7. Re:Rulers of corporations... by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-18 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  but if you think this is a 'republican' thing or 'right wing' thing,
  Of course not, but since the Republicans on the Right are crowing about how they're the party of "small government", the hypocrisy is especially galling with them.
  If someone comes out and says that they want bigger government, and mean it, I can deal with that and make an informed decision. If someone comes out and claims to want to have government small enough to drown in a bathtub and at the same time approves of ubiquitous surveillance, infinite military spending, militarized police departments, laws covering women's reproductive organs, the death penalty and the prison-industrial complex, then they're not only complicit in evil but they're bullshitting about it.
  Now, have we cleared that up?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
8. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's early so NPR is still playing classical music (not really a big fan) so I just went and found a Fox News stream. (I did not find an m3u for it so it's in a pop-up window.) And, you know... I've just been sitting here for about a half hour listening while thinking. I figured I'd do that - before I typed a reply. Yeah, yeah... I know, I know... Getting informed before typing is frowned on in these parts. But... But... Erf...
  Let me say that I am not actually a Fox kinda guy. I had no idea why you would be listening to it - you're not a Fox kinda guy. I gotta tell you, they're on the subject of Apple and this debacle right now. At risk of being even more disjointed, I'd like to point out that "debacle" is their word, not mine. And I know that this is a disjointed reply. I know. I'm not sure if it's shock or if I'm just not mentally astute enough and this is simply above my intellect. I really don't know.
  See... Wow, how to articulate this?
  Well, I was a bit baffled because, while I'd listened to their radio in the past - and in passing, I'd no idea why *you* might listen to them. Keep in mind, I find your quasi-religious political beliefs nearly as absurd as theirs. So, I wasn't sure what you'd be listening for. I... I still don't know what to think?
  I've never actually listened to Fox News during an election season, during a "debacle," or anything like that. I've only listened to them in the middle of the night, while really bored, and usually while on the road and tired of listening to goat-roping music. I am still in shock. I don't know what to think... Then I figured it out.
  This is comedy gold! I've laughed at least a dozen times, been glared at by the missus twice, and almost spilled my coffee. I got it!
  Right now, they have some lady who was the cyber-something or other at the White House from 2006 until 2008. I have no idea how she got that job. "It's simple. They've got the best and brightest minds there. They can do this, no problem." "They should be locked down and be able to override data being uploaded into the cloud. That befuddles me." Those are verbatim quotes!
  This is brilliant! Oh my... It's literally a barrel of laughs! "It should be illegal. It's their device. They should have usage agreements. I don't see why Apple has a button to let them turn off uploading things to the cloud. I don't understand that." And this lady was the cyber-something-or-other for the fucking White House for two years!
  We went to an open-mic comedy show up in DC, back in December, and they had some great people there. I laughed my ass off. But that's got absolutely nothing on this! Holy shit! It's not even scary because people are taking this serious. It's not scary that people believe this. No, it's too damned funny to be scared. I... I'm absolutely shocked. How the hell is this stuff on the air? It's got to be trolling. It has to be an elaborate prank.
  I'm not kidding. I've not laughed this hard in a long time. Imagine that, being able to disable uploading your stuff to the cloud! That ought to be illegal! Ha! Oh my... Seriously, she wasn't even giggling when she said that. Nobody can hold that belief when it's followed up with this (which is where I got glared at for interrupting her reading): "I'm still very much against government overreach and have been a privacy advocate for a long time, as it says in my book."
  I fuckin' lost it. The dog looked at me like I was a lunatic. The missus gave me the hairy eyeball for disrupting her. And my coffee almost ended up in my laptop.
  So, that's a long way of saying, "I understand why you listen." Yes, now I know why you listened. Thanks for that. I'm gonna listen to this for the whole morning. If I'm not here tomorrow, you know that I finally interrupted the missus one too many times and she's just gone ahead and loaded up my pistol and shot me. I've two young kids in the house (long story) so they're unloaded, partially disassembled, and in my portable safe. Unfortunately, she knows the combination
9. Re:Rulers of corporations... by ShaunC · 2016-02-18 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that this is one issue where nearly all the Republican and Democrat politicians agree?
  I get worried when that happens, because we wind up with shit like the USA PATRIOT act. You know, the legislation granting the government sweeping new powers that would only be used against terrorists, but which in practice are used for narcotics cases 90% of the time. When something has broad support from both sides of the aisle, that's usually a bad sign.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
10. Re:Rulers of corporations... by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-18 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is KGIII
  I knew that by the second paragraph.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
11. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  I am not surprised. It's just after noon and this has been comedy gold.
  They shouldn't be allowed to disable uploading stuff to the cloud and Apple should be allowed to break into it with a warrant, by law, but they're against government overreach. They're STILL going with it.
  The last one was some lady who pointed out how she knew nothing about it but that she'd seen a couple of movies, she named them, and then said, "If they can do it in the movies, I'm sure Apple can do this." I shit you not.
  Some guy did call in and he pointed out that it was retarded. The DJ didn't have much to say about that one. Another one came on, had a bunch of jargon, and then indicated that he was on Apple's side. The DJ didn't have much to add. The DJ said he doesn't know anything about computers and then tells us all the things that Apple can do. No, really... He tells us he has no clue about the tech, encryption, or computers - and then he firmly states the things that Apple can do.
  There's a guy on right now who's saying that it's a bad idea and then he's telling them why it's a problem, with an engineering perspective. The DJ is now saying that they should have kept this secret. That they should have hidden it from the public was the appropriate thing to do... Yes, he's saying they, and the government, should keep it secret. (Yet the goal is to get evidence - ideally for court.)
  And he keeps appealing to emotion... "How many dead would it take for Apple to do this?" And he then realized he was losing the argument and hung up on the guy saying he was out of time...
  Seriously, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is fuckin' comedy gold! I think that this is gonna be my new hobby, at least for the rest of the day. Also, I guess you can figure out who this is. ;-)
12. Re:Rulers of corporations... by JazzLad · 2016-02-18 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Mark this date, KGIII, you're going to hear me (semi) agree with a talking head at Fox News (are they still a talking head if on the radio?): I'm not generally a fan of lame duck* presidents doing anything too significant in their final days (although he has almost a year left, so it's hard to say if he qualifies yet - hence the 'semi-agree') as they have very little accountability and tend to do things they previously would not have done (pardoning their friends, etc). In this particular case, we have a constitutional law professor*** who seems to have no problem ignoring the constitution when it is convenient for him to do so selecting a SCOTUS ... in an ideal world, I'd prefer to wait for 'the next guy' but as this is not an ideal world (and whoever 'the next guy' is, we're not apt to be doing much better & quite possibly much worse) ... all I can say is ugh.
  
  I can't stand Fox News - and I am quite conservative, both fiscally and socially** - so I don't see myself listening even for amusement, but I almost agree with part of what they said.
  
  * I suspect you knew the definition of lame duck and were being funny, link was in case I was wrong
  
  ** (Warning, I'm going to stray off topic here) Something I have never shared on Slashdot before is that I'm a Mormon. I'm certainly not ashamed of this, but we're not always a very popular group & I've never wanted a troll of my own (though I have read your thoughts on the matter & am no longer concerned if I gain one), so I've previously kept it to myself (no worries, readers, now that I have mentioned it you know - I'm not going to try to convert anyone here :)). Most people know enough about us to know that we tend to be very conservative - and I am no exception - but for me, it is very important that I not seek to legislate my own morality. So while I abstain from alcohol and drugs, I am in favour of legalizing marijuana (for example). I'll likely never take advantage of it's legality (not for recreational use, anyway), but from what I have read, it's less harmful than alcohol & making that illegal didn't go over too well last time :)
  
  You might guess my view on homosexuality (though good chance you'd be wrong - I believe all sexual activity [hetro or otherwise] outside marriage to be wrong), but I feel it is none of the government's (or military's) business. I'd personally like to see the government get out of the business of marriage altogether (and have an analogue that did roughly the same thing re: taxes, benefits, etc) and let consenting adults be consenting adults. While my own Temple marriage to my wife is very precious to me, it's significance is not universally applicable. My sister's (non-LDS) marriage to her husband is equally precious to her. I have friends that were married civilly that likely feel the same way about their marriage (sorry, it has never come up in conversation, but I feel it is safe to say). I'm ok with (well, more than ok, I would vehemently support) a church (any church, not just mine) not performing a ceremony in a way they feel is contrary to their doctrine, but to withhold the legal benefits based on morality? I do not think a thing should have both religious and legal significance (pretty much ever - things like Sharia law are worrisome to me). These are two different applications, let's have two different vehicles (that are not incompatible, so one can avail them selves of either, both or neither).
  
  At the end of the day, I am accountable for my actions and not the actions of others. I don't see morality as necessary in the law past the golden rule as 'my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins' - not because it's morally wrong for me to strike you (unprovoked, self defense
  
  --
  "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
13. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, it's all good. I've not just known a bunch of Mormons, I've gone to the temple with a Mormon. I even sort of dated a Mormon chick but she died. :/ It was not unexpected and why it was "sort of." We had plenty of good times and it was a great experience.
  That said, I think Obama should nominate someone and if that someone's viable then they should be appointed. Odds are pretty good that he won't nominate anyone of value. I also have a good reason to want him to do so. If the Dems take control and Hillary is elected - guess who's getting the nomination and going to get appointed? I'll give you a hint, his name starts with an O.
  I could see it happen. So, I'm a little leery of the future. 'Snot like I can stop it.
  And yes, trolls are the greatest pet in the world. They give you their most precious asset and you get to be their boss. What's not to love?
  I gotta post this as an AC, I might have posts back but I'm just gonna hit the AC button and hope for the best. 'Tis obviously me.
14. Re:Rulers of corporations... by latead0pter · 2016-02-19 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  You weren't listening to Limbaugh, then. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...
15. Re:Rulers of corporations... by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-19 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  You weren't listening to Limbaugh
  He's still on the radio?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
16. Re:Rulers of corporations... by latead0pter · 2016-02-19 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you listen to right wing talk, as you say, then you know for sure he's on the radio. He is one of the right wing jack offs, right?
17. Re:Rulers of corporations... by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-19 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you listen to right wing talk, as you say, then you know for sure he's on the radio. He is one of the right wing jack offs, right?
  He was at one time. Now, he's mostly inconsequential. The right-wing talk that matters is a lot more crazy than Rush. He was big at one time, but today only the old folks listen to him. His act is tired, and unless you're calling daily for the violent overthrow of the US government, you're barely a blip on the right-wing radar. There are RW hosts with a lot more juice than Rush Limbaugh.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Google copies Apple ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Google copies Apple, what a surprise :-)
1. Re:Google copies Apple ... by perpenso · 2016-02-17 14:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Google copies Apple, what a surprise :-)
  And as usual they don't get it quite right.
2. Re:Google copies Apple ... by Phreakiture · 2016-02-18 01:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sure. They forgot to make it impossible to change the battery, expand the storage, etc.
  
  --
  www.wavefront-av.com
3. Re:Google copies Apple ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. They forgot to make it impossible to change the battery, expand the storage, etc.
  They got that part right.
4. Re:Google copies Apple ... by perpenso · 2016-02-18 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. They forgot to make it impossible to change the battery, expand the storage, etc.
  My Google Nexus demonstrates otherwise, Google has adeptly copied those design features. You seem to be thinking of a difference company, perhaps Samsung.
Can you compel a backdoor? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:42 · Score: 0, Interesting

If you're saying FBI can compel features intended to backdoor the security measures, then you're establishing the legal principle of forced backdoors.
It takes a company to push back to see how this works.
Can I remind you of Microsoft's response to these 'informal' requests:
http://mashable.com/2013/09/11/fbi-microsoft-bitlocker-backdoor/#LWWoIFIk28qM
They were asked repeatedly and often to backdoor Bitlocker, and Windows 10 comes out and it uploads the encryption key to Microsoft servers ready for the FBI to demand it with legal warrant.... well the FBI, FSA, Chinese and everyone else regardless of jurisdiction of the person to demand the key. Because it no longer matters what jurisdiction the person is in, it only matters which (multiple) jurisdictions Microsoft operates in.
1. Re:Can you compel a backdoor? by AHuxley · 2016-02-17 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Its just finding where the public encryption ends and the plain text for all the "ads" starts :)
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:Can you compel a backdoor? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-17 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  > If you're saying FBI can compel features intended to backdoor the security measures, then you're establishing the legal principle of forced backdoors.
  It's been done before. The US encryption policies effectively enforce poor quality encryption as the default standard for many applications. The "80-bit maximum SSL key" policy was just such a policy.
On the surface by thoughtlover · 2016-02-17 14:48 · Score: 4

This announcement, while still unofficial as a company policy, is moving the conversation in the right direction, but if the government wants to do something, they'll do it... I can see all cockamamie reasons, such as 'aiding and abetting criminal activity.'
I'd be the first to get a Blackphone (maybe roll-your-own-Android, if possible) if Apple caves-in regarding government-mandated backdoors. Personally, I just don't see how removing encryption from public-use would ever work. If there's ever a case where I'd rather sacrifice some convenience for security, this is it... even if it means giving up smartphones.

--
No sig for you! Come back one year!
1. Re: On the surface by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  After this, if Apple caves they will be sure that their next phone will be proof against them when locked. Probably they will already be designing this now, so that by the time they are compelled to backdoor this 5c, everyone will be on 7, 7s, 8, 8s, etc.
  The giant letter and recruiting of EFF and ACLU are not the actions of some intimidated bitch. Cook has gone level 20 Paladin on us.
2. Re:On the surface by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  if Apple caves-in
  
  Do you think you will know, if they do?
  What happens behind closed doors with government agents may be very, very different from what is said for public consumption. Sometimes that is even part of the agreement framework under which things happen.
It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:51 · Score: -1

This opinion is all great until someone hurts someone in your family. Then lets see how much you want to honor their privacy...
1. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 14:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a question of honoring privacy rights in general, not a specific person's
2. Re: It's all well and good... by n0creativity · 2016-02-17 15:01 · Score: 3
  
  Well if we're stooping to clichÃ© level arguments... wrong + wrong right . If we were to follow your line of reasoning to its end, one could argue that torture is completely justified as well.
3. Re: It's all well and good... by n0creativity · 2016-02-17 15:05 · Score: 2
  
  "Well if we're stooping to cliche level arguments... wrong + wrong != right . If we were to follow your line of reasoning to its end, one could argue that torture is completely justified as well." That's closer to what I meant to type... apparently greater than and less than signs don't work well and the accented 'e' turns into some funky combo of characters...
4. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:20 · Score: -1
  
  It's a question of honoring privacy rights in general, not a specific person's.
  That is so meaningless I'm lost for words.
  From the moment you misrepresented yourself to Slashdot (your post number 3), to your violent outbursts against criticism, and now trolling...
  Wow, just wow.
5. Re: It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  "Violent" lol. Maybe you don't understand the concepts here
6. Re:It's all well and good... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-02-17 15:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This opinion is all great until someone hurts someone in your family. Then lets see how much you want to honor their privacy...
  I love how this comment was posted by an anonymous coward.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
7. Re:It's all well and good... by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-17 15:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This opinion is all great until someone hurts someone in your family. Then lets see how much you want to honor their privacy...
  Oh, that's such happy horseshit. The government already has all the evidence they need in this San Bernadino case. They're trying to get their hands on a technology and set a precedent. Fuck them.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
8. Re:It's all well and good... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-02-17 16:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Hey whipslash, on a side note...
  I agree with you here, but even if I didn't - I'd like to say I find it refreshing that you're taking the time to participate in the discussions here on Slashdot. It shows that you're invested in this site in more ways than just financially, and I appreciate it!
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
9. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! I think some people aren't used to editors disagreeing with them so they take a little more umbrage than they should.
10. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:10 · Score: -1
  
  He's a fucking idiot bigmouth incompetent who can't stop apk who stops webmasters who infect us w/ advertisers http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and his downmods trying to suppress this fact prove it.
11. Re: It's all well and good... by tagput · 2016-02-17 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  While i dont like the idea of a backdoor either, the "evidence they need" is every piece of info they can get, so they can see how they think, what patterns could have been detected, and maybe in the future they can prevent an attack based on the info they gathered. Some of the fbi agents really are trying to help.
12. Re:It's all well and good... by Darinbob · 2016-02-17 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  They're basically on a fishing expedition. Find our who the terrorists friends were, who did their dry cleaning, and so forth. They're convinced there is a wider conspiracy that they haven't uncovered.
13. Re: It's all well and good... by Harlequin80 · 2016-02-17 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no you've attracted APK. On the plus side through perhaps this will mean Coren22 gets a little less stalked.
14. Re: It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  He's welcome to air as many patterns and identifiers here as he wants
15. Re:It's all well and good... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-02-17 17:14 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks! I think some people aren't used to editors disagreeing with them so they take a little more umbrage than they should.
  It's likely, at some point, I'll disagree with you on something - but I'll do my best not to take umbrage. :-D
  If we were all in lockstep all the time, this would be a very boring place.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
16. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. See you out there
17. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, forgive me that this is offtopic. Just a moment ago, I visited the main site (slashdot.org) and got a notice that my IP was banned. The page didn't render correctly, either. I clicked on a story link on that IP ban page, and that page loaded just fine. Right afterward, I went back to the main page (slashdot.org) and that loaded correctly as well. I'm posting this comment from the same IP address, too. I'm assuming it's spurious, but it's odd and I sure don't want to get banned. Any idea why that might have happened?
  I'm not posting APK spam (nor would I ever do such a thing) and I'm not making lots of page requests from your server. I can't imagine that I've run afoul from anything, but I've never seen that message before.
18. Re: It's all well and good... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-02-17 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  > While i dont like the idea of a backdoor either, the "evidence they need" is every piece of info they can get
  "All the evidence they need" is a forced confession, obtained by torture and without any assurance of the validity or source of the evidence. Poor evidence obtained forcibly is precisely why the fifth amendment was created, partly to help ensure proper provenance for the evidence, and to prevent "fishing expeditions" where forced testimony to avoid a false accusation could be used to gather evidence for some other conviction. That is an old trick used against political protest and against those engaged in public protest throughout legal history.
19. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  We're not banning people so I am not sure why that would happen. Let me know if it happens again.
20. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing it was probably some trigger on our server. I will investigate those limits
21. Re: It's all well and good... by Harlequin80 · 2016-02-17 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  There is one behaviour which he demonstrates which I don't think I have ever seen anyone else do. Is there a way I could msg it to you?
22. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's a question of honoring privacy rights in general, not a specific person's
  How is this much different from law enforcement asking a lock or safe manufacturer to help defeat their devices?
  How would that be a question of honoring privacy rights in general? None of these things are undefeatable, and they don't represent your privacy.
  Privacy isn't about respecting the lock, it's about respecting the door.
  I know Apple _really_ wants to avoid having to build in security weaknesses in the future, but I feel like this is the wrong approach.
23. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  The government already has all the evidence they need in this San Bernadino case.
  That's an awful big Mission Accomplished sign you put up there... They're doing a counterterrorism investigation, it doesn't stop at the first dead terrorist.
24. Re: It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-17 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Send it to feedback@slashdot.org and I'll be sure to look out for it
25. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  Curiously, I had a look, and I must say, it is intriguing that you introduced yourself as merely an editor, not the slightest mention that you were actually CEO.
  Some might say disingenuous, but I think most would say downright dishonest.
  Curious as to why you chose to do that.
26. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:34 · Score: 0
  
  Violent" lol. Maybe you don't understand the concepts here
  This I don't get at all... You didn't quote the post you replied to, but I can't even see it, it isn't showing at -1, which I've never ever seen in Slashdot history.
  Do you have some kind of super moderation backdoor? Pretty pathetic if you do.
27. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:36 · Score: -1
  
  You're free to keep looking stupid too. APK's owning your ass and posting away as usual. So much for you incompetent http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8761677&cid=51532963
28. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:43 · Score: -1
  
  He's a dishonest little lying incompetent bastard which both you and APK are proving http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8761677&cid=51532963 as apk laughs at him. Whipslash is terrified of apk's program since it's not paid off the let ads thru that infect users and minus those ads he's zero (and is anyway which apk burning his puny scripts proves). All the bullshit he attempts to 'whitewash' this with? Pure bullshit. He's deluding himself. He thinks you're all stupid and will believe him. Nice to see you don't. I certainly don't. His motives are transparent. His favorite color is transparent. I can see right through him. So can everyone else. Whipslash has destroyed him and probably Slashdot in the process of it.
29. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:52 · Score: 0
  
  What's even more pathetic is how much of a FOOL apk's made out of him here and in other posts of whipslash's http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8761677&cid=51532963 and apk is shoving it right up whipslash's "backdoor" (his ass which is same as his mouth, lol). He's downmodding ANY post that shows he is an incompetent LIMITED little webstooge (and even links working as you can see with this post too), nothing more. Hahahahaha APK is exposing whipslash as a totally incompetent little fool. I love it.
30. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  It clearly would demand an investigation of your LIMITED INTELLIGENCE & SKILLS which this post proves http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
31. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  What's even more pathetic is how much of a FOOL apk's made out of him here and in other posts of whipslash's http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8761677&cid=51532963 and apk is shoving it right up whipslash's "backdoor" (his ass which is same as his mouth, lol). He's downmodding ANY post that shows he is an incompetent LIMITED little webstooge (and even links working as you can see with this post too), nothing more. Hahahahaha APK is exposing whipslash as a totally incompetent little fool. I love it.
  Hee Hee. Honestly, with Wipshalshe's mood swings, I can't figure out if this is sarcasm or brutal honesty.
32. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  Bwaaaahahahaha! Whipslash is getting his ass handed to him by APK constantly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
33. Re: It's all well and good... by Dog-Cow · 2016-02-17 20:41 · Score: 2
  
  The killers are already dead. This is a fishing expedition to find accomplices.
34. Re:It's all well and good... by dave420 · 2016-02-17 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Calm down, Alex.
35. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  So you're in favor of aidingknown terrorists? Let's assume the FBI can thwart another 9/11 by gaining access to plans on a know terrorist's phone. How many people are you happy to see die from your comfy office chair while claiming privacy of a terrorist's device is sacrosanct? 1000? 5000? Where do you draw the line from your safe position?
36. Re:It's all well and good... by BadDreamer · 2016-02-18 00:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If someone in my family gets hurt, I will want vengeance and retribution. I want the guilty to suffer. Death is too kind, I want to see prolonged torture, and I want to take part in it myself.
  Which is why the laws are the way they are. People who are hurt generally want vengeance, not justice. That doesn't mean that it's right to give them that, or that giving them that will make society better. In fact, it will make society worse.
  Just like in this case.
37. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  DIAF.
38. Re:It's all well and good... by moeinvt · 2016-02-18 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Do you think would-be terrorists put entries on their calendar to remind themselves of the time and place of an attack? The cell-service provider can provide records about how the phone was used for communication.
  If he was a *known* terrorist, why wasn't he arrested and charged with a crime prior to this attack? Why wasn't he under surveillance? He's now dead, so he can't be "aided" by anyone.
  Your *assumption* is ridiculous. The government could not possibly know that a phone contains the type of information that could thwart an attack. The NSA has even been forced to admit that the gargantuan amount of data they have amassed through their illegal spying operation has failed to prevent one single terrorist incident.
39. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Looks calm Dave. Based on apk shearing thru barriers whipslash claims to have setup and apk posting here getting past them? Apk's been successful. Who's Alex? The post you replied to was by an unidentified ac.
40. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Appears apk made a mockery of you Logan Abbott. Go play webmaster somewhere else. You're not good enough to here.
41. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  Hahahahaha you got smoked by APK, Logan Abbott. Don't delude yourself that we don't see his posts you downmod in desperation along with modding up your useless posts. We see your barriers failed against apk too. You're a tool.
42. Re: It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  1 behaviour I see here is Apk busting up whipslash easily. Correct. I've never seen anyone dust a webmaster so easily so much. Whipslash shouldn't shoot his mouth off like he did weeks ago only to publicly fail here as badly as he has against apk.
43. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:43 · Score: -1
  
  Yes you are. That poster proves it. You reputation technically's toast, incompetent. You can't keep apk out. Your motives? Apk's program works vs. threats/ads. Latter's your motive apk threatens. We know it. You fail on every level possible. Including thinking we are stupid and don't see why you do this
44. Re: It's all well and good... by tagput · 2016-02-18 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  that's my point.
45. Re:It's all well and good... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2016-02-18 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  This a thousand times. To me death would be too kind and by prolonged torture I would go with a lifetime of endless excruciating pain with no way to interact with the outside world. A world like that would be a very bad place for all.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
46. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Let's be honest, everyone knows that you're APK and that you can't stay away from here. Drop the act of pretending to be someone else, you fucking loser.
  Let me help you out with a point of clarification, though. It's been documented that you spend hours each day posting shit to Slashdot. Even when you say you're quitting, you just can't stay away. You're wrong in claiming you're successful, though. Someone who spends as much time and effort posting shit to Slashdot and obsessively posting garbage replies in response to other users cannot be considered successful. You're a fucking loser. You're a nutjob who is obsessed with posting to Slashdot.
  Again, APK, you contribute nothing of value to humanity. Your HOSTS file engine is garbage and so are you. Your life is a waste.
47. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-18 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  I don't really give a shit if you use APK's program or not. Go ahead and download it. We are just trying to stem the commercial spam he spews all over the place.
48. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  How's it apk if 'great logan abbott webwuss' erects a barrier to stop him? Can it be APK triumphs there as he does in his program over all you /. sockpuppets from webmasters? Yes.
49. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 04:00 · Score: -1
  
  You give a shit. You project it in your "ReAcTioN" (lol, effete like your barriers vs. apk). Apk's program's not paid off like almostalladsblocked, you're a webmaster profiting by ads. Apk's not selling. It's free. Not commercialware. Are you that stupid you think that fools us too? Come on Logan Abbott! The bullshit from you is a little thick now. Temper temper now "LOGE" (lol). We understand. Shooting your mouth off all month how you'd stop apk and failing like you have? Take your meds BOY!
50. Re:It's all well and good... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-02-18 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to hear a good reason for why my comment was modded down.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
51. Re:It's all well and good... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Same can be said for due process. Weak argument.
52. Re:It's all well and good... by Anubis+IV · 2016-02-18 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  Just wanted to chime in with an additional "thank you", not only for dealing with APK (at least partially...*cue response from APK*), but also for tackling a lot of the other low-hanging fruit that's been bothering the community for awhile. Not to mention the fact that you're doing it carefully. It'd be easy to swing the banhammer or eliminate the ability to post as AC, but you clearly understand the community and why neither of those would work. And it'd be easy to try revamping everything before earning our trust, but you're starting with the thousand cuts we've been suffering from for years, even though fixing them isn't flashy or exciting (e.g. APK, better editing, less links to paywalled sites, less dupes, etc.).
  I suspect it's mostly a thankless slog to get through those issues and earn our trust, and it'll doubtless be quite awhile before we're ready to accept bigger changes, but I'm already genuinely looking forward to what's ahead. Again, thank you.
53. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · 2016-02-18 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. (Videos are gone btw as of today if you hadn't read this elsewhere yet)
Google already cooperates with the FBI ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 14:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Google already cooperates with the FBI. When gmail's targeted advertising scanning system detects terroristic keywords in your email it displays an ad from the FBI.
Apple Unlocked iPhones for Feds 70 Times Before by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:04 · Score: 0

"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 figure.) In other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations as it does with warding off what Cook called “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html
1. Re:Apple Unlocked iPhones for Feds 70 Times Before by whipslash · 2016-02-17 15:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  True but this case related to iOS 8. Previous iOS versions were not as secure
2. Re:Apple Unlocked iPhones for Feds 70 Times Before by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:21 · Score: -1
  
  Trying to downmod hide something, web wally? Yes http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
StarTrek TOS episode 26 "Assignment Earth" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:07 · Score: -1

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
-
FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers, adds speed, security & reliability.
Does far more w/ far less more efficiently vs. addons (clarityray blockable, redundant + RAM/CPU wasteful & 'souled-out' crippled by default) & local DNS servers @ home.
Fixes DNS' security issues & stops tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have!
(Firewalls do rest on FAR less used IP address trackers/threats vs. host-domain names).
-
Obtains data vs. online threats & ads via 10 reputable security community sites - easily edited by you using my program.
-
SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways:
Adblocking ALL ads + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for faster resolution vs. remote DNS (for reliability + speed) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!
-
All via what you already have vs. illogically "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" (clarityray detected/blockable + usermode slow & increased messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads)
-
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per a VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
-
* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
"The image this title brings to mind is a mighty military commander who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" -> https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes)
...apk
1. Re:StarTrek TOS episode 26 "Assignment Earth" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  Uhm... it seems that apk found out that putting random subject lines is an effective way of bypassing the block.
2. Re:StarTrek TOS episode 26 "Assignment Earth" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  You're obviously not a trek fan. If you were you'd get apk's point. The main character blows by the Enterprise's defenses and security to get to earth as he intended though the entire crew tries to stop him. Apk's done the same making mincemeat of whipslash in the process embarrassing him.
Give Sundar a break will you? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:07 · Score: -1

Apple CEO: White, Rich, gay. ie. politically and otherwise immune in America.
Sundar: Immigrant, that too brown skinned, does not matter rich or not, and not gay from the look of it.
When push comes to shove, whom do you think the current America/Americans will drop under a truck without a second thought?
Plus that 2-bit no-ggood snowden implying that Sundar (immigrant, brown) is guilty already. what an asshole.
Obiously Sundar cannot side with the US govt although in this one case, one off case, cracking a phone might be justified.
Unlike Cook, Sundar cannot make it a political spectacle for himself.
He has to say something safe and without inviting the ire of you armchair activists (likely white, middleclass, and anonymous) and the US Govt too (which would be too happy to charge him with something and they say look he comes from a country with caste system)
So he did what he had to.
Rest of you aholes can go have a cow
A slippery slope? by bentnail · 2016-02-17 15:08 · Score: 1

While I am a big believer in libertarian-ism... is this multiple conflated issues or is this a binary thing (everyone has access or no-one does)?? 1. I am totally against secret fisa court, and fishing for data on everyone's communication... whether this is by remotely accessing my smartphone, or picking off my communications over the 'public' internet. I believe is one entity has such access, every entity could. 2. Even with Tim Cook's letter, it is unclear to me if my phone's communications are secure (i.e. meta-data such as who, what, where I call) as well as the audio or text message itself. 3. I am less against data access of my PHYSICAL phone if government has a specific warrant for me and has phone physically in possession. I.E. I imagine this would be relatively few cases a year. And due to the 'sneakernet' speed of such a search it would probably be rare. 4. The problem with 3 is that it could technically be abused... say at check points like roads and airports-- and there are plenty of governments (including U.S.) that could pass such a law and then citizen's fourth amendment rights are hosed. Anyway, Everyone who is intelligent believes Apple is right to stand up for their' customer's rights. And everyone knows when encryption is outlawed only terrorists will have it. So to summarize, Cook and Edwards are right: negotiating with them: giving an inch and they will take a mile... Or believing the child-like arguments of our 3-letter agencies (didn't they miss ISIS, the fall of the Berlin wall, WMD, etc...) . Better to fight for what is morally right now before our devices become even more sieve-like. There is a constitution for a reason, and the reason is the minority needs strong protection from the majority.
1. Re:A slippery slope? by Jack+Griffin · 2016-02-17 15:26 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  There is a constitution for a reason, and the reason is the minority needs strong protection from the majority.
  The Constitution was written in a time when you needed a majority to be a threat. Now with technology any band of a few like-minded individuals can cause just as much damage.
  If we look through history, there are three documents stand out as pivotal in human development. The Bible, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution. All contributed immensely (and are still useful), but we are approaching a time when document number 4 is going to be needed to cover all the new dynamics of technologically advanced society.
2. Re:A slippery slope? by bentnail · 2016-02-17 16:40 · Score: 2
  
  After I wrote that I wondered: do the Majority now need protection from the Minority when the minority gets majorly disgruntled??? I don't think it is possible politically or technologically. But hypothetically if it were: What would you sacrifice for society's security? Real time tracking of all individuals? The bill of rights? Free speech? the ability to defend oneself? Outlawing cash? Outlawing any transaction or communication that government can't record and track? Outlawing disagreement? Outlawing gene therapy which can be used for both good and evil? The government pretends to guarantee some level of civility, which they cannot. They can't even talk about balancing their budgets, so I think morality has gone out the window a long time ago. The real point is that like any technology individuals with encryption can do evil. But they can ALSO use it for good. Modern banking relies on it. Political activists rely on it. The blockchain, for example has ability to make individuals more powerful in a good way. Perhaps individual voting will allow our government to retire and move onto a post-democracy without dictators?? You are right things need to change, but recognize encryption is an important aspect of positive change. too.
3. Re:A slippery slope? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Enter the Prime Directive
4. Re:A slippery slope? by drinkypoo · 2016-02-17 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution was written in a time when you needed a majority to be a threat. Now with technology any band of a few like-minded individuals can cause just as much damage.
  Remember, remember, the what? I forget.
  The truth is that a band of a few like-minded individuals has been causing all the damage throughout history. Recently it's been the wealthiest people alive. Before that it was those who had declared themselves to be royalty.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:A slippery slope? by Jack+Griffin · 2016-02-18 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  The truth is that a band of a few like-minded individuals has been causing all the damage throughout history. Recently it's been the wealthiest people alive. Before that it was those who had declared themselves to be royalty.
  Weren't they also the wealthiest people alive?
  The difference is that today, peasants also have that power, and I'm less comfortable with stupid, poor people causing havoc.
  It's also worth noting that although the upper classes have not been perfect, they have overseen some of the most prosperous times, whereas under the power poor, stupid people it is just misery.
6. Re:A slippery slope? by drinkypoo · 2016-02-18 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  The truth is that a band of a few like-minded individuals has been causing all the damage throughout history. Recently it's been the wealthiest people alive. Before that it was those who had declared themselves to be royalty.
  Weren't they also the wealthiest people alive?
  Eh, it depends. Sometimes merchants had more money, it depends on where and when you're talking about. Now the merchants are the ruling class.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:A slippery slope? by Jack+Griffin · 2016-02-18 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Now the merchants are the ruling class.
  I disagree. "Merchants" have the least amount of power over public policy than they've ever had. See East India Company, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller etc. Bill Gates and his friends have nothing on those people.
Re: Apple Unlocked iPhones for Feds 70 Times Befor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:09 · Score: 0

Daily Beast is a little sketch, but I'll allow it.
Consider this though: the article you link mentions that the older case (and ALL the previous ones) are for versions where nothing was really protected. In this case, it is.
"Try to override: Shut it OFF" Capt. Kirk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:11 · Score: -1

See subject: YOU CAN'T DO IT & your "script-kiddie" script? Inferior & DOESN'T WORK vs. my SHEER POWER fool http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* You wish you were me... lol!
APK
P.S.=> The "mysterious Mr. 7" has shown EVERYONE HERE just how EFFETE you "web-wallies" are vs. myself (just like Gary 7 did in that StarTrek TOS episode beaming to earth or in my case, /. posting: MY WORK, which terrifies you GREEDY LITTLE WEBMASTERS, works... unlike yours!) apk
"Try to override: SHUT IT OFF" Capt. Kirk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:15 · Score: -1

See subject & this post: YOU CAN'T can you, "web-wally"? LMAO @ U publicly humiliating you fool http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* NOW?
NOW YOU MUST "EAT YOUR WORDS" - & tell us, how did they taste? Like your FOOT in your BIG MOUTH?? Washed down w/ the BITTER taste of SELF-defeat too???
Yes... wally.
(Subject - it's an excerpt from StarTrek TOS where Capt. Kirk, Spock, & Scotty VAINLY try stop "the mysterious Mr. 7" from beaming down to earth... like him? You can't stop me, lol... I LOVE IT!)
APK
P.S.=> THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it ALWAYS IS, vs. "webwallies" & their NON-WORKING "Script Kiddie" level SCRIPTS (like yours webwally)... apk
He takes the PR-friendly route. by sethstorm · 2016-02-17 15:20 · Score: 1

Unlike Apple, the Android platform doesn't have a device-killing Error 53.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:He takes the PR-friendly route. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Error 53 is what an iPhone spits out if it detects the Touch ID sensor has been tampered with. Touch ID is the fingerprint sensor that could be tamped with in an attempt to break the iPhone's secure enclave.
  An unfortunate side-effect is that third party repairs also hits this error.
Trying to downmod hide this wally? LMAO @ U by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:25 · Score: -1

See subject, lol, LMAO @ U webwally - downmods don't hide YOU FAIL wally http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
LMAO - Little WEB WALLY whipslash is "AnGrY" his shit doesn't work, lol... & WHOSE FAULT IS THAT, wally whipslash? YOURS!
APK
P.S.=> So much for YOUR "Script Kiddie" SCRIPT web-wally... & your BOGUS DOWNMODS to hide YOU FAIL too, lol... apk
Sundar Pichai by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:32 · Score: 0

Hahaha! His H1B is expiring ...
Can you spell "INCOMPETENT"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 15:35 · Score: -1

Appears you don't know how to run a website webwally whipslash - I sliced THRU your puny 'filter' scriptkiddie http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and now you're trying to downmod hide your FAIL, webwally? LOL!
APK
P.S.=> See subject - WebWally WHIPSLASH can, his script is called "WebWallyWhipSlashHUGEFAIL", lol... apk
now the the race is on by turkeydance · 2016-02-17 15:36 · Score: 1

and here comes Cook up the backstretch NSA going to the inside my fears are holding back we're trying not to fall Google's out of the runnin' Apple's out for another's sake the race is on and it looks like MS and the winner loses all.
U Don't say no to the fist around your (tax) balls by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-02-17 15:52 · Score: 1

It is pretty clear where this going to end up given there are so many ways a government can make the controlling interests of large companies suffer without harming the company's bottom line.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, Accomplice To Murder by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:07 · Score: 0

The resolution will begin with Mr. Timothy Cook, CEO, Apple Inc., formerly charged in Federal Court as an accomplice and conspirator to a committed act of Terrorism and Death of 14 people.
As an accomplice in an act of Terrorism and the death of 14 USA citizens Mr. Cook can when convicted face the death penalty. That will be choice TV viewing.
Mr. Cook like the CEOs of Alphabet, Google, Cisco, HP, IBM, Microsoft and their ilk think they are above the Law, just like Alphonso Capone thought he was above the Law.
The March "Event" at Apple will be Mr. Cook, hand-cuffed and shackled and being dragged on the cement out of Campus 1 into a Police Lockup SUV.
Ha ha Timmy ! Hope you like Cell-Block C, there are 41 Men and only one shower and it don't apply to Timmy!
Ha ha
1. Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook, Accomplice To Murder by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  not hardly
2. Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook, Accomplice To Murder by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Cool story bro, you're a regular Dan Brown.
Not in China by DNS-and-BIND · 2016-02-17 16:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple is openly defying US security orders, but in China it takes a very different approach

Apple’s response to US and UK government demands for backdoors to user data has been direct, bordering on defiant. Yesterday (Feb. 16), Apple CEO Tim Cook published a letter explaining the company’s refusal to comply with a US federal court order to help the FBI access data on a phone recovered from one of the attackers in the San Bernardino, California shootings.
Apple appears to take a different tack in dealing with data security demands from China, a key growth market for the company.
In January 2015, the state-run newspaper People’s Daily claimed, in a tweet, that Apple had agreed to security checks by the Chinese government. This followed a piece in the Beijing News (link in Chinese) that claimed Apple acceded to audits after a meeting between Cook and China’s top internet official, Lu Wei. China’s State Internet Information Office would reportedly be allowed to perform “security checks” on all Apple products sold on the mainland. According to the report, this was despite Cook’s assurances that the devices didn’t contain backdoors accessible by any government, including the US.
If Apple had indeed agreed to a Beijing security audit, it could have shared vital information with the Chinese government, such as its operating system’s source code, that could indirectly help government agents discover vulnerabilities on their own. It would have been a serious departure from Apple’s public, privacy-centric stance.

So, Apple proudly stands up to the US government, while bending over and submitting to special audits from China. It's like Hollywood and how they would never, ever censor their true artistic vision - except in China where they happily cut out the hero's heartfelt speech about how people should be free. It's like some kind of cuckold fetish where American companies feel great pleasure to submitting to violation. And yet, at home, they maintain the facade with angry denials and "we love freedom" speeches.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Not in China by LordLucless · 2016-02-17 17:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm no Apple supporter, but your comparison is (heh) apples-and-oranges. In the US, it's refusing to alter its software to allow the FBI to access private data. In China, it's allowing the government to perform a security audit of its source code - you know, just like every open source project on the planet implicitly allows China to do.
  I mean, by that standard, Linux is co-operating with Chinese attempts to violate the privacy of its users, because it publishes its source code for the government to audit (if they feel like it), too. And honestly, with this admission about the FBI coming into the open, it just goes to show how justified other governments are in demanding to examine US products for signs of government malfeasance.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
2. Re: Not in China by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  You know what they did ?
  Translated the security guide into Mandarin.
3. Re:Not in China by rakslice · 2016-02-17 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost like their only value is... creating value for their shareholders.
4. Re:Not in China by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-17 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  How is allowing China to do a security audit a bad thing? After the Snowden revelations about the NSA screwing with US products, I'd rather like to see that audit myself. Apple has basically been forced to allow it by the actions of the NSA, to restore trust.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Not in China by drinkypoo · 2016-02-17 23:51 · Score: 2
  
  I mean, by that standard, Linux is co-operating with Chinese attempts to violate the privacy of its users, because it publishes its source code for the government to audit (if they feel like it), too. And honestly, with this admission about the FBI coming into the open, it just goes to show how justified other governments are in demanding to examine US products for signs of government malfeasance.
  Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Another fine reason why Open Source (or better yet, Free Software) is the only direction to go. You cannot trust any box you can't look into. Hopefully someday (probably far in the future, but who knows) we'll even have open hardware to run it on. Either way, you can't trust Apple for precisely the reason you say; they give access to the source to governments, but not to everyone else. You can't trust Google Play (etc.) either, but if you're highly security-conscious then you're not using those services anyway, right? But at least you can run AOSP, and if you have the world's most pissed-off PC, you might even be able to build it yourself from sources.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ownership by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

FTFA

we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.
Does this mean that we own our iphones and that it is ours to hack and mod as we see fit?
Ah, like YOU self-upmodding yourself wally? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 16:30 · Score: -1

See subject: As an INCOMPENT web-wally? It's obvious WALLY like you fail hiding my posts http://slashdot.org/comments.p... or stopping me posting...
LMAO @ U, web-wally incompetent!
(Your IMPOTENT self-upmod of yourself in the parent post is SO OBVIOUS it's not funny - get over yourself douche! I am PUBLICLY SHITTING ON YOU right now, and everyone here is LAUGHING @ YOU, hugely... bank on it!)
TELL US: HOW DOES IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" web-wally?
A bit like YOUR FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
A bit like THE BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT perhaps also? Yes -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
LMAO @ U wally - go on, DOWNMOD AWAY fool - others see your INCOMPETENCE anyhow stupid!
After all - it's VERY obvious YOU HAVE ISSUES & want to have "glory" for your BOGUS SELF-UPMODS of your own posts too douche -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-line: IF you wanted me gone? All you had to do, was ask POLITELY here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but NO - stupid YOU had to "try me"!
&
NOW YOU ARE PUBLICLY HUMILIATED FOR IT...
As far as slashROT goes?
This place is USELESS TO ME - none of you can VALIDLY TECHNICALLY PROVE MY POINTS ON HOSTS WRONG - and you KNOW it - of course, "webwallies" like YOU are TERRIFIED OF IT - you infect users w/ your advertiser pals & I STOP IT, cold!
Just like I have your EFFETE 'script', script kidde!
FACT - you can't stop ME though, can you wally? Nope...
This is my last post here (place is now owned by an incompetent LITTLE DOUCHE in yourself, who has serious issues & can't CODE FOR SHIT - I am proving it RIGHT NOW in fact)!
See you around, you've made my point for me PERFECTLY via your INCOMPETENCE chump... lol!
... apk
1. Re:Ah, like YOU self-upmodding yourself wally? by cybordeath · 2016-02-17 20:45 · Score: 2
  
  This is my last post here
  Awww, and it's not even my birthday
2. Re:Ah, like YOU self-upmodding yourself wally? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say that the measures implemented by whipslash were actually quite effective. You're butthurt enough about them that you say you'll stop posting. Provided you actually do as you say you're going to, whipslash will have been successful in ridding Slashdot of your crap posts. Also, your HOSTS file engine sucks ass.
Satya... by ZeroSerenity · 2016-02-17 16:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're up.

--
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
1. Re:Satya... by djconsultingmeister · 2016-02-17 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly!
  
  --
  CrazyOldMan
2. Re:Satya... by mentil · 2016-02-17 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  *Perks up*
  Someone actually bought a Windows Phone?! Holy shit! Where'd I put that speech I prepared...
  
  --
  Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
3. Re:Satya... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 23:18 · Score: 0
  
  You're up.
  microsoft will continue to collect user data, including search terms, browser histories, download histories, scans of filesystems and more; store "backups" of user encryption keys in 'the cloud" by default; and will bend over backwards to assist the feds in any way possible, including giving them sweetheart deals on millions of software licenses for windows. would you expect anything less?
this isn't a backdoor as such.. by gl4ss · 2016-02-17 16:56 · Score: 4, Informative

this one case is a bit more tricky, since the fbi can reasonably say that apple can do what they want and it's not even that expensive. anyone with apples toolset and more importantly the signing key can do what fbi is requesting. fundamentally it's not even about 'creating' such a tool and that it would open a can of worms. it wouldn't. if something that could be created in half a day by altering a few lines would be a can of worms then it would already be a can of worms. on iphone 5C. those few lines would be the line where is the check for ten tries and the amount of delay introduced between tries. that would be enough to brute force it with a robot finger. another few hours would have the sw just brute force through all combinations on the phone itself - at just a rate of 1 per second it would be just few hours and since you can query the cpu/soc multiple times per second if the given pin is correct then if it's a 4 number pin it would take only something along the lines of half an hour, 5 number one would be still under half a day and six not too much long either. the part on the cpu on 5C that coughs up the code does not have extra protections or limits or any of that fancy stuff that 5S would do.
because it's an iphone 5C and apple _CAN_ write firmware for it and load it on the phone to brute force the correct pin on the cpu to make the cpu cough up the encryption key this is not quite how apple spins it up. but apple doesn't want to admit(nor is it denying) that it can write the requested software - it's trying to argue that it doesn't have to, I guess in order to fight off further requests to modify firmwares that actually are delivered to consumer phones, which would need backdoors installed before hand.
on iphone 5S and onwards it would not be possible. but try explaining this to a normal journalist. if apple opens it, they think that iphones all can be opened in same way - and apple has been publicly saying that they can't open them, (which is true for newer iphones than the 5C). suppose they do open it for them? what then? lawsuits from 5C owners who could arguably argue that they were mislead with marketing about the capabilities of their phone.
so, on 5C the encryption key is on the cpu and can be queried multiple times per second with the right firmware and the right firmware can be loaded on boot from usb if you have apples signing keys(or if you can break the bootloader, I suppose). that is, on an iphone 5C the penalty wipe for guessing more than 10 times is performed in firmware loaded software and can be trivially circumvented if you have firmware source code and signing key. apple doesn't deny or admit this due to marketing and that it would confuse the hell out of people who don't understand the difference between 5c and 5s.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
1. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by Lakitu · 2016-02-17 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  it's already happening: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
  
  But in a legal brief, Apple acknowledged that the phone in the meth case was running version 7 of the iPhone operating system, which means the company can access it. “For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode locked iOS device,” the company said in a court brief.
  Two sentences later retrieving "certain categories of unencrypted data" becomes "cracking the iphone":
  
  But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government.
  Here's the BBC chiming in with the "if you agree with Apple, you support beheading veterans" angle: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
  
  "If a court issued a warrant in the UK or United States to search somebody's house, you wouldn't stop them, you would allow them in - why should a smartphone be any different?
  Gee I don't know, Ray, but I'm going to bank on houses being made out of wood, sweat, and tiers compared to my smartphone, which is more of a mathematics problem than a physical object.
  The technical gap between those working on cases like this, those writing the laws, and those who are just the end-users operating devices like smartphones is large, but it's much, much more than just marketing at this point. This story wouldn't even be in the news if the government hadn't already bullied these companies into complying in the first place, hitting them with the one-two of "you're going to cause another 9/11" and "we're already reading everything anyway, don't make it harder for us" as a fait accompli.
  This is one of the primary reasons for things such as the 4th amendment in the first place -- if the government only conducts reasonable searches, then people can be more trusting of the government only conducting reasonable searches. If the government oversteps its authority, and people lose some of their trust in the government to act in good faith, then searches which would otherwise be reasonable and routine start to meet resistance, especially when it is potentially costing giant corporations millions or billions of dollars.
2. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by james_gnz · 2016-02-18 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  this one case is a bit more tricky, since the fbi can reasonably say that apple can do what they want and it's not even that expensive. ...
  on iphone 5S and onwards it would not be possible. but try explaining this to a normal journalist. if apple opens it, they think that iphones all can be opened in same way - and apple has been publicly saying that they can't open them, (which is true for newer iphones than the 5C). suppose they do open it for them? what then? lawsuits from 5C owners who could arguably argue that they were mislead with marketing about the capabilities of their phone.
  
  That makes sense to me. It sounds like Apple doesn't want to break their encryption because they don't want to admit it can be broken. By refusing, they're not really providing their customers with much more than a false sense of security. I'm all for security, but it has to be genuine. In this case I think it sounds like the horse has already bolted.
3. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by schnipschnap · 2016-02-18 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Here's some more relevant information: http://blog.trailofbits.com/20...
  The person who wrote this article quotes what exactly the FBI is wanting Apple to do, claims that Apple is very well capable of complying with the order, even if it were a 5S or later, and that the FBI should be able to get up to one code test per 80 ms.
4. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by avandesande · 2016-02-18 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well if Apple can do it and there is a proper warrant I don't have any problem with them doing this. I do have a problem though with Apple being forced to add backdoors in an 'unbreakable' device.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
5. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by bigpat · 2016-02-18 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  Bingo. That is the problem with this case. I don't agree they should be forced to give the FBI their signing keys because that would give the FBI and any third parties that got Apple's signing keys access to make all sorts of changes to the firmware that would undermine security for all devices and not just this one. And I firmly oppose making companies provide future back doors to the government.
  But if Apple themselves can take the phone and treat it like a test phone and load up a custom firmware that disables the password retry limit, then that becomes simply a question about what level of effort should be required of any third party in order to assist with a legal search.
  The order could mean days or weeks of work for a small team at Apple and the risk of accidentally bricking the phone and wiping the data would mean it would have to be well tested on other iPhones 5Cs before it was tried on the actual phone.
  And I think the point about confusing the issue and setting precedent is important. I think this will be very hard for future judges to distinguish between what is technically possible on new phones versus old phones and the precedent could be seen as simply that the government successfully got Apple to install a backdoor on their products.
  This is basically a no-win situation and I think the ACLU and Apple need to be arguing to put some limits on this order and not try to challenge the underlying legal basis because if we were talking about a land lord with the keys to the back door, then there would be no legal question.
  This is more like ordering the carpenter that built a house to go put in a back door because the front door is locked and they can't break it down. Is that a reasonable amount of work to require? What about compensation and forced servitude?
  The government really wants Apple to install back doors on all its products, so they have found this grey area where there is already a vulnerability that Apple could potentially exploit. And I think that once they establish that the government may force a company to help exploit existing vulnerabilities, then it might not be as big of a leap to try and force companies to create and maintain those vulnerabilities.
  And even if they don't go that far, any company that doesn't provide back doors will be at risk of being forced to expend unknown resources to hack their own products if the FBI finds an exploit that they just need the company's help with.
  So the proposition then becomes either you install a backdoor or we will find one anyway and force you to help us exploit it at potentially significant cost to your company.
6. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by Xylantiel · 2016-02-18 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  Then before we start hating on google... are there similar vulnerabilities in their wipe-if-too-many-unlock-fails? If not then this whole apple/google comparison is a garbage headline grab. This sounds a lot more like apple trying to save face for a poor implementation while the FBI is trying to get something that can be used to crack a whole class of iOS devices. Neither of which has anything to do with google unless their branded handsets (not just any android handset) are similarly poorly designed. Still a big fight with the FBI, just nothing to do with google.
  Being more cynical I worry that it is apple pretending to protect the user's information, when in fact they already gave it all up via iCloud. That benefits the FBI too, since ignorant people will think "oh I can trust apple because they put up that big fight against the FBI", when in fact they didn't, they just gave up the iCloud data based on a warrant.
7. Re:this isn't a backdoor as such.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  on iphone 5S and onwards it would not be possible. but try explaining this to a normal journalist.
  Nice, long story, but unfortunately it's based on incorrect speculation, and your whole rant is false:
  https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520
Not a surprise. by laserhead · 2016-02-17 17:11 · Score: 1

Companies have to obey US institution and laws in US jurisdiction. They also have to obey Chinese institution and laws in Chinese jurisdiction. US institution grant US citizen free speech. Chinese institution doesn't.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-02-17 17:33 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hello? by iggie · 2016-02-17 17:35 · Score: 2

And where are you, Larry and Sergei? Waiting for the unpleasantness to just go away? Shivering under the covers with the rest of your lot? Shame on you. It is nearly too late to call your side, and we are all waiting.
Apple deserves what they get by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 17:58 · Score: 0

If Apple wants the protection of the US Court system, then Apple can pay taxes in the US.
If forced by a court order, by Snufu · 2016-02-17 18:41 · Score: 1

Apple should supply false keys to the FBI. When the FBI complains the backdoor doesn't work, just say "You're holding it wrong."
What's the matter OWNER of slashROT? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:16 · Score: -1

See subject: your limited skills are FUCKING PEOPLE OVER stupid? See subject: I PWNED YOU easily & REPEATEDLY which your post history proves!
* That's right - I outthought YOU ages ago... limited dimwit!
APK
P.S.=> For the hell of it: Doing just 1 more post (just to spite your DIM BRAINED ASS) BEFORE I VOLUNTARIY LEAVE stupid, not you forcing it:
THIS?
It's just my "ICING ON THE CAKE" ontop of my "goodbye" to you & your SORRY ASS + site-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... YOU LOSE & FAIL stupid... all your bullshit
FACTS: Downmodding my posts that show YOU CAN'T STOP ME ON YOUR BEST DAY?? Makes me laugh...
BOTTOM-LINE: It TRULY was a PLEASURE "pwning" the NEW OWNER OF SLASHDOUCHE, humiliating you publicly - easily! And, YOU know it - everyone reading does!
... apk
IT Gossip vs National Security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:18 · Score: 0

I hate the recent slashdot obsession with fad internet celebrity and business gossip. I say recent because it is compared to the true slashdot of 15 years ago.
"Finally" Chimes in? by Dahamma · 2016-02-17 19:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Biased much against Google?
Cook posted a letter yesterday, Pichai responded today. OH MY GOOD HOW COULD IT TAKE SO LONG!?
Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 19:52 · Score: 0

This couldn't be just a ploy to get people to buy new iphones...could it?
Nah. I'm probably just too cynical.

bigfinger76 posting as AC (don't wanna lose those APK mods!)
/memory hole retrieval by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:07 · Score: 0

Don't be evil.
I usually say by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 20:52 · Score: 0

I usually say things like "corporations can't choose which laws they obey", "following the law is the cost of doing business", "government will make an example of any CEO who disobeys the courts". Against that, it's not the duty of corporations to do the government's job. So now it's interesting times, in the Chinese way.
I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 21:09 · Score: 0

on the whole story. Why didn't they just get an NSL and were forced to do it and shut up about it? Seems very fishy ...
http://permata-store.blogspot.com/2016/01/clash-ro by SaengdaoTesanee · 2016-02-17 21:47 · Score: 0

get it guys :)
hallo by SaengdaoTesanee · 2016-02-17 21:50 · Score: 0

http://permata-store.blogspot....
Great job Pinchy! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-17 22:07 · Score: 0

Any more vague and someone might think you didn't give a shit.
On twitter? by stealth_finger · 2016-02-18 00:21 · Score: 0

On twitter? not a G+ account? Not that anyone would have seen in on G+ but twitter, c'mon.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
backdoors become accessible to everyone eventually by 2fuf · 2016-02-18 00:39 · Score: 1

Besides the obvious privacy concerns, wouldn't backdoors give terrorists and other bad guys a new, incredibly useful attack vector? As soon as a common backdoor is implemented on all devices, that would immediately become the most valuable target for hackers. What if a government employee goes rogue or is "convinced" to share information on how to gain access. What about the devs who implement the backdoors? You're never going to keep that secret. As the story goes, all architects and builders of the Taj Mahal were killed after finishing the project to protect the secrets of their trade. Is that the next step to "protect" us?
Re:backdoors become accessible to everyone eventua by Ash-Fox · 2016-02-18 01:55 · Score: 1

Besides the obvious privacy concerns, wouldn't backdoors give terrorists and other bad guys a new, incredibly useful attack vector?
If done correctly, it wouldn't be a very feasible attack vendor.

What if a government employee goes rogue or is "convinced" to share information on how to gain access.
If it's just encrypting data under a second encryption key that only say Apple has. Then, the attack vector is... Getting a warrant to get Apple to decrypt the contents of a device.
One way to go about making it as difficult as possible is generating a unique private key for each device and insert the public key before redistribution into the device. Store the keys on cold storage media, that they themselves are encrypted and to decrypt a single device you have to retrieve the specific cold storage medium, the passwords for that key (split up password retrieval to require a few officers, it becomes much harder to corrupt multiple people). Add in a few physical controls, I'm not really sure what attack vector at that point which could be used for a rogue employee. This leaves breaking cryptographic algorithms and if you're using the more popular ones that are used everywhere, if that's broken, it doesn't really matter at that point what cryptographic key was used in the first place or whom it was encrypted for.

What about the devs who implement the backdoors? You're never going to keep that secret.
Who cares if people know it's signed by a second key if you don't have the private key?

all architects and builders of the Taj Mahal were killed after finishing the project to protect the secrets of their trade. Is that the next step to "protect" us?
That seems silly. Security through obscurity isn't sufficient on it's own.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I doubt it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 01:56 · Score: 0

Apk's != "Man in the White Suit". His program works. Whipslash fears apk's program as it really stops ads and threats and by osmosis whipslash's money. Whipslash said weeks ago he'd get rid of apk and no success as we can all see here in this posting.
welll .... one more set of google searches to do: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:13 · Score: 0

Fissile materials on the black market
how to hack sexaddictsanonymous
congressional perversions and criminal convictions
DHS failures not in the news
Police State tactics national and local
how to make money blackmailing government officials
bureaucratic blunders that are intentional
Lolita club memberships
Space armaments DIY
Sharia Law and how to stop it
British reluctance to exporting muslim taxpayers
Americal reluctance to balance the federal budget
EPA violations of rights
PETA and the GMO of dogs and chimpanzees
corporate lobbyists lists
How to start and run a revolution sucessfully
historic lessons on societal blunders
Re-instituting slavery to improve the GDP
Educational reforms designed to reduce literacy and implant societal values ...
Naturally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 02:35 · Score: 0

Just like they and every other company in the valley has for the past decade, they wait for someone else to make the first move and lead the way. It's just a gesture (one that they almost certainly decided serves their bottom line) on their part, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Zuckerberg and Bezos chiming in next. Pathetic is too good a word for the big G, and the valley at large.
Threats? I guess it's about priorities by Kartu · 2016-02-18 03:11 · Score: 1

As far as Google goes, I'm so much more concerned about every single app, including keyboards, on my Android phone being able to go surf a bit, than with FBI using Apple signed update to get data from terrorists' phone HAVING judge's backing, EVEN IF ALL THE THEORIES about misuse were true. (most aren't)
As with "but it can leak and can be misused", "what will stop FBI from spying on us when we surf for porn":
1) Apple can very likely identify the phone's unique ID
2) Apple's signed update can contain check for that ID and only work on that particular device (if we seriously cannot trust FBI to not leak some crap into public internet, misuse it vs normal people)
3) And, NO, BLOODY HELL, NO, YOU CAN'T HACK THE DAMN THING if it is signed. You can't modify any single bit in it.
Risk vs Reward by nehumanuscrede · 2016-02-18 03:52 · Score: 1

It has quite a lot to do with public perception.
US technology companies are walking a razor's edge right now. One slip, and they're done. If they are found to be cooperating ( willingly or otherwise ) with the government on expanding the surveillance state, the public backlash ( and refusal to utilize their product ) will likely bring about the end of the company in a hurry. The trust in these companies is already very, very thin. ( Already gone for many of us ) A slight push is all it will take for the general public to lose faith in them completely and that's the risk they have to consider.
Once the trust is gone, so are any potential profits. May as well shut the lights off.
The CEO's of these companies had best understand that their entire existence is on the line here. An awfully big gamble to take if they decide to play ball with the government. All it would take is for another whistle blower to divulge some more dirty little secrets ( and we all know how good the Government is at keeping data safe :| ) and that would be the end-game.
Are you really willing to put your life's work on the line for something that you KNOW will be illegally abused in the future ?
Who do you think the people will hold responsible ? The Government or your company ? Who stands to lose the most from this deal if it becomes known ?
This is a terrible case precident case by plague911 · 2016-02-18 04:04 · Score: 1

Privacy is all well and good. If a company wants to do its best to provide an un-hackable un-accessible device all the more power to them. If there is nothing to be done and you can't access the information that's fair.
This is not the issue here. Apple is reported to have the ability to open up the phone. They are just trying to refuse to do so. This is immoral and likely criminal. There is a valid and reasonable court order to do so. If they can't, fine, but they better as hell try their best.
This is the problem with selling flawed products by bigpat · 2016-02-18 04:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

The FBI isn't asking for a new backdoor, they are asking to use one that Apple already created inadvertently. Call it a design flaw, but this older model phone has a flaw that allows Apple to send it a signed software update that will disable the limit on password tries.
And if it is a 4 digit numeric pin that means only 10k possible combinations. Basically someone trying every combination manually could probably crack it in a few days assuming Apple can also update the firmware so that it can check the password without delay.
I agree that Apple should be able to design and sell phones without back doors and that they should not be compelled to provide back doors to the government. But they are the ones that got themselves into this with a poor security design on this older phone.
On the newer phones apparently this is apparently not an issue since the chip that stores the encryption keys is what enforces the password try limit.
This case isn't about privacy. I don't think anyone with any knowledge of the law and legal precedent would seriously dispute the government's right to search the phone of someone who has carried out a terrorist attack.
What this case is about what a third party can reasonably be ordered to do (without compensation?) to facilitate a legal search. This goes well beyond a landlord being ordered to unlock a back door. Or even allowing a wire tap to be installed on a phone line. My guess would be that assisting the FBI would probably take a few days and potentially disrupt Apple's iOS QA cycle for that long if they have to utilize in house resources.
Maybe longer since they essentially have to fork the iOS code base for this one device and then somehow isolate and target this one device for a software update. Oh and really trying hard not to brick the phone in the process. Not trivial, but certainly a somewhat borderline case considering the relatively vast resources of Apple.
And being ordered to turn over their iOS signing certificate and iOS source code so the FBI can do it themselves should be way way off the table.
makes no sense by ooloorie · 2016-02-18 04:30 · Score: 1

If Apple can retroactively create software to access encrypted software on the shooter's device without the password, then the device isn't secure, period. A secure device should remain secure even if its manufacturer or the network gets compromised.
Privacy shouldn't mean isolation by bigpat · 2016-02-18 04:43 · Score: 1

If there's ever a case where I'd rather sacrifice some convenience for security, this is it... even if it means giving up smartphones.
The principle at stake in the broader debate about governments forcing companies to provide back doors to communications and computer storage devices is what kind of society we want to live in. Even in the worst totalitarian regimes you can achieve effective privacy through isolation and minding your own business. Privacy doesn't mean anything if you can't participate fully in society to achieve it.
Who owns the phone? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:02 · Score: 0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phone owned by the city government the terrorist worked for? Didn't they consent to accessing the phone?
The owner of the phone wants it unlocked, what's the problem?
Same response by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-18 05:39 · Score: 0

To say a "White domestic terrorist" I'd say we all know the answer to that.
Impossibility by Martin+S. · 2016-02-18 06:41 · Score: 1

I find it doubtful this is technically impossible as Apple are making out.
A correctly signed software update to this single phone could unlocked it. This capability certainly exists in their test labs otherwise every update would be at risk of bricking phone on general release.
This should not interpret this as an opinion they should do it.
1. Re:Impossibility by JesseMcDonald · 2016-02-19 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I find it doubtful this is technically impossible as Apple are making out. ... This capability certainly exists in their test labs otherwise every update would be at risk of bricking phone on general release.
  The risk isn't "bricking" the phone, just erasing the storage and starting over. Not a big deal, especially in a test lab environment.
  This particular phone may be just barely old enough that the security features are implemented in software. Newer models, starting with the iPhone 5S, have already fixed that flaw by moving features like the minimum delay between attempts and auto-erasing the key after 10 failures into the Secure Enclave. Also, newer versions do not permit updates to be installed while the device is locked. If the phone were just one model newer then it would be demonstrably impossible for Apple to produce a software update to circumvent the security. As it is, they might be able to comply—but they shouldn't.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:This is the problem with selling flawed product by JesseMcDonald · 2016-02-19 08:20 · Score: 1

What this case is about what a third party can reasonably be ordered to do (without compensation?) to facilitate a legal search. This goes well beyond a landlord being ordered to unlock a back door. Or even allowing a wire tap to be installed on a phone line. My guess would be that assisting the FBI would probably take a few days and potentially disrupt Apple's iOS QA cycle for that long if they have to utilize in house resources.
Maybe longer since they essentially have to fork the iOS code base for this one device and then somehow isolate and target this one device for a software update. Oh and really trying hard not to brick the phone in the process. Not trivial, but certainly a somewhat borderline case considering the relatively vast resources of Apple.
All true, but I would argue that the fact that they're being asked to do something which they find morally repugnant, and the potential damage to their reputation, are greater considerations than the marginal costs in time, labor, and materials, which they would likely be (partly) compensated for in any event. Signing a firmware build is not just a technical measure to carry out a warrant; it's a statement by Apple that this build of the firmware has their seal of approval and is authorized to run on the iPhone. They have not even been accused of breaking any law, much less doing anything actually immoral, and yet they are being ordered by the court to provide false testimony under duress—all for the sake of gaining access to a dead suspect's work phone which probably doesn't contain any information pertinent to the investigation.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat