Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Finally Chimes In On FBI Encryption Case, Says He Agrees With Apple (gizmodo.com)
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."
Edward Snowden had previously suggested that Google's silence meant Google had "picked a side, but it's not the public's."
I'm glad Sundar is agreeing this is an important issue... however, there are a lot of wiggle words in his phrasing.
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
Google copies Apple, what a surprise :-)
That doesn't mean the content that's captured is unencrypted... iMessage, etc...
No sig for you! Come back one year!
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!
It's a question of honoring privacy rights in general, not a specific person's
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.
Well if we're stooping to cliché 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.
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"
"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...
True but this case related to iOS 8. Previous iOS versions were not as secure
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.
Its just finding where the public encryption ends and the plain text for all the "ads" starts :)
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
"Violent" lol. Maybe you don't understand the concepts here
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thanks! I think some people aren't used to editors disagreeing with them so they take a little more umbrage than they should.
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!
FTFA
Does this mean that we own our iphones and that it is ours to hack and mod as we see fit?
not hardly
You're up.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh no you've attracted APK. On the plus side through perhaps this will mean Coren22 gets a little less stalked.
He's welcome to air as many patterns and identifiers here as he wants
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.
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
> 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.
Agreed. See you out there
> 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.
We're not banning people so I am not sure why that would happen. Let me know if it happens again.
I'm guessing it was probably some trigger on our server. I will investigate those limits
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
Send it to feedback@slashdot.org and I'll be sure to look out for it
Apple should supply false keys to the FBI. When the FBI complains the backdoor doesn't work, just say "You're holding it wrong."
You realize that this is one issue where nearly all the Republican and Democrat politicians agree?
Biased much against Google?
Cook posted a letter yesterday, Pichai responded today. OH MY GOOD HOW COULD IT TAKE SO LONG!?
Yeah, but it takes a Master Troll to troll both sides at once.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The killers are already dead. This is a fishing expedition to find accomplices.
This is my last post here
Awww, and it's not even my birthday
Calm down, Alex.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
If done correctly, it wouldn't be a very feasible attack vendor.
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.
Who cares if people know it's signed by a second key if you don't have the private key?
That seems silly. Security through obscurity isn't sufficient on it's own.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that's my point.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!
I knew that by the second paragraph.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
:)). 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 :)
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
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
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.
Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. (Videos are gone btw as of today if you hadn't read this elsewhere yet)
You weren't listening to Limbaugh, then. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...
He's still on the radio?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
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.