Please take your own advice. You don't think they wanted to have one device to monitor news, for calls, message, emails, etc. You think they wanted to be completely out of touch and blind?
... but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look...
That's the point. But more importantly, criminals get caught or implicate others all the time because they make *** mistakes *** and *** forget *** things and occasionally get *** sloppy ***. Its not wishful thinking to examine a secondary phone, its prudent investigatory procedure. Prisons are full of people doing things you apparently would not expect them too.
... what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones...
That is complete BS. A public relations and legal maneuver that Apple used to frame the argument, the debate. If Apple had made the modification to firmware/iOS then they could have added code to lock fbiOS to one unique device. This locking to a device could not be tampered with, fbiOS being protected by Apple's digital signature. A new court order would have been needed for each new device, so at least there would be judicial oversight in the "near nightmare" scenario.
By forcing the FBI to go the internal or 3rd party route we now may have the "nightmare" scenario where a universal tool is available to all law enforcement, possibly with its use not done under proper judicial supervision. Apple is partly responsible for this. Yes, Apple was in a pretty f'd up situation, but that happens. Sometimes you have to deal with no good outcome, negative/negative decisions.
Well, at least for now... Looking forward to iPhone 8 or 9 where all the security currently residing in firmware/iOS is moved into Apple's custom CPUs where it is unpatchable.
The appeal to authority as a logical fallacy exists when you appeal to the authority of someone unqualified. This is identifying a consensus among qualified people who are unbiased.
This population is incredibly unqualified to comment on matters of law. And they are also a bit biased, one might say they tend to the fervent pro-encryption pro-privacy side. Nothing wrong with that, not a bad bias to have, but a bias none the less. And then lets bring up their bias towards believing whatever Apple says and disbelieving whatever the FBI says. One side lying does not mean the other side is telling the truth.
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
We don't know that. No one knows what this iPhone was used for. That is why someone wanted to open it up and take a look, to determine *if* anything is there. As others have pointed out the murderers left plenty of evidence lying around at home, not all evidence was destroyed. Was this phone at home? Did they want to keep one working phone with them, so they used the less incriminating phone?
The only fact we know is that it was the County's phone and the County gave permission to open it and look. The owner consented to the search, so search and seizure rules would not apply as they normally do with an uncooperative owner.
You are mistaken about FreeBSD's technical superiority. In 1993 I came home from the swap meet with two CDs, Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play and FreeBSD. Because of my BSD background from school I tried FreeBSD first on my 486DX2, it crashed during installation. I then tried Yggdrasil, Linux installed and auto configured video and audio. It was an uneventful install and it just worked. I found a highly capable *nix environment that I would have killed for when I was still in school. That is the sort of experience that led to Linux's success. Volunteer developers being ambivalent about BSD or GPL. as seen in 1.12 release notes, but being more interested in the system that seems farther ahead. That is where the snowball effect comes from.
Its a bogus claim that the GPL is what drew development talent to Linux. In the 0.12 release notes where Linus announces the proposed change of license he cites a couple of requests to do so, he expresses ambivalence, he assumes others will be ambivalent as well.
It was the engineering that was key to Linux's success. I came home from the swap meet with two CDs, Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play and FreeBSD. Because of my BSD background from school I tried FreeBSD first on my 486DX2, it crashed during installation. I then tried Yggdrasil, Linux installed and auto configured video and audio. It was an uneventful install and it worked. That is the sort of experience that led to Linux's success. Developers being ambivalent about BSD or GPL, but being more interested in the system that seems farther ahead. That is where the snowball effect comes from.
Imagine when the form factor shrinks so much that the machine can be implanted directly into the body.
We sort of already have such machines in a very specialized sense. The pancreas creating insulin, pituitary gland producing endorphins, the adrenal gland creating adrenaline, etc. So it shouldn't take that much imagination.
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
Apple already has a solution for this situation on iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition. Teach it the fingerprints of both the child and a parent.
More recent iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition effectively offer multiple passwords. Such devices can be configured to accept multiple fingerprints. You can teach the device the child's prints and the parent's.
"Linux was not initially released under the GPL [...] From the v0.12 release notes: "I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft"
Linux was delivered under the GPL since v0.99, december 1992. And what did I already say? "At the beginning this [BSD vs GPL] didn't mean any difference, but once Linux gained critical mass it was the GPL and its snowball effect all that counted."
What accounted for the snowball effect was the increasing capability of the linux environment and and the increased knowledge of its existence as a PC based *nix environment. The GPL was there coincidentally, it piggybacked and gained its own fame on the back of Linux's technical success.
"There was not great clamor for the GPL."
Probably there was no clamor either for automobiles back when Ford started his mill, but there it was. I never claimed there were a clamor for a GPL'ed OS (outside of the GNU community, should I add) but still, I say that being GPL was key factor for its explosive growth -even when most of their users didn't give a damn about the license itself.
In your analogy giving the GPL credit for Linux's success is like giving Ford's lawyers credit for Ford's success. It wasn't the lawyers, it was the engineers in both scenarios. In both scenarios the lawyers were just along for the ride and benefited greatly themselves.
"It was also not released under the GPL license. He used his own license."
Never told otherwise. But, anyway, Linux has been released under the GPL since december 1992 (v 0.99 if wikipedia doesn't lie) so its inflationary grow has obviously been under the GPL.
Coincidence. You also have a more maturing and more capable PC based *nix and a much wider awareness of this PC based *nix.
"The community wanted *nix on their PCs so badly they would have supported any viable project, regardless of license."
Are you kidding? or forgetting that 386BSD was released in 1992 from a port starting back in 1989? With also FreeBSD and commercial offers like SCO and BSDi being there? There's the fact that *BSD on 386 was more mature and had stronger commercial support by 1993 that Linux -by a long stretch, and still was Linux the one that ate the cake so no, it can't be "any viable project" because there *were* viable projects stronger and older than Linux.
And that is the timeframe where AT&T was creating FUD related to *BSD*, casting a cloud over it all.
Linux was not initially released under the GPL, it had its own license. Yet it gathered attention and support. Critical mass of interest occurred because of interest in the project and its technical goals. There was not great clamor for the GPL. From the v0.12 release notes: "I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft".
"Why contribute to a project that may well be successfully sued by one of the largest corporations in the world?"
Because, at any rate, Linus didn't want to contribute to anyone's code base but to tinker with his shinny new 80386 on the knowledge he gathered from Tanenbaum's MINIX.
I'm not referring to just Linus, I'm referring to the general developer community that wanted *nix on the PC.
And then again, he started tinkering with his new toy in 1991 while the USL v. BSDi lawsuit didn't started till 1992 and even then, Linus was 23 y.o. living in Finland and so, didn't give a damn about USA politics or laws. I challenge you to find *any* first hand reference from Torvalds saying he was worried by license/patent's problems from BSD -or that he even knew about them.
Do you think it was per chance that Linus announced his new project on comp.os.minix and said it was "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu" and even went so far as to add "PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code" but still didn't referenced BSD -at all?
It was also not released under the GPL license. He used his own license. It gathered attention and support without the GPL initially. The GPL did not make Linux, Linux made the GPL. The community wanted *nix on their PCs so badly they would have supported any viable project, regardless of license.
You were not alone back then. My first Linux was on a 486DX2 using Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play Linux. Yggdrasil really was ahead of its time. Video, sound, it all just auto configured and worked. It was as easy as installing Windows. No of the pain and goofiness of later "more advanced" linux distros. No typing in monitor signal parameters.
The license that Linus choose is irrelevant, what is relevant is why he had to choose a license. There would have been no such choice, no Linux, if AT&T had not cast this big cloud over the *BSD source. Why contribute to a project that may well be successfully sued by one of the largest corporations in the world? One that actually invented Unix so this is not some silly patent troll case. That is the relevant fact. No lawsuit, no cloud, no barrier to *BSD contributions, no reason to start Linux, no reason to consider another license.
Once Linux was on the scene the true reason for contributing was the incredible desire for a PC based *nix. The articles of faith of the FSF embodied in the GPL have always been a far secondary issue. Then, today and in between, only a handful care about the license. What most people want is a decent *nix on their PC. Period. Linux meeting that goal far outweighs everything else. Its all about *nix, not the license.
The question about Win10 was to demonstrate the sillyness of the line: "It denies freedoms that are otherwise perfectly reasonable, and would exist were the GPL not denying them."
It demonstrates no such thing since the discussion is about FLOSS licensing, Microsoft is a straw man. Sorry your not getting that.
The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive
Of course, that's the whole point. As the BSD license shows, the extra freedom allows people to take your code, modify it, and parade it around without giving you the right to take the modifications back to your own code. The GPL takes away your freedom to do such things.
That's not hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is being restrictive, which you admit, yet claiming you are "free". Restrictive != Free. Benevolence does not change this, benevolence merely justifies adopting the restrictions.
1. There are people and organizations who profit from BSD code and *do* contribute back. Apple does for example.
2. There are people and organizations who profit from GPL code and do *not* contribute back. Google for example. You only have to contribute back if you redistribute. Use it all you want internally, modify it, and you are free to contribute nothing back at all.
The question is: If the BSD license is superior to the GPL, why didn't Open Source really truly take off as a movement with mainstream recognition until after the Linux system and its GPL license?
Linus answered this himself. The BSD on PC projects got tied up in court by AT&T. If it were not for this fluke of history he would not have written Linux. A PC based Unix was such a compelling "want" that whatever project had the first credible implementation would have dominated. Because of AT&T that was Linux. The GPL had nothing to do with it. Linux did not benefit from the GPL, the GPL benefited from Linux.
SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
Yes, that's the consequence of the freedom given by the BSD license. It allows others to take its code, modify it, and parade it around.
You do realize the author was simply pointing out hypocrisy? Pointing out that "freedom" is receiving an Orwellian redefinition? The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive. Saying these restrictions are "good for you" doesn't change this simple fact and redefine restrictive as "free".
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be stupid.
Please take your own advice. You don't think they wanted to have one device to monitor news, for calls, message, emails, etc. You think they wanted to be completely out of touch and blind?
... but they left information on the phone they didn't think was worth taking the trouble to erase is rather wishful thinking. Sure, it can't hurt to look ...
That's the point. But more importantly, criminals get caught or implicate others all the time because they make *** mistakes *** and *** forget *** things and occasionally get *** sloppy ***. Its not wishful thinking to examine a secondary phone, its prudent investigatory procedure. Prisons are full of people doing things you apparently would not expect them too.
That is complete BS. A public relations and legal maneuver that Apple used to frame the argument, the debate. If Apple had made the modification to firmware/iOS then they could have added code to lock fbiOS to one unique device. This locking to a device could not be tampered with, fbiOS being protected by Apple's digital signature. A new court order would have been needed for each new device, so at least there would be judicial oversight in the "near nightmare" scenario.
... Looking forward to iPhone 8 or 9 where all the security currently residing in firmware/iOS is moved into Apple's custom CPUs where it is unpatchable.
By forcing the FBI to go the internal or 3rd party route we now may have the "nightmare" scenario where a universal tool is available to all law enforcement, possibly with its use not done under proper judicial supervision. Apple is partly responsible for this. Yes, Apple was in a pretty f'd up situation, but that happens. Sometimes you have to deal with no good outcome, negative/negative decisions.
Well, at least for now
The appeal to authority as a logical fallacy exists when you appeal to the authority of someone unqualified. This is identifying a consensus among qualified people who are unbiased.
This population is incredibly unqualified to comment on matters of law. And they are also a bit biased, one might say they tend to the fervent pro-encryption pro-privacy side. Nothing wrong with that, not a bad bias to have, but a bias none the less. And then lets bring up their bias towards believing whatever Apple says and disbelieving whatever the FBI says. One side lying does not mean the other side is telling the truth.
Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.
We don't know that. No one knows what this iPhone was used for. That is why someone wanted to open it up and take a look, to determine *if* anything is there. As others have pointed out the murderers left plenty of evidence lying around at home, not all evidence was destroyed. Was this phone at home? Did they want to keep one working phone with them, so they used the less incriminating phone?
The only fact we know is that it was the County's phone and the County gave permission to open it and look. The owner consented to the search, so search and seizure rules would not apply as they normally do with an uncooperative owner.
You are mistaken about FreeBSD's technical superiority. In 1993 I came home from the swap meet with two CDs, Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play and FreeBSD. Because of my BSD background from school I tried FreeBSD first on my 486DX2, it crashed during installation. I then tried Yggdrasil, Linux installed and auto configured video and audio. It was an uneventful install and it just worked. I found a highly capable *nix environment that I would have killed for when I was still in school. That is the sort of experience that led to Linux's success. Volunteer developers being ambivalent about BSD or GPL. as seen in 1.12 release notes, but being more interested in the system that seems farther ahead. That is where the snowball effect comes from.
GPL rode on Linux's technical coattails.
Well when configuring the fingerprint everyone is there and its easy to agree on or share the passcode.
Its a bogus claim that the GPL is what drew development talent to Linux. In the 0.12 release notes where Linus announces the proposed change of license he cites a couple of requests to do so, he expresses ambivalence, he assumes others will be ambivalent as well.
It was the engineering that was key to Linux's success. I came home from the swap meet with two CDs, Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play and FreeBSD. Because of my BSD background from school I tried FreeBSD first on my 486DX2, it crashed during installation. I then tried Yggdrasil, Linux installed and auto configured video and audio. It was an uneventful install and it worked. That is the sort of experience that led to Linux's success. Developers being ambivalent about BSD or GPL, but being more interested in the system that seems farther ahead. That is where the snowball effect comes from.
When setting up the parent's fingerprints they can all agree on a passcode
When adding the parent's fingerprint they can all agree on a passcode.
When entering the parent's fingerprint you can also agree on a passcode.
Imagine when the form factor shrinks so much that the machine can be implanted directly into the body.
We sort of already have such machines in a very specialized sense. The pancreas creating insulin, pituitary gland producing endorphins, the adrenal gland creating adrenaline, etc. So it shouldn't take that much imagination.
Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.
Apple already has a solution for this situation on iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition. Teach it the fingerprints of both the child and a parent.
You can teach more recent iPhone and iPads the fingerprints of both the child and parents.
More recent iPhones and iPads with fingerprint recognition effectively offer multiple passwords. Such devices can be configured to accept multiple fingerprints. You can teach the device the child's prints and the parent's.
"Linux was not initially released under the GPL [...] From the v0.12 release notes: "I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft"
Linux was delivered under the GPL since v0.99, december 1992. And what did I already say? "At the beginning this [BSD vs GPL] didn't mean any difference, but once Linux gained critical mass it was the GPL and its snowball effect all that counted."
What accounted for the snowball effect was the increasing capability of the linux environment and and the increased knowledge of its existence as a PC based *nix environment. The GPL was there coincidentally, it piggybacked and gained its own fame on the back of Linux's technical success.
"There was not great clamor for the GPL."
Probably there was no clamor either for automobiles back when Ford started his mill, but there it was. I never claimed there were a clamor for a GPL'ed OS (outside of the GNU community, should I add) but still, I say that being GPL was key factor for its explosive growth -even when most of their users didn't give a damn about the license itself.
In your analogy giving the GPL credit for Linux's success is like giving Ford's lawyers credit for Ford's success. It wasn't the lawyers, it was the engineers in both scenarios. In both scenarios the lawyers were just along for the ride and benefited greatly themselves.
"It was also not released under the GPL license. He used his own license."
Never told otherwise. But, anyway, Linux has been released under the GPL since december 1992 (v 0.99 if wikipedia doesn't lie) so its inflationary grow has obviously been under the GPL.
Coincidence. You also have a more maturing and more capable PC based *nix and a much wider awareness of this PC based *nix.
"The community wanted *nix on their PCs so badly they would have supported any viable project, regardless of license."
Are you kidding? or forgetting that 386BSD was released in 1992 from a port starting back in 1989? With also FreeBSD and commercial offers like SCO and BSDi being there? There's the fact that *BSD on 386 was more mature and had stronger commercial support by 1993 that Linux -by a long stretch, and still was Linux the one that ate the cake so no, it can't be "any viable project" because there *were* viable projects stronger and older than Linux.
And that is the timeframe where AT&T was creating FUD related to *BSD*, casting a cloud over it all.
Linux was not initially released under the GPL, it had its own license. Yet it gathered attention and support. Critical mass of interest occurred because of interest in the project and its technical goals. There was not great clamor for the GPL. From the v0.12 release notes: "I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft".
"Why contribute to a project that may well be successfully sued by one of the largest corporations in the world?"
Because, at any rate, Linus didn't want to contribute to anyone's code base but to tinker with his shinny new 80386 on the knowledge he gathered from Tanenbaum's MINIX.
I'm not referring to just Linus, I'm referring to the general developer community that wanted *nix on the PC.
And then again, he started tinkering with his new toy in 1991 while the USL v. BSDi lawsuit didn't started till 1992 and even then, Linus was 23 y.o. living in Finland and so, didn't give a damn about USA politics or laws. I challenge you to find *any* first hand reference from Torvalds saying he was worried by license/patent's problems from BSD -or that he even knew about them.
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened."
http://gondwanaland.com/meta/h...
Do you think it was per chance that Linus announced his new project on comp.os.minix and said it was "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu" and even went so far as to add "PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code" but still didn't referenced BSD -at all?
It was also not released under the GPL license. He used his own license. It gathered attention and support without the GPL initially. The GPL did not make Linux, Linux made the GPL. The community wanted *nix on their PCs so badly they would have supported any viable project, regardless of license.
You were not alone back then. My first Linux was on a 486DX2 using Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play Linux. Yggdrasil really was ahead of its time. Video, sound, it all just auto configured and worked. It was as easy as installing Windows. No of the pain and goofiness of later "more advanced" linux distros. No typing in monitor signal parameters.
The license that Linus choose is irrelevant, what is relevant is why he had to choose a license. There would have been no such choice, no Linux, if AT&T had not cast this big cloud over the *BSD source. Why contribute to a project that may well be successfully sued by one of the largest corporations in the world? One that actually invented Unix so this is not some silly patent troll case. That is the relevant fact. No lawsuit, no cloud, no barrier to *BSD contributions, no reason to start Linux, no reason to consider another license.
Once Linux was on the scene the true reason for contributing was the incredible desire for a PC based *nix. The articles of faith of the FSF embodied in the GPL have always been a far secondary issue. Then, today and in between, only a handful care about the license. What most people want is a decent *nix on their PC. Period. Linux meeting that goal far outweighs everything else. Its all about *nix, not the license.
The question about Win10 was to demonstrate the sillyness of the line: "It denies freedoms that are otherwise perfectly reasonable, and would exist were the GPL not denying them."
It demonstrates no such thing since the discussion is about FLOSS licensing, Microsoft is a straw man. Sorry your not getting that.
The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive
Of course, that's the whole point. As the BSD license shows, the extra freedom allows people to take your code, modify it, and parade it around without giving you the right to take the modifications back to your own code. The GPL takes away your freedom to do such things. That's not hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is being restrictive, which you admit, yet claiming you are "free". Restrictive != Free. Benevolence does not change this, benevolence merely justifies adopting the restrictions.
Two severe flaws in your analysis.
1. There are people and organizations who profit from BSD code and *do* contribute back. Apple does for example.
2. There are people and organizations who profit from GPL code and do *not* contribute back. Google for example. You only have to contribute back if you redistribute. Use it all you want internally, modify it, and you are free to contribute nothing back at all.
The question is: If the BSD license is superior to the GPL, why didn't Open Source really truly take off as a movement with mainstream recognition until after the Linux system and its GPL license?
Linus answered this himself. The BSD on PC projects got tied up in court by AT&T. If it were not for this fluke of history he would not have written Linux. A PC based Unix was such a compelling "want" that whatever project had the first credible implementation would have dominated. Because of AT&T that was Linux. The GPL had nothing to do with it. Linux did not benefit from the GPL, the GPL benefited from Linux.
SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
Yes, that's the consequence of the freedom given by the BSD license. It allows others to take its code, modify it, and parade it around.
You do realize the author was simply pointing out hypocrisy? Pointing out that "freedom" is receiving an Orwellian redefinition? The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive. Saying these restrictions are "good for you" doesn't change this simple fact and redefine restrictive as "free".
Windows 10 is BSD licensed, wow, I missed that news story.