Honestly, I would ask a lawyer. It seems to be a touchy situation, but, possibly, they may get around it by opening it up to all religions so that no one religion is being favored over any other. This is the meaning behind the establishment part, not being free from observance, but selecting one over the other.
Page 10 of the linked document (retyped due to no copy paste)
Importantly, the SIF would be created with a unique identifier of the SUBJECT DEVICE so that the SIF would [underlined]only[underlined in text] load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE
So, no, I don't think I am misunderstanding anything. It sounds like you might be falling for the propaganda that Apple is putting out there though. The order is right there in black and white, you can read the thing for yourself.
So, since wealth doesn't trickle down, I assume you live in a cardboard box and are typing on a library computer? Wealth does trickle down, companies hire people to do work with the money they earn, they buy new equipment which employs others...
Would you rather the FBI asked for the source code and the signing key, or asked Apple to provide the patch? There seem to be many conspiracy nuts on Slashdot nowadays, so imagine what they would have said if the FBI asked for the code and keys first.
"“The request we got from the government in this case is, ‘Take this tool and put it on a hard drive, send it to the FBI,’ and they’d load it onto their computer,” "
Except, that is entirely a lie. The court order is available to be read, why would anyone believe that dribble?
The court order specifically asks for a one off keyed to a single phone, and signed with Apple's key. This isn't something that can be reverse engineered and modified, the signing certificate protects the software from being modified. They also asked them to load it on the phone, in RAM, not on any permanent storage, so it isn't like they wanted access to the actual hack.
My response to these kinds of comments is always "if you want another story on the front page, submit it". There is never a reason to complain about lack of content on a user content driven site.
VMware Fusion is a OSX only software, so moving an OEM copy of Windows (which is tied to a specific computer) to VMware Fusion, could only happen if the Fusion install was performed on an OSX install on the same computer
Agreed. The main risks from nuclear power are all the old plants that should have been decommed long ago. I wish someone would put more effort towards LFTR, as that seems to be the safest possible nuclear power solution.
You know, I'm having trouble finding where they asked Apple to "it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data", can you point to it in the order?
I see where it says they want a tool that is keyed to this specific phone, so it would be rather inconsistent to also ask for a tool to unlock any phone they like. After all, that isn't how the legal system works, they have to get permission from a judge to unlock every single phone.
Apple hardware cheaper than Windows hardware? What world do you live in?
Even used, iPhones are expensive, whereas you can get Windows phones for $30. On the project I am working to bring phones to employees, AT&T is even giving them to us for free...without contract.
OK, so how does that show in any way that Apple "2) Apple unlocked the phone data for the FBI when asked." or that the FBI "3) The FBI "lost" the password for the data that Apple had already provided in a manner that also meant Apple could not simply repeat what they did in step 2."
I see the FBI resetting the password (or having it reset, whatever) to gain access to the data, but I see nowhere that they already had the data, or that they lost any password they already had.
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them? Also, why the big fight over this one, when they are more than happy to open up iPhones in other cases?
Simple side note here - if the government had been properly managing its devices and maintaining their own backups, none of this would have mattered.
As someone who does this job for a government agency, I totally agree. It is not Apples prerogative however to deny a city, state, fed, or even company's access to their data.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I would ask a lawyer. It seems to be a touchy situation, but, possibly, they may get around it by opening it up to all religions so that no one religion is being favored over any other. This is the meaning behind the establishment part, not being free from observance, but selecting one over the other.
Page 10 of the linked document (retyped due to no copy paste)
Importantly, the SIF would be created with a unique identifier of the SUBJECT DEVICE so that the SIF would [underlined]only[underlined in text] load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE
So, no, I don't think I am misunderstanding anything. It sounds like you might be falling for the propaganda that Apple is putting out there though. The order is right there in black and white, you can read the thing for yourself.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
Yeah, because it is hard to create a robot that cooks and serves better burgers and replaces 2 out of 3 of the people in a McDonald's.
So, since wealth doesn't trickle down, I assume you live in a cardboard box and are typing on a library computer? Wealth does trickle down, companies hire people to do work with the money they earn, they buy new equipment which employs others...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not sure what you are asking, but that is the law you seem to be asking about.
How about we make murder legal, it after all dates back to at least Moses.
Using the All Writs Act doesn't get you things for free, they still would have had to pay Apple just as they pay for other things like wiretaps.
Would you rather the FBI asked for the source code and the signing key, or asked Apple to provide the patch? There seem to be many conspiracy nuts on Slashdot nowadays, so imagine what they would have said if the FBI asked for the code and keys first.
The laws against murder go all the way back to Moses, should we stop using those laws because they are sooo old?
"“The request we got from the government in this case is, ‘Take this tool and put it on a hard drive, send it to the FBI,’ and they’d load it onto their computer,” "
Except, that is entirely a lie. The court order is available to be read, why would anyone believe that dribble?
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
The court order specifically asks for a one off keyed to a single phone, and signed with Apple's key. This isn't something that can be reverse engineered and modified, the signing certificate protects the software from being modified. They also asked them to load it on the phone, in RAM, not on any permanent storage, so it isn't like they wanted access to the actual hack.
What does it matter how old the law is? Does the prohibition against murder somehow expire because the law is old?
My response to these kinds of comments is always "if you want another story on the front page, submit it". There is never a reason to complain about lack of content on a user content driven site.
The "bug" was that the key was not stored in a TPM like device. It was already corrected in the newer iPhone 6 phones.
Thank you, I was not aware of the issues.
Apparently I can read better than you.
VMware Fusion is a OSX only software, so moving an OEM copy of Windows (which is tied to a specific computer) to VMware Fusion, could only happen if the Fusion install was performed on an OSX install on the same computer
Is Amazon misusing trademarks? How would you do a trademark lawsuit against Amazon? They haven't misused the trademark in any way.
What does that have to do with his nephew signing up for an account rather than using his account?
I got TF2 with the Orange Box, that doesn't mean it isn't free now.
Agreed. The main risks from nuclear power are all the old plants that should have been decommed long ago. I wish someone would put more effort towards LFTR, as that seems to be the safest possible nuclear power solution.
Bullshit. They would have paid fair rates for the work, as they do every other time they ask for assistance from companies.
You know, I'm having trouble finding where they asked Apple to "it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data", can you point to it in the order?
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
I see where it says they want a tool that is keyed to this specific phone, so it would be rather inconsistent to also ask for a tool to unlock any phone they like. After all, that isn't how the legal system works, they have to get permission from a judge to unlock every single phone.
So, Apple helps out in other cases, but this one, this one is just not going to happen!
Seems like an odd stance to take when they have no problem doing it in many other cases.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
Apple hardware cheaper than Windows hardware? What world do you live in?
Even used, iPhones are expensive, whereas you can get Windows phones for $30. On the project I am working to bring phones to employees, AT&T is even giving them to us for free...without contract.
OK, so how does that show in any way that Apple "2) Apple unlocked the phone data for the FBI when asked." or that the FBI "3) The FBI "lost" the password for the data that Apple had already provided in a manner that also meant Apple could not simply repeat what they did in step 2."
I see the FBI resetting the password (or having it reset, whatever) to gain access to the data, but I see nowhere that they already had the data, or that they lost any password they already had.
Sadly it does.
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them? Also, why the big fight over this one, when they are more than happy to open up iPhones in other cases?
Simple side note here - if the government had been properly managing its devices and maintaining their own backups, none of this would have mattered.
As someone who does this job for a government agency, I totally agree. It is not Apples prerogative however to deny a city, state, fed, or even company's access to their data.