If the recovery key is based on the password, and San Bernardino changed the password, then they've pretty much screwed themselves, haven't they? Can't they just throw the NSA and a few thousand years of computer time at the problem and brute force it?
If Apple can do it, then why can't the FBI do it themselves instead of attempting to compel someone else to do their work for them without compensation? Effectively the FBI is saying, "If you implement unbreakable encryption, we will compel you to break it and then punish you for not doing so, so don't you DARE implement unbreakable encryption!"
"legal mangling of concepts"? You mean like property forfeiture, which is based on the legal principle that the property itself has committed a crime and therefore must be arrested, but that as a non-person it has no legal right to defense? Seems like there is ample precedent for law enforcement just making ridiculous shit up to justify them doing whatever they want.
If writing the software is possible, then the FBI can do it themselves. If it isn't possible, then how can the FBI punish Apple for not achieving the impossible? That's the concern nobody is talking about: can the government hold you in contempt for not doing something you are incapable of doing? I get that Apple is fighting the good fight and trying to set a precedent that the government can't force them to neuter their own user privacy protection scheme. But wouldn't it be easier to just argue that the government must first prove that what they're asking for is possible before demanding that they produce it? Wouldn't a better plan of action by the government be to just ask for any access to trade secrets necessary for them to do the work of breaking encryption themselves? Setting a precedent that law enforcement can just demand that other people do their job for them would be a very bad precedent indeed!
After I already ordered an Amazon Echo... so now there is nothing stopping the NSA from listening to everything said in my house? Man, they are really going to be bored!
The "Happiness Hero" is the woman that makes sure all the corporate paid massages have happy endings... a little hard on the knees, but it's a well-compensated position!
There is a 3rd purpose for prison: to protect other people from harm. Pedophiles don't go to prison for punishment or rehabilitation, they go to prison to prevent them from diddling any more kids. Since their chances of true rehabilitation are rather low, they probably should be physically prevented from reoffending for as long as there is any non-zero probability of them doing so; for most of them, I would assume that means for life.
It's no a question of punishment. It's a question of whether potential new victims have the right to be forewarned about people that have demonstrated harmful behavior in the past which they are likely to repeat in the future. The only part open to debate is how likely they are to reoffend, but as long as the probability is non-zero, I believe potential future victims have a right to know. The problem is actually one of classification; everyone from baby rapers to people who had sex with their girlfriend a day before her 18th birthday go on the same list, if if the later guy later married his girlfriend, he is still considered a "sex offender"! We need much more subtle classifications, and people who no longer pose any danger to society should not have to register.
I'd take it one step farther: If it is possible to write this code, and the NSA hasn't already done it, then there are a bunch of geeks out there that aren't doing their job!!! Personally, I think the whole issue is a disinformation campaign to convince criminals their data is safe, when in reality remote access backdoors have already been put in place.
I beleive "no reasonable person" would be a True Scotsman fallacy. As a libertarian, I believe businesses do have a right to choose their customers. Should I be able to sue the All Star Cheer team that kicked my daughter out for discrimination, or does the owner of the for-profit company have a right to pick and choose his customers? (This is an actual case, the owner of StyleShock banned my daughter from his gym in retaliation for my complaints that they were discriminating against her. He actually said, "It's my gym, and I can do what I want." I think he's an asshole, but I have to agree with him -- it's his gym and he can do what he wants.)
For once an Anonymous Coward making a valid point! When did saying "You're a loser!" come to be considered a better debating rebuttal than "Could you please cite a source for your clams?" (And yes, I was inviting people to call me names just to be ironic.)
No, only worried until the last irrational Republican dies out, which HOPEFULLY will occur before the end of my life! I'm assuming there are still some Republicans that are capable of rational discourse, I just can't figure out why I haven't heard from any of them since Obama got elected.
Slashdot Mirror
If the recovery key is based on the password, and San Bernardino changed the password, then they've pretty much screwed themselves, haven't they? Can't they just throw the NSA and a few thousand years of computer time at the problem and brute force it?
The want a "precedent". If they were prescient, they wouldn't have gotten themselves into this situation in the first place!
If it's so easy to do, then why doesn't somebody else do it and just go around unlocking other people's phones?
If Apple can do it, then why can't the FBI do it themselves instead of attempting to compel someone else to do their work for them without compensation? Effectively the FBI is saying, "If you implement unbreakable encryption, we will compel you to break it and then punish you for not doing so, so don't you DARE implement unbreakable encryption!"
"legal mangling of concepts"? You mean like property forfeiture, which is based on the legal principle that the property itself has committed a crime and therefore must be arrested, but that as a non-person it has no legal right to defense? Seems like there is ample precedent for law enforcement just making ridiculous shit up to justify them doing whatever they want.
If writing the software is possible, then the FBI can do it themselves. If it isn't possible, then how can the FBI punish Apple for not achieving the impossible? That's the concern nobody is talking about: can the government hold you in contempt for not doing something you are incapable of doing? I get that Apple is fighting the good fight and trying to set a precedent that the government can't force them to neuter their own user privacy protection scheme. But wouldn't it be easier to just argue that the government must first prove that what they're asking for is possible before demanding that they produce it? Wouldn't a better plan of action by the government be to just ask for any access to trade secrets necessary for them to do the work of breaking encryption themselves? Setting a precedent that law enforcement can just demand that other people do their job for them would be a very bad precedent indeed!
After I already ordered an Amazon Echo... so now there is nothing stopping the NSA from listening to everything said in my house? Man, they are really going to be bored!
Third solution: flip real estate in you spare time to make up the difference.
Oops, did I say "woman"? I forgot this was San Francisco... (apparently they need more than one Happiness Hero).
The "Happiness Hero" is the woman that makes sure all the corporate paid massages have happy endings... a little hard on the knees, but it's a well-compensated position!
Hey, as long as they are WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES, that's the important thing! So what if they diddle a few little boys...
There is a 3rd purpose for prison: to protect other people from harm. Pedophiles don't go to prison for punishment or rehabilitation, they go to prison to prevent them from diddling any more kids. Since their chances of true rehabilitation are rather low, they probably should be physically prevented from reoffending for as long as there is any non-zero probability of them doing so; for most of them, I would assume that means for life.
It's no a question of punishment. It's a question of whether potential new victims have the right to be forewarned about people that have demonstrated harmful behavior in the past which they are likely to repeat in the future. The only part open to debate is how likely they are to reoffend, but as long as the probability is non-zero, I believe potential future victims have a right to know. The problem is actually one of classification; everyone from baby rapers to people who had sex with their girlfriend a day before her 18th birthday go on the same list, if if the later guy later married his girlfriend, he is still considered a "sex offender"! We need much more subtle classifications, and people who no longer pose any danger to society should not have to register.
In his defense, the bitch was ASKING FOR IT!!!
Seriously, 13? I've know 30 year old Japanese girls that still looked 12... I'm moving to Japan!
Which is why none of his companies employ any non-Americans!
Oh, wait...
I'd take it one step farther: If it is possible to write this code, and the NSA hasn't already done it, then there are a bunch of geeks out there that aren't doing their job!!! Personally, I think the whole issue is a disinformation campaign to convince criminals their data is safe, when in reality remote access backdoors have already been put in place.
I beleive "no reasonable person" would be a True Scotsman fallacy. As a libertarian, I believe businesses do have a right to choose their customers. Should I be able to sue the All Star Cheer team that kicked my daughter out for discrimination, or does the owner of the for-profit company have a right to pick and choose his customers? (This is an actual case, the owner of StyleShock banned my daughter from his gym in retaliation for my complaints that they were discriminating against her. He actually said, "It's my gym, and I can do what I want." I think he's an asshole, but I have to agree with him -- it's his gym and he can do what he wants.)
Sounds perfectly rational to me. Their response to people pointing out that they are doing unlawful surveillance is to make it retroactively legal!
There's absolutely no way this power could possibly be abused, say by politicians looking to dig up dirt on their opponents during elections...
Big Blothel is watching you!
Why pay people to do the same things that you can force your customers to do -- like beta testing!
For once an Anonymous Coward making a valid point! When did saying "You're a loser!" come to be considered a better debating rebuttal than "Could you please cite a source for your clams?" (And yes, I was inviting people to call me names just to be ironic.)
What, Republicans doing "dirty tricks"?!? That's never happened before!!!
No, only worried until the last irrational Republican dies out, which HOPEFULLY will occur before the end of my life! I'm assuming there are still some Republicans that are capable of rational discourse, I just can't figure out why I haven't heard from any of them since Obama got elected.