vectorjohn

7 ms·

61.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
That would be impossible. The code must be signed, so it cannot be tampered with. That's why they need Apple's help.
62.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The gasoline dwarfs the initial car manufacturer, as far as environmentalism goes.
63.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
And if they lost the knowledge of English grammar.
64.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
People are not the limiting factor on number of tanks. See: the rest of the military. This is an implausible scenario.
65.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
But when anyone brings up that if Apple were to do it they could make a version that doesn't have the possibility of hacking anyone's phone, people seem to think that isn't possible. Clearly it is.
66.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
It's a temperature range. You see there four integers.
67.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
How is it different than getting a phone company to install a wire tap? What you describe is not what's being asked for. What the FBI wants is a tool to get into this phone. They will definitely want to get into more phones in the futu
68.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The thing is, Apple made a phone with a backdoor. It has a backdoor already. Unlocked by apples software signing keys. If Apple wants to continue to do that, but wants to mostly respect their customers' privacy, they need to create a f
69.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
All I've seen is people asserting there is a slippery slope, or that a dangerous precedent will be set. It's on you, not me, to make a case. And you completely missed the point, which is that it's possible for smart well info
70.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
People always bring up the idea that they didn't have this capability until recently as if that bolsters your position. Since criminals didn't have this capability 15 years ago they couldn't use it to hide criminal activity
71.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Let's not play dumb. If we (me included) get our way and have perfect digital security, it WILL make it harder or impossible for law enforcement to do proper police work. Criminals will be able to do all business and communication with
72.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Or, gasp, not every person, even really well informed people, agrees with you. Not everyone sees this as a slippery slope. Not everyone thinks the FBI could later argue this is the same thing as built-in backdoors in software. Maybe we don&
73.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
> it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too. This sounds like a misunderstanding. No clever third parties are going to find a way to break code signing. To exploit the security hole
74.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
A condescending attitude won't go far though. Not everyone will agree with you, even if you use itty bitty words they can understand. I understand the issue, even when explained in grown up words. And I don't agree. In this case,
75.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Yes, Apple does have a "thing". And the thing is the signing certificates. The fact that some work is involved in using the thing makes no difference. Every demand requires some work. The fact that they're being asked to do t
76.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. As in, Apple can't make this ch
77.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
The master key they have is the ability to sign firmware updates for all phones that could disable security. The point is, it isn't a new master key. If the key was somehow lost, Apple phones would be vulnerable, just like in the dysto
78.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
That does seem to be the argument. It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to assume this sets any sort of precedent. And it should be pointed out that point A never existed. Apple's device is not fully secure, or they w
79.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious change
80.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.
81.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Which doesn't change regardless of the outcome of this FBI case.
82.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Nothing, but that would be terrible. We WANT Apple to do it because they could ensure the software is device locked.
83.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
What Apple should have done is quietly comply and NOT set a precedent. Then quietly make it impossible to comply on later phones. Instead they're making a scene about an issue they probably will and should lose.
84.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a pi
85.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after
86.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Hmm, that seems untrue. Is this the first case where an agency had to get some assistance from a third party to execute a warrant? Like, getting access to a storage unit, or getting access to documents? In the case of a locked door, don&#x2
87.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
From a PR perspective, sure. They don't want to look bad. Their reputation should already be damaged though, to anybody paying attention. Because they clearly made a piece of software with a backdoor. I don't put much weight in th
88.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
> You're contradicting yourself. No, you appear to be purposely taking my words out of context. I said the government should not be trusted with a carte blanch skeleton key to access any phone. Then you said I'm trusting the go
89.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Yes they can. And that's how it should be in my opinion. Every time a company is demanded to hand over documents or information about an investigation, that is what happened. A company was ordered to do involuntary work. And it's
90.
by vectorjohn 11y ago
I don't know what you mean... but it's pseudocode for what the FBI asked Apple to do. It's a backdoor that only applies to a single device. Since it must by signed by Apple, it can't itself be backdoored by the FBI or a

More ›