3 ms·
I hadn't really looked at the details, because the fundamental question of "Can the courts compel work/backdoors from Apple?" is much more important IMO, but th
by stordoff 11y ago
I hadn't really looked at the details, because the fundamental question of "Can the courts compel work/backdoors from Apple?" is much more important IMO, but this really makes it feel like a fishing exercise from the FBI. Though possible, the chance that the attackers used an employer-owned phone to discuss/plan/coordinate the attackers seems rather remote if they a) had personal phones, and b) took the time to destroy them.
- blazespin 11y agoIt's not a fishing exercise at all. It's a "let's prove that we can create a backdoor for further use" exercise.
- crimsoneer 11y agoIt's going to be a brave ass FBI agent who says "well, we didn't bother to try to access this phone because he probably didn't use it".