3 ms·

I was originally wholly on the side of Apple since I place an exceedingly high value on privacy and against government intrusion. But now that I understand that

by pbreit 11y ago

I was originally wholly on the side of Apple since I place an exceedingly high value on privacy and against government intrusion. But now that I understand that the phone is the county's, it seems more like a case of a phone owner just wanting to recover their own data. Thanks for the downvote, though!

fleshweasel 11y ago
They were eventually able to get into the phone without the backdoor. The shooter's employer was able to change the iCloud password on it because they issued the phone in the first place. The FBI initially wanted to get in by having Apple build a backdoor that could be used to defeat the security on ANY iPhone-- that's the bad thing, and it's still a bad thing. And re: "thanks for the downvote"-- stop digging when you're in a hole.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
avdempsey 11y ago
Sure, as far as the FBI getting this being reasonable I don't think we need to go much further than the user being a butcher of humans. But there's no way for Apple to comply with this order without putting everyone else in danger either through the exploit leaking (and what an incentive to steal that exploit there would be!) or the legal precedent leading to our government (or others!) asking for more.
spinlock 11y ago
I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with security, not ownership. Apple complying with the government makes everyone less secure. We aren't as worried about judicial over reach as we are with creating tools that will be used to commit crimes. Good security will keep out anyone that does not know the secret. That includes "owners." The concept of ownership is irrelevant to the design of a secure system.
- thrownear 11y ago
  >I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with security, not ownership. I made this post last day [1]. It received 3 votes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716
  - spinlock 11y ago
    Please don't get discouraged. People might have misunderstood what you meant. There's also the problem with asking other people to spend their time and money on your request. If you want this to happen, you should provide a proof of concept and get people excited about buying it. If you develop a market, others will implement your solution.
soneil 11y ago
Wanting to recover the data, I don't think anyone actually has a problem with - not even Apple, if I read the letter correctly. It's wanting to force Apple to create a tool we'd rather didn't exist. If you or I asked Apple to recover data from our phones, they'd just act sympathetic until we went away. Perhaps walk you through some of the backup options.

by pbreit 11y ago

fleshweasel 11y ago

They were eventually able to get into the phone without the backdoor. The shooter's employer was able to change the iCloud password on it because they issued the phone in the first place. The FBI initially wanted to get in by having Apple build a backdoor that could be used to defeat the security on ANY iPhone-- that's the bad thing, and it's still a bad thing. And re: "thanks for the downvote"-- stop digging when you're in a hole.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

avdempsey 11y ago

Sure, as far as the FBI getting this being reasonable I don't think we need to go much further than the user being a butcher of humans. But there's no way for Apple to comply with this order without putting everyone else in danger either through the exploit leaking (and what an incentive to steal that exploit there would be!) or the legal precedent leading to our government (or others!) asking for more.

spinlock 11y ago

I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with security, not ownership. Apple complying with the government makes everyone less secure. We aren't as worried about judicial over reach as we are with creating tools that will be used to commit crimes. Good security will keep out anyone that does not know the secret. That includes "owners." The concept of ownership is irrelevant to the design of a secure system.

thrownear 11y ago
>I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with security, not ownership. I made this post last day [1]. It received 3 votes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716
- spinlock 11y ago
  Please don't get discouraged. People might have misunderstood what you meant. There's also the problem with asking other people to spend their time and money on your request. If you want this to happen, you should provide a proof of concept and get people excited about buying it. If you develop a market, others will implement your solution.

soneil 11y ago

Wanting to recover the data, I don't think anyone actually has a problem with - not even Apple, if I read the letter correctly. It's wanting to force Apple to create a tool we'd rather didn't exist. If you or I asked Apple to recover data from our phones, they'd just act sympathetic until we went away. Perhaps walk you through some of the backup options.