3 ms·
I'm saying the government framed it in a weird way. The court case compels Apple to act. That's clearly wrong. However, Apple is a neutral third party that hol
by phicoh 11y ago
I'm saying the government framed it in a weird way. The court case compels Apple to act. That's clearly wrong.
However, Apple is a neutral third party that holds information needed in an investigation. And there are ways to use this information securely. And the phone is clearly connected to a crime.
So it should be easy for the government to formulate a request that Apple cannot refuse under the law.
Why the FBI asked for something else, I don't know.
What Apple should do now is as soon as possible to roll out a firmware upgrade that locks them out of all phones that are currently in use. Then next time, it will be impossible for Apple to help.
- patmcc 11y ago>>However, Apple is a neutral third party that holds information needed in an investigation. No, they may have the technical ability to weaken a product they made, which may hold information needed in the investigation. They already provided the information they actually have access to (the iCloud backups). If they are indeed forced to do this, I expect the market cap of AAPL will drop significantly (billions of dollars, most likely) to reflect the weakened security of their product. Is that a reasonable thing for the government to require of a neutral third party?