4 ms·

Nobody buys the Fed's story. It's clear that it was never about a specific phone and only about setting a precedent. Which is all well and good, but it begs th

by dcw303 11y ago

Nobody buys the Fed's story. It's clear that it was never about a specific phone and only about setting a precedent. Which is all well and good, but it begs the question why did they back out now? Public opinion was divided from the start, and it didn't change dramatically from when the story broke to when they dropped the case. They got a lot of mainstream media exposure, but I would have thought that would have been expected at the least (and probably desired). It's been reported that the other three letter agencies don't share the same view. Did Comey get too much unwanted heat? Is it just a temporary retreat to regroup and fight again another day? Something else? I can't believe that they just expected Apple to roll over.

studentrob 11y ago
> why did they back out now? We'll never know. Doesn't matter anyway. If Comey or Lynch is to be fired or forced to resign, then this situation will never be discussed. They'll never admit that they did not do their own due diligence. Lawyers argue their own side and that's it. Lynch and Comey are professionals at this. They only look dumb in this case because they don't know anything about technology. I firmly believe this is true. There's absolutely no value to the US government to seek to weaken Apple's product. Other free forms of encryption exist. If the lawyers really understood that they would never have bothered with the case. Even if the government got Apple's cooperation, there would be so much news about this that even more people would learn how to use encrypted messaging tools. It wouldn't help us defeat terrorists in the slightest and it'd cripple a major US company's primary product. The problem is there are only a few people in the White House and Congress with strong enough voices who understand technology. You have to be a maker of technology to understand this stuff. If you haven't tried to do that and have only ever been a user, there's a good chance you'll never understand it. I remember thinking if I set up WordPress or Drupal for my clients and taught them a little then they will learn to manage their own websites. Nope. In many cases, the older crowd still wanted me to make minor edits that could be done through the web interface. I'm sure you all have experienced the same. So, I think all the time and money was wasted on this because we still have people like Feinstein, who hates everything tech that she can't control, in office. We don't have enough Ted Lieu's. Amazing that CA produced these two opposing characters. Also, the CTO's primary concern is getting more women involved in computer science. She's made no comment on the encryption topic. Obama claims that he understands tech since he created a digital services team, but that's clearly false. Government needs an upgrade and we can only do that with our voices and votes.
eps 11y ago
> why did they back out now? Because it's a part of an orchestrated campaign to try and restore international trust in the US companies? Their credibility was decimated by Snowden revelations. This includes Apple who jumped into the bed with NSA as soon as Jobs was out of the way. So Feds cook up a case to challenge Apple on something crypto, scream their lungs out how they can't get in, but then bail out on technicality. The net effect - everyone now thinks Apple is a bastion of privacy and iPhones are Fort Knoxes of quality encryption. What will come next is another case with a major telco vendor (cisco, juniper, etc) that will work to the same effect. Just grab your popcorn and see.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  You're probably correct, in my opinion. Don't forget the bit where they (Apple) have been issued an NSL, so while the public is distracted by the smoke and mirrors the G-men get what they want.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Apple even said they’d have complied if the FBI had asked secretly – not publicly – like the last 27 times.
    - kabdib 11y ago
      When did Apple say that?
    - macintux 11y ago
      As best as I recall, in that paragraph they did not say they would comply, just that they would make every effort to assist. I believe the subtlety was lost on those who want to believe Apple is being hypocritical.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        The difference is still the same: Apple isn’t resisting out of good faith, but because they don’t want to risk a public precedence case.
taneq 11y ago
> Which is all well and good, but it begs the question why did they back out now? Tinfoil answer: Because one of your secret courts ruled in their favour in a way that allowed Apple to save face in public?

by dcw303 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago

> why did they back out now? We'll never know. Doesn't matter anyway. If Comey or Lynch is to be fired or forced to resign, then this situation will never be discussed. They'll never admit that they did not do their own due diligence. Lawyers argue their own side and that's it. Lynch and Comey are professionals at this. They only look dumb in this case because they don't know anything about technology. I firmly believe this is true. There's absolutely no value to the US government to seek to weaken Apple's product. Other free forms of encryption exist. If the lawyers really understood that they would never have bothered with the case. Even if the government got Apple's cooperation, there would be so much news about this that even more people would learn how to use encrypted messaging tools. It wouldn't help us defeat terrorists in the slightest and it'd cripple a major US company's primary product. The problem is there are only a few people in the White House and Congress with strong enough voices who understand technology. You have to be a maker of technology to understand this stuff. If you haven't tried to do that and have only ever been a user, there's a good chance you'll never understand it. I remember thinking if I set up WordPress or Drupal for my clients and taught them a little then they will learn to manage their own websites. Nope. In many cases, the older crowd still wanted me to make minor edits that could be done through the web interface. I'm sure you all have experienced the same. So, I think all the time and money was wasted on this because we still have people like Feinstein, who hates everything tech that she can't control, in office. We don't have enough Ted Lieu's. Amazing that CA produced these two opposing characters. Also, the CTO's primary concern is getting more women involved in computer science. She's made no comment on the encryption topic. Obama claims that he understands tech since he created a digital services team, but that's clearly false. Government needs an upgrade and we can only do that with our voices and votes.

eps 11y ago

> why did they back out now? Because it's a part of an orchestrated campaign to try and restore international trust in the US companies? Their credibility was decimated by Snowden revelations. This includes Apple who jumped into the bed with NSA as soon as Jobs was out of the way. So Feds cook up a case to challenge Apple on something crypto, scream their lungs out how they can't get in, but then bail out on technicality. The net effect - everyone now thinks Apple is a bastion of privacy and iPhones are Fort Knoxes of quality encryption. What will come next is another case with a major telco vendor (cisco, juniper, etc) that will work to the same effect. Just grab your popcorn and see.

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
You're probably correct, in my opinion. Don't forget the bit where they (Apple) have been issued an NSL, so while the public is distracted by the smoke and mirrors the G-men get what they want.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Apple even said they’d have complied if the FBI had asked secretly – not publicly – like the last 27 times.
  - kabdib 11y ago
    When did Apple say that?
  - macintux 11y ago
    As best as I recall, in that paragraph they did not say they would comply, just that they would make every effort to assist. I believe the subtlety was lost on those who want to believe Apple is being hypocritical.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      The difference is still the same: Apple isn’t resisting out of good faith, but because they don’t want to risk a public precedence case.

taneq 11y ago

> Which is all well and good, but it begs the question why did they back out now? Tinfoil answer: Because one of your secret courts ruled in their favour in a way that allowed Apple to save face in public?