4 ms·

I think you're reading this completely wrong. The FBI asked for access, Apple said no (because they knew the case was about precedent rather than capabilities)

I think you're reading this completely wrong. The FBI asked for access, Apple said no (because they knew the case was about precedent rather than capabilities). Apple knows the older phones had vulnerabilities (see this faux-apple computer - https://youtu.be/zsjZ2r9Ygzw?t=15m50s https://youtu.be/zsjZ2r9Ygzw?t=15m50s commercial). This is the follow-up from Apple saying "oh, you needed our help to crack it huh? How did you suddenly find a way to do it on your own without us as soon as you realized public perception wasn't proceeding as you hoped? EFF seems to think that the FBI is legally required to disclose the method (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-we-have-some-questions https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-...) due to their VEP process.

altern8tif 11y ago
The VEP seems to be policy rather than legislation. Meaning that there is no legal obligation for the US Government to abide by it. If anything, the question is whether the US Government is morally obliged to reveal the vulnerability, given that the risk of not doing so is much higher than the value the government gets from exploiting it as a tool against terrorism. That, I believe, is the EFF's strategy – getting public support and appealing to the government's moral obligation to protect its people.
- kra34 11y ago
  So the same company that didn't want to help investigate somebody who killed 14 people because of privacy concerns believes the government has a moral obligation to help them debug their software / hardware platforms. Yup, that makes sense.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    You seem to think holding both positions is incoherent, but I have no idea why.
freyr 11y ago
> I think you're reading this completely wrong. It may be the wrong opinion, but it's the popular opinion among many people I've spoken to. Namely, they think Apple has egg on its face and isn't as good at security as they claimed to be. Right and wrong don't always matter in the court of public opinion.

altern8tif 11y ago

The VEP seems to be policy rather than legislation. Meaning that there is no legal obligation for the US Government to abide by it. If anything, the question is whether the US Government is morally obliged to reveal the vulnerability, given that the risk of not doing so is much higher than the value the government gets from exploiting it as a tool against terrorism. That, I believe, is the EFF's strategy – getting public support and appealing to the government's moral obligation to protect its people.

kra34 11y ago
So the same company that didn't want to help investigate somebody who killed 14 people because of privacy concerns believes the government has a moral obligation to help them debug their software / hardware platforms. Yup, that makes sense.
- icebraining 11y ago
  You seem to think holding both positions is incoherent, but I have no idea why.

freyr 11y ago

> I think you're reading this completely wrong. It may be the wrong opinion, but it's the popular opinion among many people I've spoken to. Namely, they think Apple has egg on its face and isn't as good at security as they claimed to be. Right and wrong don't always matter in the court of public opinion.