3 ms·

> What they said is that each particular case is about unlocking each particular phone. The FBI may have said that, but it doesn't really address the issues su

> What they said is that each particular case is about unlocking each particular phone. The FBI may have said that, but it doesn't really address the issues substantively and I think they said much more: Remember Apple argued that a solution they provided for one phone would be used for others, and a court decision could be precedent for other cases. The FBI disagreed; I don't remember the details of what they said, however. > these are phones that the government has every right to access if they can find a way I agree, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the FBI's apparent attempt to deceive the public and the courts.

teacup50 11y ago
You're seriously distorting the truth here, not the FBI. The FBI said Apple could maintain control over any tools they made. Apple said "oh noes, we can't ever make a master key [but don't look behind the curtain, where you'll find that we have a master key or three, which is why we can make one in the first place]" Then the FBI found an alternative solution that doesn't require Apple's assistance, making the whole damn conversation moot -- including whether they'd use Apple's hypothetical "master key" on other phones.
- ergothus 11y ago
  I feel the matter isn't "moot". Not because of whether Apple did or didn't help the FBI, and not because of whether or not a precedent was created. Apple did not make their product weaker (We don't know what hole the FBI found, but it might require physical possession of the device, and Apple could fix it tomorrow. Either way, regardless of what flaws exist now, that number wasn't increased). In addition, there was a national conversation (albeit ignored by most) about whether Apple should make their product less secure. A conversation that actually hit some details. John Oliver did a bit on it, I know several other outlets tried to convey something beyond "Terrorists Bad!/Govt Bad!". That's something I am glad that happened, and something that wouldn't have happened without the discussion you consider "moot". The answer may no longer be important, but the debate was.

teacup50 11y ago

You're seriously distorting the truth here, not the FBI. The FBI said Apple could maintain control over any tools they made. Apple said "oh noes, we can't ever make a master key [but don't look behind the curtain, where you'll find that we have a master key or three, which is why we can make one in the first place]" Then the FBI found an alternative solution that doesn't require Apple's assistance, making the whole damn conversation moot -- including whether they'd use Apple's hypothetical "master key" on other phones.

ergothus 11y ago
I feel the matter isn't "moot". Not because of whether Apple did or didn't help the FBI, and not because of whether or not a precedent was created. Apple did not make their product weaker (We don't know what hole the FBI found, but it might require physical possession of the device, and Apple could fix it tomorrow. Either way, regardless of what flaws exist now, that number wasn't increased). In addition, there was a national conversation (albeit ignored by most) about whether Apple should make their product less secure. A conversation that actually hit some details. John Oliver did a bit on it, I know several other outlets tried to convey something beyond "Terrorists Bad!/Govt Bad!". That's something I am glad that happened, and something that wouldn't have happened without the discussion you consider "moot". The answer may no longer be important, but the debate was.