7 ms·
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's say
by vitd 10y ago
That's a lot of double-speak. They know that removing the timeout so they can try thousands of passwords per second opens up a huge security hole. What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.
- ikeboy 10y agoThe government owned the iPhone in question.
- rubyfan 10y ago"The government" is not one organization.
- ikeboy 10y agoThat doesn't seem relevant unless there's a dispute over ownership, which there isn't.
- lukifer 10y agoBut it didn't own the software, which is still patented and copyrighted by Apple, and merely licensed to end users.
- bobwaycott 10y agoSo an EULA just protected people?
- mentat 10y agoIn what sense of ownership?
- ikeboy 10y agoPublic funds purchased the phone. I'm not sure what you mean?
- Taniwha 10y agoThe phone is evidence in a police investigation, they didn't buy it, while its owners are dead surely it belongs to their hiers? or does that whole rule of law thing mean nothing
- uptown 10y agoThe phone was a work phone issued by the San Bernardino Health Department, so no - the heirs of the killers didn't assume ownership of the phone. It was always the property of the San Bernardino Health Department.
- ikeboy 10y agohttp://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-officials-have-access-to-the-terrorist-iphone/ http://ktla.com/2016/02/18/why-didnt-san-bernardino-county-o...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rubyfan 10y ago"public funds" is not a single shared bucket of loot that everyone puts into. In this case it was a county owned device. County governments are typically recognized incorporated organizations that have no real line of authority or connection with the federal government. So no, the FBI or federal doesn't have some ownership claim that makes it ok to break into. As others point out they have basically seized the device from its owner in the course of investigation.
- ikeboy 10y agoUnless the county was forced to hand it over, this is not relevant.
- ghostly_s 10y agoIf the government org in question had followed iOS deployment best-practices, they would have already had sanctioned access to this phone.
- smileysteve 10y agoWhich is a bigger flag for mismanagement. If the phone had had device management software as most major companies provision, no hack would have been necessary.
- rdtsc 10y agoWell reset it, and start downloading pictures of cats, what's the problem?