5 ms·
I think the general implication that's being suggested is that the FBI is all too happy to not know the details. It sets a dangerous precedent where these sorts
by williamscales 11y ago
I think the general implication that's being suggested is that the FBI is all too happy to not know the details. It sets a dangerous precedent where these sorts of things are routed through contractors so that safeguards like the VEP are bypassed.
- equalarrow 11y agoExactly. The 3rd party will hold this method (until patched some day in the future possibly) and they FBI will keep coming back, paying an initial seed round equivalent for possibly no usable data, claiming the same 'defense'. This just shows typical contempt for the public in general. Why should we be surprised?
- themartorana 11y agoIs there any sort of path to holding the FBI responsible for aiding and abetting a criminal organization, or even working with domestic terrorists? I imagine that's what I'd be labeled by the FBI if I hacked someone's phone (or many peoples' phones) with this exploit.
- roywiggins 11y agoThe only phone we know has been hacked by this method is in the FBI's hands: they have a warrant. It's possible the contractor in question is a gray-hat hacker who really hasn't ever performed the hack on any phones they don't own, which makes everything they've done perfectly legal.