3 ms·
"The high profile court battle ultimately ended after the FBI paid a third party company to gain access to the device via an exploit in the security system." W
by bdamm 10y ago
"The high profile court battle ultimately ended after the FBI paid a third party company to gain access to the device via an exploit in the security system."
Why isn't this an acceptable solution?
- neuland 10y agoIt cost a lot of money, basically (AFAIK on the order of a million dollars to Celebrite). One funny outcome of the San Bernardino iPhone cracking debate was the Government double speak: To Apple ... > We only want to force you to build a custom iOS so we can get into this iPhone. To DA's across the country ... > Send us all your iPhones for ... reasons. But comedy aside, they really do care about the cost / time of un-encrypting things. They're position seems to be that anything outside of your brain (5th amendment and all) should be available with a court order in a reasonable time and at reasonable cost. I don't agree with that, because manufacturers should be able to produce whatever software they damn well please. But, they have a logical position if you look from the right angle.
- mlindner 10y ago> They're position seems to be that anything outside of your brain (5th amendment and all) should be available with a court order in a reasonable time and at reasonable cost. I'm looking forward to the first court cases that deal with somebody who implanted a memory chip into their body and are storing information in it (only accessible through a wirelessly sent password) that the court wants to access. Could the court order surgery to remove it.
- panzer_wyrm 10y agoDue to the fact that stuff crosses state borders - manufacturers are able to import and sell only the devices and firmware that congress allows them.