3 ms·

Two things: 1. Why is Apple responding differently from San Bernardino? Why is Apple more willing to assist when the perpetrator isn't ISIS? 2. If Apple can r

Two things: 1. Why is Apple responding differently from San Bernardino? Why is Apple more willing to assist when the perpetrator isn't ISIS? 2. If Apple can really get into an iPhone without the user's consent, all their PR about privacy amount to lies

alwillis 9y ago
It has nothing to do with ISIS… The FBI tried to access the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone 5c but because they screwed up by trying to access the phone on a wi-fi network it hadn't ever been on, they put themselves in a position of having the iPhone erased after a certain number of incorrect password attempts. The FBI wanted Apple to create a special version of iOS they could load on the phone to bypass the auto erase feature and Apple refused. Apple didn't say they could access the Texas shooter's iPhone; only that they could possibly provide some assistance. It would depend on the model and whether or not encryption was enabled, something we currently don't know. Apple, like most tech companies, routinely works with law enforcement; we don't hear about it unless it's a mass shooting that gets nationwide attention. Bottom line: if the phone is encrypted and certain other features are enabled, there's nothing Apple can do. You can read all about it at https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
brudgers 9y ago
The question for me is why is the FBI claiming it needs access to the iPhone when it is highly unlikely to further the criminal investigation? The simplest answer is that the value of iPhone access in this case is political posturing and the tragedy is just used for cover. iPhones don't kill people...
- alwillis 9y ago
  Agreed; the FBI is clearing politicizing the issue of access to encrypted devices.

3 ms·

Two things: 1. Why is Apple responding differently from San Bernardino? Why is Apple more willing to assist when the perpetrator isn't ISIS? 2. If Apple can r

by mankash666 9y ago

alwillis 9y ago
It has nothing to do with ISIS… The FBI tried to access the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone 5c but because they screwed up by trying to access the phone on a wi-fi network it hadn't ever been on, they put themselves in a position of having the iPhone erased after a certain number of incorrect password attempts. The FBI wanted Apple to create a special version of iOS they could load on the phone to bypass the auto erase feature and Apple refused. Apple didn't say they could access the Texas shooter's iPhone; only that they could possibly provide some assistance. It would depend on the model and whether or not encryption was enabled, something we currently don't know. Apple, like most tech companies, routinely works with law enforcement; we don't hear about it unless it's a mass shooting that gets nationwide attention. Bottom line: if the phone is encrypted and certain other features are enabled, there's nothing Apple can do. You can read all about it at https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
brudgers 9y ago
The question for me is why is the FBI claiming it needs access to the iPhone when it is highly unlikely to further the criminal investigation? The simplest answer is that the value of iPhone access in this case is political posturing and the tragedy is just used for cover. iPhones don't kill people...
- alwillis 9y ago
  Agreed; the FBI is clearing politicizing the issue of access to encrypted devices.