3 ms·

It's impossible to provide "actual evidence" isn't it? Sure, maybe detailed log files are more convincing than a single (hypothetical) page saying "X did it". B

It's impossible to provide "actual evidence" isn't it? Sure, maybe detailed log files are more convincing than a single (hypothetical) page saying "X did it". But as far as I can tell from online discussions I've followed over the years, more details just adds possibilities to find real or imagined faults with what you're releasing. Example: Barack Obama's birth certificate. There just isn't a way to proof anything without resorting to either a trusted third party, or maybe (in the future) some application of cryptography. And the number of people or institutions enjoying widespread acceptance as trustworthy third parties is rapidly approaching zero, partly because this "don't trust anybody" shtick has become so common. Gavin de Becker is a good example here. He is, or used to be, among those who enjoy some trust, at least among his profession. Extending trust based on such a track record is somewhat valid, considering the mechanism: a lot of his value as a witness in court, or the court of public opinion, rests with the idea that his reputation is always more to him than any single case. That logic isn't bulletproof, of course. But it's valuable to also consider the cost of the fundamentalist position that nothing short of 100% scientific proof should ever be considered: the absence of trust won't motivated people to better make their case, because that's near impossible with our current means. All it will lead to is more of the current free-for-all license to define their own "facts".

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
No, it’s possible to prove way more than what is in the report. They failed to investigate many obvious things, and they misunderstood what they did look at (the data exfiltration traffic in particular, which is the only thing even approaching circumstantial evidence). Nobody is saying we need 100% solid proof, they’re saying that what is in this report is not only not 100%, but it’s not even 25%. It’s a total nothingburger. There is nothing in this report to suggest that there is even anything wrong with this phone, or that it was ever hacked by anyone, let alone MBS. > Gavin de Becker is a good example here. He is, or used to be, among those who enjoy some trust, at least among his profession. Gavin de Becker is a literal nobody when it comes to iOS security or digital forensics. This is like saying that since Warren Buffet is a trustworthy source of investment advice, it makes sense to hire him to write your firewall rules.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

No, it’s possible to prove way more than what is in the report. They failed to investigate many obvious things, and they misunderstood what they did look at (the data exfiltration traffic in particular, which is the only thing even approaching circumstantial evidence). Nobody is saying we need 100% solid proof, they’re saying that what is in this report is not only not 100%, but it’s not even 25%. It’s a total nothingburger. There is nothing in this report to suggest that there is even anything wrong with this phone, or that it was ever hacked by anyone, let alone MBS. > Gavin de Becker is a good example here. He is, or used to be, among those who enjoy some trust, at least among his profession. Gavin de Becker is a literal nobody when it comes to iOS security or digital forensics. This is like saying that since Warren Buffet is a trustworthy source of investment advice, it makes sense to hire him to write your firewall rules.