3 ms·
Cellphones shouldn’t be that important, but they are. 12 years is light given that increasingly phones are identity. Imagine stealing 2 million people’s SSN inf
by newbamboo 5y ago
Cellphones shouldn’t be that important, but they are. 12 years is light given that increasingly phones are identity. Imagine stealing 2 million people’s SSN information.
- theadamp 5y agoHow do you compare unlocking a phone for someone who bough it to stealing one's personal information? They're not similar in any way.
- NullPrefix 5y agoIt's the generic "Terrorism and rape will happen if you are allowed to control your own device that you actually paid money for" FUD. And the rape part is not an exaggeration, it was actually used as an argument against the Right to Repair ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EozPi1qmH44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EozPi1qmH44 ), wouldn't be suprised to hear it in this case too.
- newbamboo 5y agoI agree. There isn’t an alternative with cellphones because of the importance they hold, legally, financially, politically. Power in your pocket; like a gun.
- newbamboo 5y agoEverything is connected. You just view things from your own perspective, not from the perspective of the phone company or the banks etc… I note you can scarcely even hope to explain the verdict. Your model doesn’t fit and so you have no ability to make sense of it.
- will4274 5y agoFrom the article: > It’s not clear from the DOJ release whether anyone besides AT&T was harmed as a result of the scheme; there’s no mention of customers’ phones being otherwise compromised or any personal data being accessed. We’ve reached out to the DOJ to clarify whether any AT&T customers were affected.