3 ms·

Parent wrote (emphasis mine): > the idea that they’re randomly networking and intentionally rebooting to thwart this specific law enforcement attack seems pret

by xk_id 2y ago

Parent wrote (emphasis mine): > the idea that they’re randomly networking and intentionally rebooting to thwart this specific law enforcement attack seems pretty unlikely. So there is partial evidence for it at least.

Someone 2y ago
> So there is partial evidence for it at least. Where? If you want that to be partial evidence, you have to parse that sentence as: (they’re randomly networking and intentionally rebooting) to thwart this specific law enforcement attack which means (they’re randomly networking to thwart this specific law enforcement attack) AND (they’re intentionally rebooting to thwart this specific law enforcement attack) All you show is that they’re randomly networking, not that it’s for thwarting even any law enforcement attacks, so I don’t think what you say is partial evidence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- xk_id 2y ago
  It’s still more evidence than if we knew they don’t network AT ALL. Partial means inconclusive, but more than definitive proof to the contrary.
- NemoNobody 2y ago
  Well you could use the information that you just accepted is collected to identify which phones are in custody by the police, which phones have been stolen, lost or left without a user - that's all very easy actually considering the apple network and the number of their devices. Having a few lines of code to dictate what happens once a phone has been identified as any of the above is pretty simple stuff. I think this restart is for Apple - an easy attempt to restore the devices network connection (and the data stream from it) and has little or nothing to do with law enforcement originally but now Apple will say that's the whole entire reason this exists bc privacy. Anyways, it was absolutely relevant info to the article and considering it and more - it's obvious that Apple could have done this, or something like it, to thwart cops but is very unlikely.

by xk_id 2y ago

Someone 2y ago

> So there is partial evidence for it at least. Where? If you want that to be partial evidence, you have to parse that sentence as: (they’re randomly networking and intentionally rebooting) to thwart this specific law enforcement attack which means (they’re randomly networking to thwart this specific law enforcement attack) AND (they’re intentionally rebooting to thwart this specific law enforcement attack) All you show is that they’re randomly networking, not that it’s for thwarting even any law enforcement attacks, so I don’t think what you say is partial evidence.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xk_id 2y ago
It’s still more evidence than if we knew they don’t network AT ALL. Partial means inconclusive, but more than definitive proof to the contrary.
NemoNobody 2y ago
Well you could use the information that you just accepted is collected to identify which phones are in custody by the police, which phones have been stolen, lost or left without a user - that's all very easy actually considering the apple network and the number of their devices. Having a few lines of code to dictate what happens once a phone has been identified as any of the above is pretty simple stuff. I think this restart is for Apple - an easy attempt to restore the devices network connection (and the data stream from it) and has little or nothing to do with law enforcement originally but now Apple will say that's the whole entire reason this exists bc privacy. Anyways, it was absolutely relevant info to the article and considering it and more - it's obvious that Apple could have done this, or something like it, to thwart cops but is very unlikely.