NY judge is on Apple’s side,
Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety:
Apple
I have been thinking about this one for the last few weeks, so asked attorney S what his thoughts were last week. He gave me the same quote, @GMTplus7. I have to say it’s persuasive.
Apple. But not for the reason of encryption. My issue is that the govt wants to compel apple to create something that does not exist. Very different from a subpoena that compels you to turn over something in your possession. Also, some hacker groups have offered to help the FBI, which IMO (or at least how I read the AWA) the FBI should be compelled to explain why those groups can’t help.
Maybe because haking is illegal?
I think Apple should publicly fight tooth and nail and “behind the barn” hack into the phone.
Apple.
Well said @GMTplus7 and I agree.
Apple
If it is a problem for the FBI, or any other law enforcement, to use someone from a somewhat shady background to help them on a case, then there are bigger problems here. But, hacking is not necessarily illegal, just like taking money out of box is not necessarily illegal, unless its not your box.
Apple
Apple
Apple - Somebody really needs to be looking into the county. They were paying for software that could unlock their phone but never installed it!
Not Apple. I don’t see why Apple or any big corporation should be able to create and maintain a space where no government issued warrant can reach. The bad guys win because their activity occurs on a smart phone. Meanwhile, everything I do online is accessible to every two bit marketing company.
Apple.
Then get an iphone.
That’s beaurucracy for you! It reminds of a story. Feynman, a physicist involved in Manhatton project, quoted an incident in his memoir. The general who was in charge of policying the project keeping it safe and secret didn’t not change the lock setting from factory setting on his brief case or maybe it was a safe which contained the most secrets. He was getting on everyone’s back that they were not careful enough. So they hacked(?) his brief case or safe.
One thing I wondered about is whether it makes a difference that this phone was issued by the employer to this employee. If I were an employer, I am not sure I would issue iphones that could not be unlocked to my employees. Doesn’t the employee give up the expectation of privacy if using a work-issued phone?
^That employer could have unlocked in no time. Employers install software to track employees phone. This particular employer spent tax-payers’ money to buy the necessary software but didn’t bother to install it. Post #12 refers to it. For that reason alone, I doubt they would find much on this phone. They wouldn’t have used the employer issued phone to plan a secret op, I would think.
Apple. No two ways about it. The government doesn’t want to hack into one phone, it wants a program to enable it to hack into ** all ** iPhones. If I need to spell out to you why this is a bad idea, then perhaps you shouldn’t be on a college forum.