Apple's refusal to allow backdoor access to its iPhones

 

What do you guys think of this?

I think some non-techies have not really paid much attention to electronic privacy rights in the past. But now Apple's recent stance has increased awareness.

No matter the outcome, I'm glad to see more discussion around this topic, especially in the larger population.

2 3 4 5 ... 7
Page 1>>

~

Keeping my private things private is an essential liberty.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

The government uses cases like this to make the reason....

for needing a back door. Strong emotions bring many to the side of the FBI. I struggle but firmly believe this is but a Pandora's box. Open it once is only a fallacy. Give up privacy now and it will be much easier the next time, and the next....
We have seen what the government does to spy on us without ever informing us. Today the government is so corrupt who really knows the extent of the spying is and who gets to see the information collected.
My biggest fear is Apple is acting tough in public and will cave in behind closed doors. Unfortunately that's what I believe will happen. It will all come down to $$$.

Not a one off

This will be used every time, as it sets precedence.

The killer did not use his work device; he knew it may be unlocked. Instead, they used their personal devices, and then destroyed them with no hope of recovery. The FBI knows this. Now, they're on a fishing expedition to see what they can get.

Stay strong, Apple.

--
nüvi 3790T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

.

It's not that Apple won't "allow" a backdoor. The FBI wants Apple to CREATE a backdoor that doesn't current exist. Completely different.

You got it right

Juggernaut wrote:

...Stay strong, Apple.

Amen, brother, amen.

Phil

--
"No misfortune is so bad that whining about it won't make it worse."

Privacy

If my ability to keep my private things private exceeds the ability of the government to invade my privacy, good. That's not my problem.

Back in the day, the govt would get a court order and slap a set of alligator clips on your telephone wires. Now with encryption and all sorts of security, the FBI et al. does not have the technical capability to invade or compromise our privacy anymore.

A "back door" is an intentional access hook, and given the skill of hackers, might as well be no security. The backdoor will be found and exploited.

Weak security only keeps the honest people out.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Apple should lock them out now.

Apple is developing an iOS update to not allow the current back door which allows Apple to download a new OS without the owner's permission. They are going to close that loophole. That means if you lose your password, not even Apple can unlock the phone without a factory reset, destroying all user data.

Apple should deploy a similar fix to all possible versions of iOS, including the 5C in question. If it is powered up, it will connect and install the unlockable version. Not an intentional change against a court order, just a normal business change and upgrade.

I'm an Android user, so I'd like to know how secure the Android security is.

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

Ingsoc

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/apple-responds-to-fbi-files-m...

The article linked above speaks about Apple's latest brief, but misstates Apple's primary argument. Apple's primary argument is that the All Writs Act does not apply to this situation, in that Apple is not required to assist the government to the detriment of its own interests. The "backup" argument is that forcing Apple to create and sign adulterated software to bypass iOS protections would violate Amendments 1 and 4 of the Constitution.

In fact, while being compelled to create the software would be violation in and of itself of the 1st Amendement, the bigger issue is that Apple is being required to sign this software, thus in effect saying that they approve of this software. Apple has made it abundantly clear that they do not approve, and thus the software signature would amount to compelled speech, and would thus be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Mind you, that doesn't even get into the 4th Amendment considerations.

Some people on this thread have already mentioned the government going to the well again and again if Apple can be forced to write this software. As proof of this point, the district attorney of Manhattan has 175 iPhones he wants to get into but can't due to encryption[1]. If the FBI succeeds in its quest to backdoor a backdoor our privacy will not matter, for we will not be free men and women, but simply wards of the state.

Remember, Big Brother is watching, so all praise to Ingsoc!

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-... (warning: autoplay video)

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Android

dave817 wrote:

I'm an Android user, so I'd like to know how secure the Android security is.

@dave817: Android 6 by default encrypts the phone. It rate limits, so you cannot brute force the passcode. After every five attempts a 30-second pause is built in. Verizon builds into Android a bomb similar to what Apple does. After ten attempts, all data on the device is wiped. On the Play Store is an app named "Locker" that also does what Apple does. After a number of failed attempts as set by the device owner, Locker will automatically reboot the device into recovery mode and factory reset the phone. Bone stock Android does not have this.

After a factory reset, the only way the phone is usable again is if Google account credentials matching a Google account present on the device before the reset are entered. If the wrong credentials are entered, the phone is completely unusable for 72 hours before you can try again.

What Android should have implemented is an exponential backoff algorithm on passcode attempts. What that means is for every failed attempt the lockout time grows to the power of the number of tries.

1st try: 10 second delay
2d try: 1 minute, 40 second delay
3d try: 16 minute, 40 second delay
4th try: 2 hour, 46 minute, 40 second delay.
5th try: 1 day, 3 hour, 46 minute, 40 second delay.
6th try: 11 day, 13 hour, 46 minute, 40 second delay.
7th try: 115 day, 17 hour, 46 minute, 40 second delay.
8th try: 3.169 year delay.
9th try: The device's battery will have died long before you can make the ninth try (31.69 years).
10th try: You'll die long before you can make the tenth try (316.9 years).

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Gotta Agree With You There

diesel wrote:

<<>>
Weak security only keeps the honest people out.

Yep!

--
Shooter N32 39 W97 25 VIA 1535TM, Lexus built-in, TomTom Go

Can we say..

Can we say Pandora's box...

While i'm not an apple fan

I stand with Apple on this. The government is attempting to force Apple to violate protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

What about Android?

Anybody know why this hasn't been an issue with the Android platform?

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Maybe just maybe:

It is all a ruse to make people feel the iDevice is so secure that any would be terrorist can trust to keep any formation inside secure from government prying eyes... maybe just maybe...

--
Garmin 38 - Magellan Gold - Garmin Yellow eTrex - Nuvi 260 - Nuvi 2460LMT - Google Nexus 7 - Toyota Entune NAV

Liberty

kch50428 wrote:

Keeping my private things private is an essential liberty.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Agree. TWO thumbs up.

Box Car wrote:

I stand with Apple on this. The government is attempting to force Apple to violate protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

I too am not an Apple fan for many reasons, but their stance on this has given me a little respect for them I didn't have before.

diesel wrote:

Anybody know why this hasn't been an issue with the Android platform?

Maybe it is, but in this case specifically it is an iPhone that they want to get into. Wanting to do this to an Android hasn't come up yet?

allbizz wrote:

Can we say Pandora's box...

Give them an inch ....

.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

@diesel

If the FBI somehow wins this fight, Android will be next. However, Android does not have a ten tries bomb unless on Verizon or using the Locker app. All Android does is rate limit.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Any truth to this

I read an article that indicated in a court case in NY Apple did not dispute it has previously extracted requested data from iPhones at the request of law enforcement.

I don't want the government up in my business any more than they already are but why cooperate some of the time and take a hard stand now?

Help me to understand please

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

If the FBI somehow wins this fight, Android will be next. However, Android does not have a ten tries bomb unless on Verizon or using the Locker app. All Android does is rate limit.

Rate Limit? -- What does this mean in context to the story?

10 tries bomb? -- 10 tries if unsuccessful it erases all data on it's own?

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

As pointed out in a previous

As pointed out in a previous post, if you are an Verizon user this is a check-box option the user can select for the 10 tries and then data wipe, otherwise the 5 tries and wait 30 seconds rule applies.

I use the fingerprint swipe on the lock screen and every now and then I exceed the 5 tries and have to wait to enter a password or start swiping again.

I never for 1 second believe that any data on a phone is secure. Especially if you have downloaded apps. Heck, the Verizon apps themselves are data miners.

--
I never get lost, but I do explore new territory every now and then.

The Feds have complained for

The Feds have complained for a long time about having smart phones with encryption, they want a back door and this is deemed as a perfect reason for implementation of that plan. If this is upheld, soon all phones sold in the US will have backdoors, no matter if it is an iphone or android. Apple for now and Google is next.

Next?

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

If the FBI somehow wins this fight, Android will be next. However, Android does not have a ten tries bomb unless on Verizon or using the Locker app. All Android does is rate limit.

Could it be that the security/encryption on the Android platform is such that the FBI et al. gets in on their own?

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Yes, Sir!

Yes, Sir!

Android

diesel wrote:
Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

If the FBI somehow wins this fight, Android will be next. However, Android does not have a ten tries bomb unless on Verizon or using the Locker app. All Android does is rate limit.

Could it be that the security/encryption on the Android platform is such that the FBI et al. gets in on their own?

One o the problems with Android is that companies such as Samsung and carriers such as Verizon and ATT have access to the base code and modify it for their specific phones and services. Apple is, a closed garden in that Apple controls all aspects of the phone and software literally for cradle to grave. iOS doesn't run on any phone other than one manufactured by Apple and then not all Apple phones will run all versions.

Marshmallow, the latest Android version does have some very unique security features, but I don't know if it has the same level of security as Apple. From the ABC interview with Tim Cook, Apple stated they could have unlocked the data IF and that's a big IF the phone had been backed up to the iCloud and the access code to the phone hadn't been reset by someone while it was in the hands of law enforcement.

This entire situation is turning into a very political fight and I believe the Feds are just going to have to accept that some things are just beyond their reach. They screwed this one up and now it can't be fixed without violating the Constitution's basic rights.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

government

is this the same government that had the IRS hacked SS hacked and several other agency's hacked , the guardian's of our security
and they want to have apple give them access to secure lines because they cant !
just so the hackers can hack them to get access to apple phones , yep that sounds like our government at its best ! I wouldn't give them access to my toilet just a bunch of power mongers out of control . I wish they would go back to protecting us rather then invading our privacy !
ultimate power breads ultimate corruption !

Iphone

I too am not an apple fan but i agree they should not break into the Iphone. I also believe the lefties at abc are lying about the high percentage of American who believe Apple should break into the phone. Was it 74% in favor...bull. So far haven't seen one here who is for breaking it. Slippery slope it is indeed

Not a problem

I don't care at all...

--
GPSMAP 76CSx - nüvi 760 - nüvi 200 - GPSMAP 78S

The elephant in the room, that no one here addresses

It was not the terrorist's personal phone! The phone was his work phone, owned by San Bernardino County, to be used for official use only!
Apple/Cook are using this as a marketing ploy to up sales of "Super Secure devises". Yes, Gov. can't make them open it, but Apple could load and open this phone if it wanted. Apple is protecting Terrorists by its refusal!

Interesting Situation

You need to read the Court Order that compels Apple to create the tool that will defeat the security/encryption of the subject iPhone.

To think that the government can compel a company to be involved in such a case is fascinating.

Then look at the laws that are being relentlessly proposed (RFRA) to allow one party to violate the rights of another party if the violating party maintains s/he has a conviction of conscience (aka: religion) that they claim must be accommodated.

Perhaps Apple should invoke some sort of conscientious objector status and refuse to comply with the Court Order.

Somehow, what a person or entity can do to protect their privacy should not be limited by the ability of the government to violate that privacy.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

But in this case it is not a privacy issue

The terrorist had no right to privacy it is a Government Phone, open to freedom of information amongst other things. If he used it for personal use that was a violation of Fed and County Rules, even IRS rules if he failed to log and report personal calls.

Absolutely

diesel wrote:

You need to read the Court Order that compels Apple to create the tool that will defeat the security/encryption of the subject iPhone.

To think that the government can compel a company to be involved in such a case is fascinating.

Then look at the laws that are being relentlessly proposed (RFRA) to allow one party to violate the rights of another party if the violating party maintains s/he has a conviction of conscience (aka: religion) that they claim must be accommodated.

Perhaps Apple should invoke some sort of conscientious objector status and refuse to comply with the Court Order.

Somehow, what a person or entity can do to protect their privacy should not be limited by the ability of the government to violate that privacy.

Since corporations have been allotted some of the same rights as individuals, shouldn't they be allowed to claim religious persecution if a conviction of conscience type thing is attempted against them? (I am not actually not being serious in the persecution thing)

But, using the same type of thing as an entity (individual) shouldn't be too hard of a stretch.

Be interesting to see the twists and turns after that type of counter claim.

--
Curiosity is the acquisition of knowledge. And the death of cats.

My thoughts are mixed...

....on this one. On the one hand, I believe Apple should comply with the court order and create software that will open the phone; but, on the other hand, I am going with Apple on this one since if the government gains entrance to the iphone, then it will be just a short period of time before the work-around gets outside the FBI. At that point, it will be "Katy bar the door". The Constitution was written to protect us. Let's let it do its job.

--
With God, all things are possible. ——State motto of the Great State of Ohio

Surprised

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

If the FBI somehow wins this fight, Android will be next. However, Android does not have a ten tries bomb unless on Verizon or using the Locker app. All Android does is rate limit.

Given that Android has a much higher market share, I wonder what is going on with evidence gathering when it comes to Android phones.

Why hasn't there been any similar publicity with Android? There are 4-5 times more Android devices out there.

I'm thinking law enforcement gets into these Android devices already, without having to get a Court Order to compel Google, Samsung, LG, HTC, etc. to get into the phone.

I still find it to be interesting that a Court Order can compel Apple to do this. Apple had nothing to do with the crime.

Watching this wind its way to the Supreme Court will be fascinating.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Hmm

It seems to me the Feds could get a warent to get the messages from phone number xxx-yyy-zzzz cot phone.number aaa-Bbb-ccc for date did-mm-yyyy then have the xarriers filter through providing the results

Then if the Feds need more, we'll start the process over

Each day and source destination needs a warent

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Totally Agree

ceevee wrote:

What do you guys think of this?

I think some non-techies have not really paid much attention to electronic privacy rights in the past. But now Apple's recent stance has increased awareness.

No matter the outcome, I'm glad to see more discussion around this topic, especially in the larger population.

I totally agree with the above. There must be a way for both sides to come to agreement.

--
romanviking

In an unrelated case...

A NY judge has ruled Apple need NOT unlock a phone in a drug case...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_APPLE_ENCRYPTION_D...

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Why?

What does the Govt hope to get from the phone? They already have all the communications both to and from all devices connected to the internet, cell phone or landline.

@windwalker

Your "elephant in the room" is white. In other words, irrelevant.

13 hours ago, as of the time I write this, a federal judge in New York denied the US Government's request to open an iPhone related to a drug case in New York.[1] Like the much more public San Bernandino case, the US Government attempted to use the All Writs Act to force Apple to hack into the iPhone. The judge flat out declared that "none of those factors [in the case] justifies imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government's investigation against its will."

This ruling will affect the San Bernandino case, as in both cases, the US Government has misused the All Writs Act in order to force Apple into hacking the iPhone. But as Apple's latest motion in the San Bernandino case clearly shows, there are 1st Amendement protections Apple enjoys that would be violated by the Government's order that Apple break into the iPhone. In essence, Apple's 1st Amendment argument is that code is free speech, and the Government's order to modify iPhone code and sign it would be compelled speech, ergo not free.[2]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruli...
[2] http://www.csoonline.com/article/3038731/security/apple-vs-t...

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

.

windwalker wrote:

It was not the terrorist's personal phone! The phone was his work phone, owned by San Bernardino County, to be used for official use only!
Apple/Cook are using this as a marketing ploy to up sales of "Super Secure devises". Yes, Gov. can't make them open it, but Apple could load and open this phone if it wanted. Apple is protecting Terrorists by its refusal!

Actually, you are incorrect.

Apple is not refusing to allow the government to access information that Apple actually has access to on the device. The government is requesting/attempting to order Apple to create a means to get into the device that does not currently exist.

Yes, it was a work device. And yes, the county could have employed software that would have allowed them to get access to their fleet of devices, but they chose not to.

And goodness knows, I'm all for combating terrorism by most any means necessary.

But that's not what this case is about.

apple already win

apple already win

Yep!

Panache wrote:

What does the Govt hope to get from the phone? They already have all the communications both to and from all devices connected to the internet, cell phone or landline.

The NSA should already have the text messages, email, etc. off a server, and all the incoming and outgoing voice traffic. Might not have the content of the calls, but who the phone was called by and who the phone called should be available as normal phone records.

I read that there is an iCloud backup, just not current. Backups to the iCloud stopped a couple weeks ago. The gov is probably looking for the contacts list, and current at that.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

Privacy Protection Ability >> Privacy Invasion Ability

The bottom line is that the capability to protect privacy has gotten so good, it is difficult and even impossible to invade that privacy. Years ago, LE would slap a set of alligator clips on some wires and listen to your phone calls. It was easy. Now in order to get at similar information, technology is shielding that information, and by necessity. So much information is contained on a smartphone, it's like carrying your medical records, banking records, company secrets and proprietary information, etc. Now imagine all that info sitting out in the open with nothing to prevent anyone from seeing it. Imagine that anyone can access your smartphone, tablet, laptop, and desktop at will, any time they want. Imagine that your home is completely open, no security, and strangers come and go taking whatever they want, at will, you have no control. Imagine that all computer systems at all companies and governments are wide open, no security, and anyone can access whatever they want at any time.

Anything that effectively limits or compromises privacy, and protection of privacy, is a serious violation of fundamental privacy liberty.

Think of the harm and chaos that will happen with no security on your smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, internet, and home.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

My Sentiments Exactly!

kch50428 wrote:

Keeping my private things private is an essential liberty.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

We need our liberties now more than ever.
We have TOO MUCH government.

--
Garmin Nuvi 765T, Garmin Drive 60LM

Interesting

Jery wrote:
kch50428 wrote:

Keeping my private things private is an essential liberty.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

We need our liberties now more than ever.
We have TOO MUCH government.

The Republicans always claim there is too much Government, Government is over-reaching, overbearing, intrusive, controlling, etc. But every one of the current Republicans running for the nomination to run for President all support the FBI in this case.

Protection of our privacy is what makes us safe and secure.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

I side with Apple... As it

I side with Apple... As it has been stated.. What will thsi lead to in the future? Kinda like the snowball effect.

Me too

Motorcycle Mama wrote:

And goodness knows, I'm all for combating terrorism by most any means necessary.

But that's not what this case is about.

Mega dittos.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

"Food" for Thought.

ceevee wrote:

No matter the outcome, I'm glad to see more discussion AROUND this topic, especially in the LARGER population.

For people who may say the above situation would take "heavy" thinking, all one would have to do is "chew" into the "meat" of the subject and then "digest" it before making their final decision. wink

P.S. Wife tells me I have a weird sense of humor. rolleyes

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

This is all reactionary

All this energy, money and resources spent on a speculation, on what might be on that phone, is wasteful.

I am more concerned that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and all other spy agencies, and the billions of dollars already spent, did not see this coming. All comms are already harvested. If there was something suspicious with this phone and who it communicated with, one might think that would have raised some suspicion. So either there was nothing suspicious with the activity of this phone, or the NSA comm harvesting algorithm isn't working.

This entire debacle has made me much more committed to the principle that privacy begets security.

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

then again

diesel wrote:

All this energy, money and resources spent on a speculation, on what might be on that phone, is wasteful.

I am more concerned that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and all other spy agencies, and the billions of dollars already spent, did not see this coming. All comms are already harvested. If there was something suspicious with this phone and who it communicated with, one might think that would have raised some suspicion. So either there was nothing suspicious with the activity of this phone, or the NSA comm harvesting algorithm isn't working.

This entire debacle has made me much more committed to the principle that privacy begets security.

Then again, federal agencies do not share information with each other so the right hand truly does not know what the left is either doing or, in this case, holding. The NSA isn't going to say if they have data from this phone and to what levels they can sift through what it has received. If they can decrypt the communications and this information was leaked, their effectiveness would then be compromised as those relying on this "secure" technology would look elsewhere or develop still other technologies.

Imagine the FBI clamoring for this information and suddenly they stopped. One would almost have to assume the encryption was breached and the data was given to the FBI from another source. That would raise a big red flag that my "secure" communications was no longer so secure. This is going to have to play out in the courts and come to an end at that point. We may never know if the information was shared or even made available.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Putting the Constitution at Risk all for a Tell?

Box Car wrote:
diesel wrote:

All this energy, money and resources spent on a speculation, on what might be on that phone, is wasteful.

I am more concerned that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and all other spy agencies, and the billions of dollars already spent, did not see this coming. All comms are already harvested. If there was something suspicious with this phone and who it communicated with, one might think that would have raised some suspicion. So either there was nothing suspicious with the activity of this phone, or the NSA comm harvesting algorithm isn't working.

This entire debacle has made me much more committed to the principle that privacy begets security.

Then again, federal agencies do not share information with each other so the right hand truly does not know what the left is either doing or, in this case, holding. The NSA isn't going to say if they have data from this phone and to what levels they can sift through what it has received. If they can decrypt the communications and this information was leaked, their effectiveness would then be compromised as those relying on this "secure" technology would look elsewhere or develop still other technologies.

Imagine the FBI clamoring for this information and suddenly they stopped. One would almost have to assume the encryption was breached and the data was given to the FBI from another source. That would raise a big red flag that my "secure" communications was no longer so secure. This is going to have to play out in the courts and come to an end at that point. We may never know if the information was shared or even made available.

If the NSA, FBI, CIA et al. do indeed have the information from this phone, but proceed as they do not have this information to create the illusion that they can not invade our privacy while putting on what would be a disingenuous and fraudulent case to obtain Court Orders to trample on the fundamental liberties provided by the Constitution is rather gutsy, if not profoundly illegal and stupid.

So BOXCAR, you think this all a ruse to make the public think that the FBI et al. really can't decrypt an iPhone?

--
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is only difficult for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.

I am not a Apple user but ...

I am not a Apple user but I agree with Apple position on this issue. In the name of "Terrorism" because of its emotional impact our government has not displayed constitutional restraint in their policies regarding civil liberties.

2 3 4 5 ... 7
Page 1>>