D
Deleted User
Guest
John Mcafee will hack it for them
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/19/john-mcafee-ill-hack-san-bernardino-terrorists-iphone
Yeah good luck with that one John
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
John Mcafee will hack it for them
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/19/john-mcafee-ill-hack-san-bernardino-terrorists-iphone
Admin, Mods, and Guides are supposed to stay out of political conversations last I checked. It's been quite some time though and when I did last stray I got a pretty rapid PM abut it. So no PM then I guess you're fine. That being said...
Why the heck can't the FBI do it themselves? Do they not have tech support?
Should the Government be allowed to tell corporations that security should be hackable by them? While I am no fan of the Apple I do commend them and their stance on the issue. They have told the FBI they will not assist in such behavior. I commend them as they are telling the Government OUR Clients come first.
True! Think about red-light cameras, and all the complaints against them. Cities are doing that to make money (and hopefully to make roads safer) - yet, people complain - the folks that jump red lights and are ticketed. I don't get how that complaint/case makes it anywhere, yet it results in these cameras being taken down.There is a book called three felonies a day. Apparently everyone commits multiple felonies per day without realizing. Selective enforcement would be an issue.
This is the crux of the matter. How much privacy are we willing to give up to, not ensure, but give law enforcement a better chance of ensuring our safety?I heard a call in person say: Why not have Apple open this one phone and give it to the FBI ( reasonable cause ) But not give them the secret to opening all Apples ( New Techno-Worm )
But what if the Terrorist left the phone as a Ruse. Open the phone and lead everyone on a wild goose chase into the belly of the beast?
And what if someone wanted to really see if Apple is an ally and sends an iphone to the FBI with real data about the next 25 Terrorist attacks on US soil all equal to or worse than 911. Would all of the privacy fanatics still say STAND UP FOR PRIVACY or let the bombs land where they may? Or what about a super hack like on Mr Robot or Live Free or Die Hard? Lot's of stories about that type of terrorism these days. The head of Homeland Security last week on 60 mins said exactly that: " not worried about the bombs and bullets but the possibility that once inside your house anything is possible.
Just saying......
From what I've read, experts say it would only take Apple an afternoon at most to get into the phone. They're not claiming they CAN'T do it, just that they WON'T.
I have mixed feelings about this. The knee jerk reaction is to say "hell, no, Apple, don't cave in". On the other hand, why should a phone be special? The government can get a warrant to go through and take anything in your house, your computer, phone and internet records, etc. So why not the phone? If this is the one thing that becomes known to be inaccessible by the authorities will the pedophiles just keep all of their kiddie porn on their iPhones? Terrorists will have a safe place to plot their atrocities without using the dark web or encrypted IM apps. Apple will eventually do what the government wants, either voluntarily or otherwise. As much as I value privacy, I just don't see a rational argument why a phone should be excluded from a search warrant.
Let's put some perspective on this... as I said in post #2, whether "the authorities" - cops, 3-letter government agencies, whoever - can be granted access to your phone has been answered dozens of times already. YES. That's a given. It's not a question of privacy anymore.
The only thing that makes this case different is that the FBI says they need Apple's help to gain access that has already been approved. So, it is a question of Apple's right to refuse, IMO to maintain a reputation for security. Protests by Apple that they're protecting users are bogus.
The more I think about it, the more I think Apple must comply with the law and help protect lives. That's more important than protecting their reputation.
The trick, I believe, is that the method proposed by the FBI would inherently work on every other Apple device. As I understand it, there's not a way to build the hacked software package in such a way that it could only be used on the device in this case. Once that door is open, it can't be closed.Anyway, very very very slippery slope to open all phones, that must simply be removed from the options.
Lets keep this out of PCA. Both parties have agreed across multiple administrations that the public good is not served by vetting a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Not an opinion, a fact....the Court has a vacancy the republicans refuse to fill...
Umm, no, that is not a fact. Reagan had his confirmed. But I'll leave it at that.Lets keep this out of PCA. Both parties have agreed across multiple administrations that the public good is not served by vetting a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Not an opinion, a fact.