Mark Minasi's Tech Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #46 
Husband of San Bernardino Shooting Survivor Backs Apple in FBI Battle

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/01/muslim-man-whose-wife-was-shot-in-san-bernardino-takes-apples-side-in-fbi-battle/




0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #47 
That guy made some good points.  He seems to be thinking clearly. However, I have a feeling that Apple is going to lose.  I can't believe that Apple had only one lawyer (Bruce Sewell), at the hearing. When I think back to OJ who had a team of lawyers, it doesn't make sense.
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #48 
More on Apple/FBI

http://appadvice.com/post/ed-snowden-says-fbi-doesnt-need-apple-to-unlock-the-iphone/706661

0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #49 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/10/doj-apple-farook-fbi/81598136/


The Justice Dept isn't buying Apple's response, to the court order.  There is another hearing on March 22nd.
0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #50 
The latest filing from Apple before the March 22 court hearing. The link includes a copy of the filing.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/15/apple-says-san-bernardino-iphone-case-is-unprecedented-cannot-be-decided-in-a-vacuum

Interesting that the FBI has been saying in the courts that they only want to decrypt the one iPhone used in the San Bernardino case and that Apple is blowing the whole issue out of context by saying that the FBI will use the back door in other cases. But in a recent congressional hearing, the FBI director said that "...of course..." they would leverage any precedent the courts set in this case to other cases. Which kind of sounds like Apple wasn't blowing the whole issue out of context.

0
Infradeploy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 171
Reply with quote  #51 
Giggle: http://www.wired.com/2016/03/apple-fact-checks-the-feds-in-latest-brief
__________________
Have SpaceSuit, Will Travel

0
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 913
Reply with quote  #52 
I suppose that was inevitable.

I suspect that the FBI agent was looking at an iPad v3. Not sure what the iPhone equivalent is.

Now did Apple or did Apples lawyers really need to goad the FBI or are they hunting for more fees!

Of course the FBI has rings run around them by Al Capone and they still got him.

I've still not seen a good enough reason to change my point of view. And disappointedly I've not seen the politicians engage with it yet. Although I've been swamped so maybe there has and I've not been paying attention.

__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #53 
Apple is correct that none of it would have happened if the FBI hadn't told San Bernadino County to change the backup password. No matter how Apple presents their case, they might be in a kangaroo court. The judge & the FBI director get their checks from the same source.

0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #54 
Looks like Obama put his 2 cents in about this at the SXSW conference:


Obama weighs in on Apple v. FBI: “You can’t take an absolutist view”

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/obama-weighs-in-on-apple-v-fbi-you-cant-take-an-absolutist-view/
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #55 
That quote really doesn't say anything. I hope that Tuesday's hearing will be on CSPAN & c-span.org  Then we'll see & hear everything.
0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #56 
So looks like the case is postponed. FBI may have found a third party to break the encryption:

DOJ seeks to delay Apple encryption hearing, says it may be able to unlock iPhone after all

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/21/fbi-requests-court-delay-iphone-encryption-motion-citing-new-unlock-method

Also, looks like the Senate is proposing a bill forcing access to encrypted data:

Proposed Senate bill grants courts authority to force access to encrypted data

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/21/proposed-senate-bill-grants-courts-authority-to-force-access-to-encrypted-data




0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
FBI may have found a third party to break the encryption:


Didn't 2 or 3 people here tell me that the FBI would never have a 3rd party crack the phone because "it wouldn't stand up in court"?  If you don't remember that, I'm sure the posts are still there. John McAfee was one of the people who offered to crack the phone.  I was told that they wouldn't use him either.  I'm sure that will learn who the mystery guest is sooner or later.
0
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 913
Reply with quote  #58 
I was one of those people.
And no, I don't think it will be John McAfee.


Patience is a virtue....

__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 598
Reply with quote  #59 
Quote:
I was one of those people.  And no, I don't think it will be John McAfee.


It doesn't matter who it is.  My point is that there is a 3rd party which is the way to go.
0
DennisMCSE

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #60 
Didn't believe the FBI would go the third party route because they don't win their point. If they don't get a tech company to do the decryption, then the only thing that will happen is that the FBI and Apple or another tech company will just be back in court next month or in 6 months or whenever. Like it says in the article:

"...For the FBI, a win would set valuable precedent in asserting AWA as an effective and proper judicial tool for forcing tech company compliance in digital evidence gathering operations. Such precedent would go a long way in shoring up the government's technical shortcomings when it comes to dealing with increasingly sophisticated consumer encryption systems..."

Go the third party route and the FBI, in my opinion, loses out in setting a precedent that they can use against other tech companies. And it gives other tech companies time to build a better defence next time they are in court.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.