Glory Days;1782693 wrote:Yeah, its a system thing that they can upload from their computer onto that single phone direct via a cable, not some over the air update. you are telling me Apple does not have that capability in their lab?

sleeper;1782724 wrote:They may be able to do it for just one phone but the reality is once they do it for this phone then they will be asked to do it on more phones as needed. Then you bring up the vulnerability that hackers know it can be done and will start looking to see how Apple did it and replicate it.

The current way it is designed makes it very hard to hack. Apple should continue to dig in its heels.

Rotinaj;1782708 wrote:I wonder why you don't recall it being much of a problem......

Glory Days;1782875 wrote:how would hackers ever find out that code if that one phone, or any phone Apple assist the FBI with in the future, stays in evidence or even in Apple custody. Its next to impossible unless they physically break into an FBI evidence room or Apple lab like some mission impossible heist. AND if that is possible where they could recreate the code, couldn't hackers just write their own code right now to circumvent the password requirement?

Glory Days;1782880 wrote:
Pew Poll:
51% support unlocking the phone
38% says Apple should not
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/apple-fbi-poll-should-apple-unlock-san-bernardino-terrorists-iphone/

Glory Days;1782880 wrote:Bill Gates says Apple should unlock the San Bernardino iPhone
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/22/11096888/bill-gates-apple-fbi-iphone

Update 9:40am ET: Bill Gates stated on Bloomberg TV this morning that reports about his supporting the FBI's fight against Apple were misrepresented, saying "that doesn't state my view on this."

raiderbuck;1782900 wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-seeks-to-force-apple-to-extract-data-from-about-12-other-iphones-1456202213

If anyone has a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, this was posted today. Sounds like the Feds want access to more than one phone. So much for "just this one phone" defense. Are all of these a matter of national security? I doubt it.

SportsAndLady;1782928 wrote:Actually that last one was one of belly's bests lol

Laley23;1782921 wrote:Belly man, I love your posts, but Jesus I haven't been able to decided a damn one in over a month. Lol

Heretic;1782930 wrote:Yeah, I got that one!!!!!!

To paraphrase/translate for you, Laley: "If the feds can't get through Hillary's emails that potentially/probably involve a national security breach and do something about that, why should a company bend over backwards to comply with them for reasons that may or may not wind up untrustworthy? GFY, FBI, GFY."

sleeper;1782895 wrote:Because eventually, once the tool is created, someone will ask for it with the intention of copying it and sending out on the black market for the highest price. Security is a one time mistake and losing the trust of your customers can cost billions. Apple is not in the business of creating white hat tools for the government.

In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA requires a "telecommunications carrier," as defined by the CALEA statute, to ensure that equipment, facilities, or services that allow a customer or subscriber to "originate, terminate, or direct communications," enable law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. CALEA is intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design and modify their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities as communications network technologies evolve. Communications services utilizing Circuit Mode equipment and facilities, and communications services utilizing packet mode are all subject to CALEA. In May 2006, the FCC issued a Second Report and Order also requiring facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to come into compliance with CALEA obligations no later than May 14, 2007.

sherm03;1782911 wrote:No he didn't. They misconstrued his words. Check the update in the same article you posted:

raiderbuck;1782900 wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-seeks-to-force-apple-to-extract-data-from-about-12-other-iphones-1456202213

If anyone has a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, this was posted today. Sounds like the Feds want access to more than one phone. So much for "just this one phone" defense. Are all of these a matter of national security? I doubt it.

Belly35;1782912 wrote:The Feds screwing around with Hillary e mail for national security breach and can't /won't do jack about that issue but want Apple to provide software to them for the reason of????? Eat shit Feds... you can be trusted nor can you protect the American population ..