On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:04:31 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:45:27 AM UTC-4, SeaNymph wrote:
On 3/29/2016 5:28 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/28/2016 11:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:03:07 -0500, philo wrote:




FBI never should have gone to Apple in the first place, it just made
them look dumb

That didn't make them look dumb, leaking the hack made them look dumb.
It was better when ISIS thought Apple was bullet proof.




Somehow I just can't imagine that we of the public have been made privy
to the real truth of the matter.

I agree with that. I don't think we ever heard the whole story. It all
seemed too pat for me.

none of it matters

Apple will make the next OS version more secure and make it impossible for their own engineers to crack. Apple doesn't want to be in this position again.

In that sense, Apple won becasue no leagal precident was set that can stop them from making their OS more secure, which is what they want to do.


There was never any such issue in this case to begin with. Nothing
involving what Apple can or can't do with future products was at issue.
It was about helping the FBI get into one existing phone.



Which is the right answer. There should be a limit to what a govt (any govt) can demand.


There are. Unfortunately now we don't know where that line is. But
we likely will because I expect other law enforcement, somewhere, will
bring a similar case.



What if it was a Samsung phone? Can the FBI make demands on a non US company? Can another govt make demands on Apple? Its a can of worms.


Samsung would probably have helped. And it's the job of courts to sort
out those issues.



If the FBI or NSA or KGB can crack it without Apples help, fine. Have at it. Just don't ask me to help.

I see, so you have a problem with legitimate court ordered search warrants
to access terrorist's phones? Nice.