Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/28/2016 10:35:26 PM

Apple stonewalled the DoJ over the San Bernardino terrorist's encrypted phone.  DoJ just said "as you wish, Apple, your security isn't any good because we found a third party that could break it."  DoJ isn't pressing Apple to decrypt it any more.  They don't need them.

Steve Jobs must be screaming at the top of his casket.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 8:26:48 AM

I have a theory about this one...   Apple didn't want to cross the line and give the Government access to crack these phones because it contradicts their position on privacy and they stood by the limits that this places on government intrusion into personal data.   Many people like the idea that the government can be limited in this way.   However, it put Apple in the position of interfering with an investigation into terrorism, and put them on the wrong side of that argument.   

I wonder if the solution was this identification of an unknown software engineer who was not an Apple employee who could show the Feds how to get in the back door.   Apple can say they didn't permit the cracking of their software, and the Feds can back off.   It was a clean solution to a messy & protracted legal battle for both sides.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 9:07:45 AM

I've had the same thought as a way out for Apple, but I kind of wish the Feds could have broken one off in TImmie Boy.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 9:42:56 AM

That surprises me.  I would have thought that you would not be in favor of the government being able to eavesdrop on personal communication like this.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 9:59:27 AM

I understand Apple's position, although I thought it quite ridiculous.  The owner of the phone was dead and no longer in need of his privacy.  He had committed a heinous crime and the government wanted to see if he was a member of a terrorist cell.   Apple could have taken the phone and did what was needed.  It didn't have to be a public spectacle.  If they just did as they had been asked, instead of making a federal case of it, no one would have ever been the wiser. 

It wouldn't surprise me if a former Apple developer didn't step in and help. 

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 10:59:02 AM

COPPERLINES comments verify what a screwed up politically correct world the U>S  is now; the man was a TERRORIST [now dead] who wanted to blow up U.S citizens--and you're concerned about his rights & privacy--UNBELIEVABLE--- bet you also work for Morris Dees

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 11:12:05 AM

My position all along has been that the government should have given the phone to Apple and Apple should have returned the phone as they received it, along with a transcript of its contents.  Apple wouldn't have to reveal their trade secrets and encryption algorithm, nor would they be seen as interfering with a terrorism investigation.  I suspect that is exactly what ended up happening and the "third party" is just a cover story, although it leaves Apple with a bit of a black eye.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Apple loses in high stakes game
Date:	3/29/2016 11:47:26 AM

Not a screwed up politically correct position at all when you consider that this sort of decision sets a precedent for future actions.   I'm always puzzled by people's position on digital privacy.... conservatives get up at arms about government intrusion into private citizen's affairs, but welcome the use of this to discover terrorists.   Liberals fear government having the ability to peer into personal data, and at the same time want to be protected from terrorists.

It seems to come down to this: if you are a conservative and a conservative government is in place, then you are OK with letting the government have this ability and somehow confident it won't be misused.   When a progressive government is elected, these same people reverse position and fear government over-reach.   The reverse is also true.    I just think we need to look at the Big Picture and look before we leap.  I also think that if  we put our minds to it, we could find common ground here between the progressive and conservative positions on security & privacy.

Whether we elect a conservative or progressive government, the State's intelligence apparatus functions pretty much the same, I figure.... 

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Copperhead
Date:	3/29/2016 5:26:08 PM

The difference between conservatives and social dimokraps is simple.  Conservatives use the gubment agents to spy on and destroy the enemy which is islamist terrorists.  Liberals (social dimokraps) uses the gubment to spy on citizens of the US so the liberals can subvert conservative activities such as Tea Party (IRS).  Do you understand the difference?