Removing the retry limit doesn't open the phone (i.e. decrypt the target data) in and of itself. It will just mean that the attackers can make unlimited, high speed bruteforce attempts to find the user's password.Originally Posted by saturn5
If the password is weak (which is very likely in general) then they will get in quite quickly.
If the password is adequately strong then they will still never get in (not even with supercomputers trying, to quote Snowden, "one trillion guesses per second"). Perhaps surprisingly, it is quite possible and practicable for a user to use a password (perhaps better referred to as a passphrase) with enough complexity to defeat bruteforcing on this scale.
Im pretty sure Apple has the ability to design and implement software that can be installed without unlocking, using the port. The same way that the security services can do brute force password guessing without physically typing the numbers I'd guess.
There is some irony in that U2 can put an album on my phone yet law enforcement can not crack a terrorist's iPhone.
Maybe FBI should bring in The Edge and Bono for a consult.
I nearly spit coffee here...
Like Interpol uses Derek Zoolander?
M.
It turns out the phone they want to hack into was their work phone; they destroyed their personal phones. Hardly likely to be anything incriminating on something that doesn't belong to them that they didn't bother destroying.
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ngress-hearing
As observed above, this seems like a must-win case for the precedent, not because this particular phone matters much.
And I think this helps indicate why the precedent is worth fighting against. It really matters.
I wonder how Apple with deal with what is likely to be new British law soon. It seems that they would have no legal leg on which to stand if this case was being fought in the UK in the near future.
^ quite. And quite terrifying.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Much as I disagree with the court order, who are Apple to decide whether they should obey the law of the land or not?
By all means appeal and make your arguments in court and in public, but if and when all legal avenues are exhausted they really have to comply. No company can be above the law. If people don't like the law, lobby for change, but whilst it's the law of the land you can't pick and choose which ones you want to obey.
I believe Apple are doing exactly what you suggest. The process you refer to here (both sides making arguments in court) is that which is currently occurring. It is not yet complete.
At the end of it, new law will in effect have been created (i.e. case law) so it is only fair that every possible argument is tried and tested.
Last edited by markrlondon; 29th March 2016 at 18:11.
But they do want to sputter the bodies of your children against tube walls slightly less.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
That depends on the government...
Apparently Assad has killed 9 times as many people as ISIS in Syria (if you believe the media...).
And, whilst it was a while ago, both the German and Soviet governments had at least plans (and in the German case a lot more) to do exactly that!
M.
That's self-evident, and shows up the statement as being pointless without context. Unless it's supposed to refer to both the North Korean and (say) Danish governments simultaneously, in which case it's just a slogan, something sound bytey and pithy to say that works well on social media.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
i'm somewhat sceptical as to them not giving away the password. this would not only impact there sales but also there security as they could be targeted by terrorists for helping an investigation ... I think they will have given the password but will have also had an agreement to cover it up ... everyone wins that way
JAMP0T1
What password? Only the user has that. He has ten tries to get it right then the machine is wiped. Only a rewrite of the OS can fix that. Then that leaves it out in the open and no iPhone will ever be secure again.
I ought to agree with you, since I made almost word-for-word the same point in another thread recently. But I don't.
When faced with an immoral law, the only moral thing to do is to disobey it. This is by no means the easy option. Kudos to Apple for standing up to this unjust demand, at considerable expense and risk to their reputation.
The law of what exact land ?
They don't create custom versions of IOS for each country, once they create a custom IOS that enables the FBI to DFU the iPhone they can do it to any iPhone regardless of what country the phone was brought.
What the FBI are trying to do here is force the issue with Apple and set a precedence, the phone they're trying to unlock is the guys work phone, his personal phone is destroyed, they're not after the call records as they could be supplied by the telco.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote