Doesn't Facebook own WhatsApp? If so all of the chats would be on their servers?
Great job Apple.
Great job Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Attorney General Asks Apple to Unlock iPhones Used by Florida Mass Shooter [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unless the government is China. It will be no problem..
They know Apple won’t unlock it. The reason they keep asking is to make Apple look like an evil company that protects terrorists. They hope it will hurt Apple and force them to change their stance.
But they’re naive because it actually makes Apple look like a company that values its users’ privacy above everything. They’re doing Apple’s privacy marketing for them.
They are indeed doing this; they updated their privacy policy this summer to that effect if I recall correctly. However, it’s important to note that there’s no reason to believe that Apple’s scanning photos directly, iCloud Photos libraries are not end-to-end encrypted; if Apple wishes to view the contents of your iCloud Photos library directly, they can do so. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to compute the necessary hashes for detection.
That said, there’s a tremendous leap between doing child exploitation image scanning with a feature which allows users to opt out at any time if they so choose and instantly weakening (read: breaking) encryption on all users’ devices with one fell swoop.
If flying in the US, TSA won't ask for permission to open your bag. They will either open lock with a key or cut it off. How all bag manufacturers must add a TSA lock in every bag they make its legal but adding a lock for you phone who will checked with a legal order isn’t? #doubleMoral
What I'd like to know is this...
Everyone loves Apple being secure and having full end to end encryption between people using Apple products, and yes, that's great.
So, why is it then, when Mark Zuccerberg says he's going to make alterations to Facebook messaging and make it end to end encrypted, so that even Facebook don't know the contents of messages, everyone is jumping up and down saying how terrible that is, and he should not be allowed to do this as people won't be able to see the bad things being sent.
Surely that's a good thing Mark is saying he's going to do isn't it?
Everyone loves Apple being secure and having full end to end encryption between people using Apple products, and yes, that's great.
So, why is it then, when Mark Zuccerberg says he's going to make alterations to Facebook messaging and make it end to end encrypted, so that even Facebook don't know the contents of messages, everyone is jumping up and down saying how terrible that is, and he should not be allowed to do this as people won't be able to see the bad things being sent.
Surely that's a good thing Mark is saying he's going to do isn't it?
It’s legal because in the U.S. people are guaranteed freedom of movement but not freedom of movement by air. If you don’t want the TSA rummaging through your bags, you’re free to use another method of transport (like driving) where the TSA’s not involved.
Also, all of the TSA master keys have been cloned and can be 3D printed, so there’s that.
It’s time to play “Let’s Make a Deal!”
Apple unlocks both phones in exchange for the current president releasing his tax returns for the last ten years.
Apple unlocks both phones in exchange for the current president releasing his tax returns for the last ten years.
Because terrorists, being fanatics, are easily brainwashed; in this case, by omnipresent product placements.
[automerge]1578955469[/automerge]
What are you talking about? I have never purchased a bag with any kind of lock on it! A lock is a device you purchase separately from a bag. Some of these locks are TSA-compliant, some aren't. You, as a consumer, have the right to use either. The caveat is, that if you have a lock that is not TSA-compliant, there is a good chance the TSA will break it, if the bag appears suspicious.
Last edited:
Sadly, Apple couldn’t unlock these iPhones even if they wanted to. This is the part that isn’t being explained well in news articles - not even here.
Barr hasn't asked Apple to program a back door into iOS, he's asked them to unlock 2 phones... I don't think Barr understands that Apple *can't* unlock the phones, even if they wanted to.
The concept of on-device encryption with no master key seems to elude a whole bunch of people.
The concept of on-device encryption with no master key seems to elude a whole bunch of people.
even with a court order it would be (mostly) meaningless. Unless you think magic wands exist.
[automerge]1578961100[/automerge]
He was an Islamist extremist. The main stream news did not want to cover it.
From the article it appears that the OP doesn’t understand that Apple couldn’t unlock these iPhones even if they wanted to. The article here suggests that Apple is choosing not to unlock the iPhones, which is misleading:
“Apple is now facing a similar battle as the company's statement last week suggests it has no plans to unlock the two iPhones and the attorney general has said that he is prepared for a fight.”
This one didn’t fit the leftist media’s narrative, so it didn’t get nearly as much coverage.
Shooting at Pensacola Navy base was 'act of terrorism,' attorney general says
Saudi pilot Mohammed Alshamrani opened fire Dec. 6 on service members at Naval Air Station Pensacola, killing three and injuring eight.
www.usatoday.com
If many Moons ago was pre Patriot act or subsequent similar laws your experience is irrelevant in today's world.
[automerge]1578963817[/automerge]
That's your takeaway? If simply unlocking an iPhone will allow the decryption and reading of messages in those apps by some hack, how is that secure?
iCloud data is on their servers which they are responsible for the contents. They have already provided this information to them. They want access to the protected data on the phone of which Apple doesn’t have they key. That’s why if you forget your password they can no longer help you. You have to wipe the phone.
The fallacy in your rant is if the wanted tools didn't exist current or future congress could enact them. PS Presidents don't write laws if you forgot.I used to harp on Obama's extremely poor record when it comes to defending our civil liberties (mostly wide-scale surveillance powers), seeing these policies as posing potential dangers down the road when, for example, wannabe totalitarian nutjobs gained control. I didn't expect it to be so soon of course, but here we are. The most common response I received was "we can trust Obama." Sure, maybe that was true, but what comes later? My point being that we should never be satisfied with a government possessing powers that could be so easily abused. I enjoy mentioning that to them now; "Hey, how do you like those powers you trusted Obama with now? Hmmm? How do you feel? Hmmm?" They rarely even bother to respond. Maybe I should stop rubbing it in. I'm probably being a bit of a jerk about it.
there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows
- Leonard Cohen
Hold firmly, Apple! 
Don't bow to Barr & the others that claim you have to give in!
Hogwash!
Thanks for having our backs on this!
Don't bow to Barr & the others that claim you have to give in!
Hogwash!
Thanks for having our backs on this!
Apple can’t, and that’s that.
Apple can be served all the court orders Barr and his fascist crew can muster, Apple can’t comply. Apple has no more ability to access/decrypt a locked iPhone than any of us do. Apple might be able to be forced to build a security backdoor in a future OS (the way the EU is trying to go) but it’s not there now.
Surprised you weren't already leery of Zuckerberg’s WhatsApp. I won’t touch it or anything else he gets his grubby little hands on.
Last edited: