FBI asks for delay as someone new has an unlock method....

[MartyStickle]

Why am I not surprised. Can't believe this hasn't happened before..

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/2...ock-method

[The Grim Ninja]

"Uh, sir.. the Precedent-Setting case against Apple isn't going so well..."

"Call it off, we'll try again against Microsoft [Or Google, or Amazon, etc.] next month."

[GGD]

The Grim Ninja wrote:
"Uh, sir.. the Precedent-Setting case against Apple isn't going so well..."

"Call it off, we'll try again against Microsoft [Or Google, or Amazon, etc.] next month."

Seems like material for a Hitler video caption.

[deckeda]

Yeah they don't want the court to set a precedent NOT to allow this sort of thing, so sensing it wasn't gonna fly now want to abandon it.

from NPR interview of Richard Clarke wrote:
GREENE: So if you were still inside the government right now as a counterterrorism official, could you have seen yourself being more sympathetic with the FBI in doing everything for you that it can to crack this case?

CLARKE: No, David. If I were in the job now, I would have simply told the FBI to call Fort Meade, the headquarters of the National Security Agency, and NSA would have solved this problem for them. They're not as interested in solving the problem as they are in getting a legal precedent.

GREENE: Wow, that sounds like quite a charge. You're suggesting they could have just gone to the NSA to crack this iPhone but they're presenting this case because they want to set a precedent to be able to do it in the future?

CLARKE: Every expert I know believes that NSA could crack this phone. They want the precedent that the government can compel a computer device manufacturer to allow the government in.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/...larke-says

I mean, seriously! This has been in the news for how long? and they "just found someone" who might be able to get in? Gimme a break.

[deckeda]

Don't have a link but I know the Paris attacks were also held up as a reason for gov't. to see into any phone.

One problem, those phones weren't actually secured at all: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/...ncryption/

[freeradical]

Thanks Obama!

[Article Accelerator]

MartyStickle wrote: …someone new has an unlock method

Someone claims to have an unlock method.

It's all about saving face…

[mikebw]

deckeda wrote:
Yeah they don't want the court to set a precedent NOT to allow this sort of thing, so sensing it wasn't gonna fly now want to abandon it.

I was actually thinking if the opposite could be true- that this could be damage control for Apple. Assume they lost in court then they would publicly be forced to create this code, betraying the trust of their customers, not to mention having the precedent set for all future cases. But if they were to secretly offer a solution to the FBI (perhaps posing as an unrelated third party) then the FBI would no longer need to pursue Apple in public, and both entities come out on top.

[freeradical]

[Black]

mikebw wrote:
[quote=deckeda]
Yeah they don't want the court to set a precedent NOT to allow this sort of thing, so sensing it wasn't gonna fly now want to abandon it.

I was actually thinking if the opposite could be true- that this could be damage control for Apple. Assume they lost in court then they would publicly be forced to create this code, betraying the trust of their customers, not to mention having the precedent set for all future cases. But if they were to secretly offer a solution to the FBI (perhaps posing as an unrelated third party) then the FBI would no longer need to pursue Apple in public, and both entities come out on top.
So their solution would be to give the public the idea that security can be bypassed in recent iOS's? I don't see how that's "coming out on top."