Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
by aljones on Monday February 22, 2016 @11:40PM
(#11156606)
but it wasn't a brute force attack those 70 times so how is it the same thing?
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
by timr on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:32AM
(#11157220)
This is also a brute force attack. The terrorist had a four-digit passcode. They're going to try 0000-9999 and find the one that works. They just need Apple to disable the software that wipes the device after ten bad passcode attempts.
Everything that you've read about a "backdoor" or a "key" is totally uninformed commentary on the matter. The intarwebz are outraged (outraged!), but they don't even understand the debate.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone
by MacsHeadroom on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:23AM
(#11157371)
>this is also a brute force attack
The other times weren't though.
> they don't even understand the debate
Look in a mirror lately?
No, there really aren't. From the article:
"The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government service."
Moreover, the "ask" in this case is nearly identical. Apple is being asked only to bypass the 10-failed-attempt device wipe, so that investigators can enumerate all 10,000 codes:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stak...
...which means that it's effectively exactly the same thing that Apple has done in previous cases. The only technological difference is one that has been manufactured by Apple.
This whole thing boils down to a question of whether or not Apple should facilitate a brute-force attack on a single phone, under a search warrant, for a known criminal. And they've done same thing 70-some times in the past.