News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by breck on Monday March 28, 2016 @06:46PM (#11378084)
I think I know what you mean but don't forget there is a specific and horrible case here too. Many people died and now the FBI has access to the phone. I don't know what the odds are that they will find anything useful in way of easing the pain of the victims or preventing an occurrence, but certainly it seems highly plausible. And at the very least a lot of resources going into this part of the investigation can now be used elsewhere. They were able to access the phone and (hopefully) it required some expensive physical+software breaks, which seems to be a reasonable compromise in the privacy vs security debate.

I think this is a great outcome.

Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by eridius on Monday March 28, 2016 @06:54PM (#11378127)
Most people believe the chances of the phone containing anything of value are very slim.
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by breck on Monday March 28, 2016 @07:43PM (#11378419)
Odds may be slim of there being anything newsworthy on the phone but do you think that it wouldn't be of value to the investigative team, who probably has to chase down hundreds of leads, contacts, and so forth? Unless the phone was wiped, I would be 99% confident that the team doing the actual investigation will get immense value from this phone, even if it's just tying up many loose ends.
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by eridius on Monday March 28, 2016 @08:32PM (#11378678)
They already had the 6-week-old iCloud backup from the device. Don't forget as well that this was a work phone, the personal phone was destroyed, which suggests there's nothing of interest on the work phone (presumably just info related to work).
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by jamescun on Monday March 28, 2016 @07:45PM (#11378429)
You're right, I perhaps was a little callous with my disregard of the specifics of the case rather than focus on the larger potential precedent.