U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by Someone on Monday March 28, 2016 @07:04PM (#11378181)

As to the possible lying, English isn't my native tongue, but I found the use of the phrase "without compromising any information on the phone" in this statement:

“Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” Eileen Decker, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

at least curious. Googling "no data was compromised" gives me only links that use that in the meaning "third parties did not get access to the data".

So, if that really is what Eileen Decker said, what exactly did she mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by SeoxyS on Monday March 28, 2016 @07:11PM (#11378217)

I think they meant compromising as in potentially triggering deletion or corruption of the data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by zaroth on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @12:57AM (#11379560)

No, it just means they could unlock the phone without triggering an auto-wipe after 10 incorrect entries. Keep in mind I don't think any way to know if auto-wipe is even enabled on a locked phone... For all we know, they finally tried entering the PIN '1234', and the phone unlocked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by delecti on Monday March 28, 2016 @09:30PM (#11378921)

If you did a complete wipe and reset of the phone, you could unlock it but the data would all be gone. Obviously that's not a very useful outcome for them, but it's still "unlocking" the phone.

[ Parent | on HN ]