News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by Negative1 on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:22PM (#11545440)
The only reason it would be 'Worth it' is if they found something of note (something to help prosecution of other criminals or prevent further attacks). Is there any reason to believe that this hack accomplished this?

What else would make it 'worth it'? Or is this just politicking?

Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by CHaro on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:26PM (#11545462)
It's just politicking, its "worth it" because they get to flex their muscle and show the world that they don't need apple's cooperation to get what they want.
Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by colejohnson66 on Thursday April 21, 2016 @06:15PM (#11545705)
And because they didn't get to see their precious All Wits Act request struck down setting a precedent against them. A few million to be able to keep invoking the AWA would definitely be "worth it" in their eyes.
Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by lisper on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:50PM (#11545583)
And because it wasn't their own money.
Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by EdHominem on Friday April 22, 2016 @12:40AM (#11547093)
That's an important point. They're paid our money, to plot ways to spend more of our money on marketing and lawyers, to misinform us.
Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by adrr on Thursday April 21, 2016 @06:10PM (#11545677)
I doubt it was worth it. It wasn't even the terrorist's phone. It was owned by their employer. The terrorists destroyed their personal phones prior to attack.
Re:FBI Paid More Than $1M to Hack San Bernardino iPhone by euyyn on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:48PM (#11545575)
> Is there any reason to believe that this hack accomplished this?

You mean besides the fact that the FBI guy said it was worth it? You don't expect them to publish the intel they got from the phone before being able to act on it, no?