http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/apple-fbi-hearing-unlock-iphone.html
>“On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the F.B.I. a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in the filing, referring to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino gunmen. “Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook’s iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple.”
Former Apple engineers?
>>53616068
inb4 it's John McAfee and his group of hackers and social engineers.
>>53616090
I thought McAfee was full tinfoil.
>>53616090
Who else would it be really.
He's shittalked the FBI enough at this point to where refusing his offers only reduces the public's trust in the FBI's ability to actually solve these crimes.
More like they're afraid of losing the court battle and having it set a precedent. They are cutting their losses and making sure they can still pressure other companies to help them.
>>53616124
NSA
>>53616218
If the NSA had the patience or the ability to bypass the lock, then this would never have gone public, the FBI would never had taken Apple to court over this shit, and the public would be none the wiser.
>>53616171
This is sort of what I thought desu.
>>53616263
Probably. But this wouldn't be the first time that government agencies failed to coordinate competently at a basic level, and certainly not the first time intelligence agencies specifically failed to share critical information.
>>53616263
This went public because the FBI wanted a favorable court ruling and the public on their side.
They misjudged how people would react.
>>53616757
To be fair, opinion has been quite evenly split I think.
Apple BTFO
Apple engineers who told NYT they'd quit before they help FBI unlock on suicide watch.
FBI was only suing to establish legal precedent. When they realized Apple has the money to challenge them and the court would actually follow the law they had to back down.
>>53616757
>>53616876
The FBI wanted to pander for more privileges. They don't have legal right or precedent to unlock the phone without a warrant.
>>53616090
it better be
>>53619179
>warrant
>possession of a dead person
Uhhhhh
>>53619340
Access to evidence requires a warrant unless it is in plain sight or willfully given.
>>53616068
They realized that they will get raped in court and decided not to bother with a precedent. Who could've guessed, even FBI scum has somebody competent after all.
>>53616263
f a l s e
f l a g
>>53619588
So you mean that the need to access the phone doesn't actually exist?
What if San Bernardino was just a plot to allow the FBI to crack phones easier?
>>53619673
?
lol m8
false flag means more than what you think it does
they dont have to do it but they're doing it as a false flag, a distraction, a ruse
plebs will think they can't hack it
they can
they just false flagged people into thinking they cant
The FBI can get past the password. They just cant use evidence obtained through breaking in. It's why they "need" the key from Apple.
>>53619785
>needing evidence for people who are dead
>implying evidence is relevant for the greater overall terrorist hunt
>>53619785
Sort of this. The NSA hasn't publicly helped them because then it becomes a question of "well how was this evidence obtained?" And they need that shit to be admissible in court.
Plus all the legal precedent shit. Force Apple to break encryption and now all encryption is subject to that precedent because of the weird-ish way US courts work
>>53619726
Oh yes, got it.
>>53619871
>thinking this is relevant
Who are they even going to prosecute with this? Why would they care about the legitimacy of the evidence? This is only needed if someone who is in a public position is who they're after.
>>53619921
>Why would they care about the legitimacy of the evidence?
You don't live in the US, do you?
Legitimacy of evidence counts because obtaining evidence illegally and then allowing it in court would set a precedent that evidence can be collected in that manner. I.e. if the FBI breaks down your door with no warrant and charges you with the evidence they find (and it is allowed in court) the FBI is thereafter permitted to break down doors without any consent or warrant.
The US government forces are not respectable groups of people. There have been multiple incidents where an NSA employee abused the PRISM program (to do shit like spy on their ex girlfriends).
>>53619921
Co-conspirators, presumably. They still have the right to due process, are innocent until proven guilty, etc. Then they can maybe twist their arm to enter a plea bargain to get even bigger fish.
>>53619984
I live in the US which is why I'm well aware that "evidence" is meaningless when it comes to this field. See: The Patriot ACT
I know how evidence works and why it's necessary to obtain it properly. I'm pointing out that we have nearly 15 years of history where that's not relevant for "terrorism" cases.
Are they going to prosecute their dead bodies?
>>53620006
>Are they going to prosecute their dead bodies?
I didn't realize they were dead. That makes this whole case absolutely asinine.
>>53620076
>After the shooting, the couple fled in a rented sport utility vehicle (SUV). Four hours later, police pursued their vehicle and killed them in a shootout
>>53619871
>Force Apple to break encryption and now all encryption is subject to that precedent because of the weird-ish way US courts work
Only if it goes all the way to SCOTUS.
