Judge: Apple must help US hack San Bernardino killer's phone

[m52nickerson]

That's what it's called when you sucker your antagonists into making fools of themselves. That trap was set for Seano, but it was early in the morning and you went ahead and took the bait. I'm indifferent to which cod sucks up the hook.

Yeah, this was very close to being a worthwhile, argument, too, except that it wasn't. If you have that MSN headline with the Farook family publicly opposing the FBI's efforts to unlock the phone, then the Dog is ALL YOURS, bro. Simple copy and paste. Drop it anywhere.

Yeah, and funny that the overwhelming majority of Silicon Valley tech security firm CEO's side with me, too. This shit weakens the security of all phones, and we're not talking about court-ordered warrants.

I'm simply going to take what was said as face value and not try and spin the argument like you are doing. That is what it is, spin, not a trap. I'm not even arguing he was correct. Simply pointing out that what you posted, was not what he said.

As for the tech companies. Not hard to see that they are making argument with the larger picture in mind, something even you have pointed out. They fear that they could be told that would have to weaken security overall in some situations. My point from the beginning has been that in this case, and this case alone, the phone could be unlocked without risking security. You have always wanted to expand that into the larger argument like what the tech companies are doing. We can have the larger argument if you want, but that does not change the specific for this case.

 

[Madmick]

I'm simply going to take what was said as face value and not try and spin the argument like you are doing. That is what it is, spin, not a trap. I'm not even arguing he was correct. Simply pointing out that what you posted, was not what he said.

How many more of your implied concessions am I going to accept before we're through?

As for the tech companies. Not hard to see that they are making argument with the larger picture in mind, something even you have pointed out. They fear that they could be told that would have to weaken security overall in some situations. My point from the beginning has been that in this case, and this case alone, the phone could be unlocked without risking security. You have always wanted to expand that into the larger argument like what the tech companies are doing. We can have the larger argument if you want, but that does not change the specific for this case.

No, your point from the beginning was that what Apple was asked to do couldn't possibly weaken the security of a single other phone.

Now you're pretending that wasn't what you said...which is predictable when somebody is so wrong and so bluntly demonstrated to be wrong. They revise history.

 

[m52nickerson]

How many more of your implied concessions am I going to accept before we're through?

I don't know. How fragile minded are you?

No, your point from the beginning was that what Apple was asked to do couldn't possibly weaken the security of a single other phone.

Now you're pretending that wasn't what you said...which is predictable when somebody is so wrong and so bluntly demonstrated to be wrong. They revise history.

Yes, that is basically my argument. I did say there was a possibility, but that was incredibly small. So small that it should not even be considered.

I'm not pretending at all that is what I said. Again, nice attempt at spin.

 

[Madmick]

Yes, that is basically my argument. I did say there was a possibility, but that was incredibly small. So small that it should not even be considered.

Yet you couldn't substantiate this while I proceeded to cite examples of times that keys were stolen by hacker groups and foreign governments.

I do love seeing you reduced to such plainness in speech admitting that what the FBI is asking weakens privacy beyond this phone. Some of us value truth and liberty over these concessions to our personal freedom that are so trivial that they "should not even be considered". It took some work to subdue you, but it was worth the effort.

 

[m52nickerson]

Yet you couldn't substantiate this while I proceeded to cite examples of times that keys were stolen by hacker groups and foreign governments.

I do love seeing you reduced to such plainness in speech admitting that what the FBI is asking weakens privacy beyond this phone. Some of us value truth and liberty over these concessions to our personal freedom that are so trivial that they "should not even be considered". It took some work to subdue you, but it was worth the effort.

Apparently very fragile minded as you are now think you have a victory here and subdue me.

Yes developer's keys have been stolen before. That will always be a risk. Apply helping to unlock this phone does not make that more or less of a risk in the future. Using any type of forced update would require that key. The slight increase risk is in that if the specific OS update got out it would be easier for those who also had a stolen key to break into phones. However anyone that could hack in a steal the key is going to have a pretty easy time written their own OS updates.

In the end the risk is the developers key getting out and Apple not catching that it was stolen and then changed. Also seeing that the forced update would not work on newer models, the physical why the lockout timer is tracked, there is even less risk.

Now do you have a counter argument to that or are you going to go back to your shrieking harpy routine of yelling about what the CEO's say?

 

[Madmick]

Apparently very fragile minded as you are now think you have a victory here and subdue me.

Yes developer's keys have been stolen before. That will always be a risk. Apply helping to unlock this phone does not make that more or less of a risk in the future. Using any type of forced update would require that key. The slight increase risk is in that if the specific OS update got out it would be easier for those who also had a stolen key to break into phones. However anyone that could hack in a steal the key is going to have a pretty easy time written their own OS updates.

In the end the risk is the developers key getting out and Apple not catching that it was stolen and then changed. Also seeing that the forced update would not work on newer models, the physical why the lockout timer is tracked, there is even less risk.

Now do you have a counter argument to that or are you going to go back to your shrieking harpy routine of yelling about what the CEO's say?

It was already pointed out that these may not be hackers, but (sleeper) employees who walk out with a USB stick. Nor does this entertain the myriad other methods hackers use to exploit security systems (ex. I wouldn't be surprised to see them manipulating the timed lockout protocol). Of course, a more comprehensive context has been established, and demonstration of the fragility and failures of this security in the real world has already been cited.

Yes, you've been subdued. Spare me the pitiful, whimpering howls of defeat while you pretend to know perfectly the minds of all the hackers in the world and how they would undermine your plans.

 

[m52nickerson]

It was already pointed out that these may not be hackers, but (sleeper) employees who walk out with a USB stick. Nor does this entertain the myriad other methods hackers use to exploit security systems (ex. I wouldn't be surprised to see them manipulating the timed lockout protocol). Of course, a more comprehensive context has been established, and demonstration of the fragility and failures of this security in the real world has already been cited.

Yes, you've been subdued. Spare my the pitiful, whimpering howls of defeat.

Hackers, sleeper employees, however, really does not matter. If someone with a good amount of technical knowledge get the key they could get into the phones. This case does not change that one bit. You are trying to win a point here that is not contested and does not help your case. You really are not good a debating.

 

[Madmick]

Hackers, sleeper employees, however, really does not matter. If someone with a good amount of technical knowledge get the key they could get into the phones. This case does not change that one bit. You are trying to win a point here that is not contested and does not help your case. You really are not good a debating.

You know what if feels like when someone in the passenger seat tells you how to drive?

That's sort of like what it's like when someone you're decimating in a debate tells you that you're "not good at debating". It just doesn't matter.

 

[m52nickerson]

You know what if feels like when someone in the passenger seat tells you how to drive?

That's sort of like what it's like when someone you're decimating in a debate tells you that you're "not good at debating". It just doesn't matter.

Yes, you are really decimating someone when your last post is simply about that and not even an attempt to respond to the argument.

Good job! Can I get you a cookie?

Now, would you like to explain how I'm wrong in the notion that unlocking the phone in this case does not make getting a developers key stolen any more or less likely?

 

[Madmick]

Sweet Lord, do you need Mike Tomlin to hop onto Twitter to let you know when it's time to quit while behind?

 

[m52nickerson]

Sweet Lord, do you need Mike Tomlin to hop onto Twitter to let you know when it's time to quit while behind?

So you don't have a counter argument. Well of course you don't because the simply fact helping to unlock this phone does not put the developers key at more risk and hence does increase the risk to the iPhone security in any meaningful way.