I heard president Obama today refer to these devices as "a swiss bank account
in your pocket". Honestly, I would rather have that than someone whom I don't
know having access to my info, whether I want it or not.
-eric
On Mar 11, 2016, at 4:15 PM, E.T. wrote:
> Maybe I can perform "last rite
Hi E.T.
Give me a call.
I'm on the east coast of the GREAT USA!
Chuck
CHUCK REICHEL
soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com
www.SoundPictureRecording.com
954-742-0019
Isaiah 26 : 3
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he
trusteth in thee.
In GOD I Trust
On Mar 11,
Maybe I can perform "last rites" on you, Chuck. You are again
confusing issues and you are still free to email me off list if you want
the truth.
What is at stake here is a legal matter, not a religious one.
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have b
Hi E.T.
May be we can get the Ancient.Aliens to solve this? :)
Always remember if your rites come from man, man can take them away!
But if freedom "rites" comes from the Creator no man can take the away!
Thats why the USA constitution gives the Creator the credit for our basic
freedoms!
George was
Trump. with his big mouth (someone, please stick a pin in him),
cannot do a thing and neither can Obama. Its a legal issue that the
courts will have to decide on.
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?
O
x27;d like. The
government is simply vying for precedent.
Ben
- Original Message -
From: Kawal Gucukoglu
To: Macvisionaries
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 15:17
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Where will this end? I reckon i
Where will this end? I reckon it will end when Mr Trump becomes president and
he will say Apple is so and so even though he has an I phone as he regularly
seems to slag Apple off. Seriously, will he win or will it be Hillary. I
notice Mr Abama is not saying anything about Apple but Mr Trump i
Apple is Selling You a Phone, Not Civil Liberties
https://lawfareblog.com/apple-selling-you-phone-not-civil-liberties
> FBI and Justice Department officials, we think, can be forgiven if they’re a
> touch cynical about all of Apple’s elaborate legal argumentation and suspect
> that this all just
o law
>>>>>>>>> enforcement. all they need to do is provide a technician who knows
>>>>>>>>> the method (and has the program). since that program will not be
>>>>>>>>> turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no
ooglegroups.com]
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make
apple a
;>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok,
>>>>>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a
s essentially no problem. Apple would
>>>>>>>> retain custody of the program and the method and law enforcement
>>>>>>>> would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point,
>>>>>>>> there would be no back door to ex
d. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a
>>>>>>> passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device.
>>>>>>> Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by whi
eted the iCloud backup for the
>>> terrorists?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>&g
imon Fogarty :
>>>
>>> Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,
>>>
>>> So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the
>>> terrorists?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
aries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Terje Strømberg
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2016 9:34 PM
To: Tyler Thompson
Cc: Terje Strømberg ; Mac Group
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
If Apple stand the ground and
eleted the iCloud backup for the
> terrorists?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
> To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisio
Gucukoglu
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompet
My understanding of the logistics is that the user key and the unique
signature burned into each device are hashed together as the key for
encrypting the data, so there is no way Apple could decrypt it for the
FBI. What Apple did do was implement the self-destruct where you get 10
tries and the
e.
Iargree
-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
That's
Agreed,
The question that might draw people to major unanswered question might be what
suspect’s passcode might have set as, rather a number digit combination or
consisting of letters and numbers. I still voice towards Apple in this case
however. If they open up backdoor for one device, Apple is
Hi,
I understand both sides of the case. If the iPhone is set with a complex
passcode consisting of letters and numbers, it could take the government up to
100 years to brute-force the passcode, depending on the strength of the key.
Apple is perfectly capable of this, but they would completely lo
My understanding is that the FBI is asking Apple for the technical capability
to brute-force the key. That’s all. The problem with Apple’s current design
is that it is vulnerable to simple firmware substitution. The assumptions that
it makes about the user’s key are all predicated on the noti
Apple already engineered products so that this cannot happen. That’s kind of
the point. They already use a strong encryption, so strong in fact, that our
government can’t break into them. Passwords are already hashed, Data is already
encrypted as much as is legal (yes, there are illegal encrypti
The FBI asked the owner of the phone to change the iCloud account password,
with the result that the iPhone didn’t back up to iCloud, which would have
provided a way for the FBI to access recent (if incomplete) data. Hence there
followed the question of whether or not the FBI is complicit in fu
And another quote from the creator of PGP, Philip Zimmermann: "If privacy is
outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries
list.
If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you
feel t
gt; To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>
> Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the
> account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomp
ginal Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable s
y, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the
account password and thus prevented those all-important (bu
Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the
account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) iCloud
backups from occurring. (Notice that iCloud backups are another way in, which
is something many customers aren’t aware of.)
And I don’t
Yes, I believe the previous poster is correct we’ve deviated to far from the
topic.
I do appreciate everyone’s well thought out responses. If anyone is interested
in deviating from the topic contact me off list we can move this to my list or
else where where we won’t overly burden or offend fo
Scott,
Spot on! And I will lay this to rest since even the apple in the
first book is not being discussed. (smiles)
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?
On 2/22/2016 10:55 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
E.
Chuck,
Feel free to email me off list if you want to know the truth.
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?
On 2/22/2016 10:16 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:
Hi E.T.
Apparently you haven't read the constitution
How exactly is this on topic? I was under the impression the discussion was
about whether apple should cave to the FBI’s demands. For the sake of a
reasonable, clean debate on the subject I’d like to ask we avoid religious and
political beliefs. The question is a simple one, what do we think of
E.T. is correct.
The fore fathers used spiritual principles in the idea of the constitution as
well as references to a general creator and inalienable rights but the
Christian God and the bible are not mentioned. In fact, a good percentage of
the founders were Masons who were a very religious
Hi E.T.
Apparently you haven't read the constitution and the bill of rights!
If your open to learning about the USA history here you go;
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution/
Also heres what being politically correct gets you!
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/j
All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on
biblical principles.
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?
On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:
Hi Scott,
I agree 1776 was a great ye
Hi Scott,
I agree 1776 was a great year!
This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we had "locked down" the borders
and through out all the illegals in the USA!
Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not politically
correct and we dig it!
I'd rather be "biblically Corre
Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though really well
made by the way.
The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession. So it’s come out in
the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local coverage is
reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone whil
OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I think, even
if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.
I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore don’t
enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case. Nor do I
believe that
w (file a warrant, etc.). At this point,
>>>>> there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would
>>>>> props that the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated)
>>>>> device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would
>>>>&
isionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search
That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this
doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they don't
cooperate wi
>>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is
>>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the
>>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant,
>>>>>
gt;>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and
>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would
>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>
>>>&g
o any network and would
>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>
>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>
>>> -eric
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>
>>> -eric
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree,
>>>>
>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS d
gt;
>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
>>>
>>> Iargree
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegr
So I almost fell out of my chair this morden. Michael Hayden, the former NSA
director who lead the warrantless wiretapping program and the meta data
collection program, came out strongly in favor of Apple and against the
government. He feels the government’s request is far over reaching and a
back door to all devices of that type.
Iargree
-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's po
d (and has the
>>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is
>>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the
>>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warran
em. Apple would retain custody of the program and the
>>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant,
>>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further
>>>>> secure it, I would props that the prog
Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make
apple an accessory to terrorism
or to exploit To further
>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and
>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would
>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to wor
w, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they
>>>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all
>>>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has
>>>>>> the program). sinc
com]
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make
apple an accessory to
>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would
>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>
>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>
>>>> -eric
>>>>
this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>
>>> -eric
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree,
>>>>
>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device us
ries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search
Karen, you raise a really really good question. Why don’t they just use the
fingerprint of
> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>
>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>
>>> -eric
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree,
>>>>
>>>>
34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>
>>> I agree,
>>>
>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>
>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
>>>
>>> Iargree
9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search
That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this
doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they don't
coop
It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>
>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
>>>
>>> Iargree
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-
>>> From:
from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>
>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@goo
-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>
> That's
evices.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any
Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2016 2:35 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Actually, a good number of the calls going in and out of your country as well
as Internet and other data is monitored o
Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make
apple an accessory to terrorism
Apple can still provide the level of security needed, and with the proper
methodology, still allow the FBI, et al to have access to the information that
is needed (and all without having to install a backdoor). It is a pretty
simple arrangement, but a little hard to implement.
-eric
On Feb 19
s all.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of E.T.
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:54 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Appl
9 February 2016 6:54 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
The Patriot Act was exactly what came to mind. This is what scares me
about the Republicans. I shall say no more.
Just keep those grubby little fi
---Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position
ave finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>
oups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 7:41 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>
> You don’t have to sell me about the over reach of Government. I’ve been a
> Libe
I remember that Blackberry had to hand over keys or some how lessen the
security of their devices to be sold in Saudi Arabia. But then we gave the
kingdom a Naris Systems 6400 and I thought the security problem was solved.:)
(that device is what the NSA uses for mass data collection, at least
hing. A
>>> couple bad Americans shouldn't disrupt the majority of us who deserve
>>> incryption and who would not misuse it.
>>> I ask the above purely as hypotheticles.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisi
Actually, I beg to disagree with you. The major media is owned by 4
corporations for the most part. I was the lead network engineer for
Knight-Ridder digital which was the online portion of the publisher’s products.
That company no longer exists as they went the way of paper.:) I think there
A much wiser man than myself is quoted as saying, “A society that is willing to
surrender privacy for the sake of security shall have neither.”
I completely support the position Tim Cook and Apple has taken in this matter.
The real question in this matter should be - why isn’t our government wil
vices.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position agains
Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>
> Karen, you raise a really really good question. Why don’t they just use the
> fingerprint of th
AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
You should be able to dust the phone for prints and see which ones are in
contact with the surface?
Plus you only have 10, you could try at least 8 of them probably with out iss
Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Karen, you raise a really really good question. Why don’t they just use the
fingerprint of the phone owner. He’s dead anyway s
ailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 7:41 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
You don’t have to sell me about the over reach of Government. I’ve been a
bject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
The Patriot Act was exactly what came to mind. This is what scares me about
the Republicans. I shall say no more.
Just keep those grubby little fingers out of my private life which is
hardly private any more.
F
Behalf Of Michael Malver
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:53 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Two questions:
1. Why is this topic any more important for blind users than for any other?
That supposition is non-sen
f Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:40 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
ET very well stated.
The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking what
Apple has been asked to do
Not following it but I agree with him whole hartedly
It doesn't take much for someone to work a jailbreak for an iphone IOS when
it's out, so how long would it take for someone to find the back door into the
OS if they did put one in.
There was the same sort of issue with blackberrys and the
uary 18, 2016 11:40 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Not to encourage more heavy traffic but this IS an important issue
especially for blind users.
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Ma
Thanks Gabe. I thought that was the case so it remains to be seen if
it was a 5c I heard then it makes the fingerprint issue a moot point.
From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?
On 2/18/2016 2:19 PM, Gabe
Hi,
I didn't see an answer to your question about the 5c having fingerprint ID. The
answer is no it doesn't. I had one for a couple of years and couldn't ever use
the fingerprint ID until I upgraded to the 6s.
Gabe
On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:19 AM, E.T. wrote:
> I may be mistaken but I think
Well said to be sure. that is one reason why I am suggesting if it works
for you visiting the news area of google.
At last count there were over 4 thousand articles referenced from various
sources.
Even with some of those referencing the same article, one has a fine way
to get informed in an o
Karen,
A good observation coming from one who is inside such a business.
But its my observation that every individual who sees or hears the same
event, even standing side by side, will have a different interpretation
of that event. The media is not immune to this. But people who rely on
mo
I have been a media professional for many years. These days, someone might
read a twitter post or a Facebook one and decide it is news, but i
assure you
that the major American media is not in the pocket of the government.
Far
too many of them are getting the story right to base an entire
Ah sorry, for folks across the pond or in other countries you might not be up
to speed.
In the US we had a supposed terrorist attack where two people walked in to a
center and shot up the place in the name of ISIL or dAESH or what ever we’re
calling the boogie man today. They supposedly had iP
Hi!
Whats this all about?
I haven’t read anything.
But it would be great to hear what others might think.
/A
> On 18 Feb 2016, at 18:36, Scott Granados wrote:
>
> Very important comment, that’s pretty funny.
>
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Michael Malver wrote:
>>
>> I have a very important
No, they are traditional news sources. The KGO radio story ran for more than
one day with that misinformation. It was one of the talk show hosts themselves
that set the news department straight on the air. WBZ I have no idea what
their problem is, it’s a major CBS station. I think it just co
really?
Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do
their homework.
A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly so
does reading Tim's statement.
were those blogs?
Might explain the error.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
CBS, WBZ out of
great question.
The understanding i have read is that the fingerprint reader was in use.
There was a regular backup of data from the phone up till the individual
discontinued that backup shortly before the shootings. This is why the
fingerprint door may be best, it is likely most recent.
I do w
Actually it might depend on the person using both things. If you have
broken the law and our phone is being investigated as a part of the crime
it will really depend on the search warrant Obtained.
A rather gray legal area these days.
Still in the Apple FBI case many security professionals sa
Many in the American press are asking that very question, especially since
they do have those fingerprints.
No explanation as of yet. additionally, Apple is getting lots of
company on the legal front to fight the request.
Kare
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
Karen, you raise
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of E.T.
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:40 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
Not to encourage more heavy traffic but t
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
