or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Joffrey

error 53
Forgot to fix that sentence after I made some other revisions. Fixed now.
Just because the FBI director is on record asking for a back door to all encryption does not mean they will get one in this case (of course he'll ask for more than he expects to get). Apple's push back (since whenever the FBI first approached them) offered them the compromise of helping them hack into one phone.I don't get why their complying would suddenly grant the FBI and awful regimes immediate access to all phones. What's wrong with the FBI and any other government...
In case you were wondering, the party sucked.
Why? it's clearly possible and would not necessarily apply to all phones any time: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-17/the-apple-fight-isn-t-about-encryption Similar steps are already taken with other items. With a warrant law enforcement can search your private property (home, vehicle, person). Why is your phone exempt?Anyway, Apple is clearly covering their backside in this situation. They can't be seen to be too eager to help the government hack their own...
I'm starved for a good show. Can I find this on Netflix or Amazon prime? That reminds me to get back to Mad Dogs.
I think companies (service providers, developers, handset makers) should be required (by a warrant) to provide access to communications sent or stored on their equipment. If for some reason the companies can't provide access their product or service should be removed from the market or service for the device/software/network cancelled.
I find those tweets hilarious.
Saw Everest last night. Very good
New Posts  All Forums: