Feds Unlock iPhone 5C Used By San Bernardino Terrorist

mcravenufo said:
This is the way I see it. I will use an analogy. To me the phone is a locked house with file cabinets in it. The file cabinets are the digital files on the phone the authorities need to investigate the crime further. A judge issues a search warrant that the locked house can be broken into to obtain the files. This happens all the time and I think most everyone would agree is acceptable.

How is this iPhone issue any different? I'm really asking because I haven't followed this issue too closely.
Click to expand...
If the owner refuses, then the government at least has to break into the house.
In Apple's case, the government wants the lock designed so that a skeleton key will open everybody's house and they promise to only use it to find terrorists. Hopefully criminals don't stumble across how to make their own skeleton keys.
 
LazN said:
Been to Europe, Africa, and China in the last 15 years.. (multiple countries in Europe and Africa) For extended trips, including working in those places. I don't count the short ones to Mexico and Canada etc..

As for real impacts, I do feel that the NSA's searching of US citizens data and their current practice of sharing that information with the FBI and other departments to be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

And yes, when you choose to serve, you do give up a lot to do so. (and thank you for your service)
Click to expand...

The NSA isn't searching for US Person's data. They did collect data on overseas calls but that was because there was a great likelihood that a foreigner was on the other end of the call. In fact, now that things have changed, the NSA doesn't even ask for the providers to give them the data anymore because they can no longer store it.

Do you know how easy it was for the media to make all of you see things the way they wanted you to see them?

Do you know what an easy sell you were?

The NSA collected meta-data on overseas calls to try and identify who in the US some known terror targets were talking with. It really isn't more complex than that. Ahh well, your meta-data is safe now, much safer then my medical and bank records, my email and my [H] posts.


I wonder if anyone is ever going to start questioning that little tiny over-reach.

I've probably mentioned it ten times but no one has ever asked a single question about it. No acknowledgment.

Makes the work hypocrite come to mind :whistle:

U.S. intelligence officials to monitor federal employees with security clearances
 
KazeoHin said:
I hate Apple. I hate them and their users.



But Apple was right on the ball with this one. This was not about 'fighting terrorism', This was the government using 'the big scary "T" word' to set legal precedent to have unlimited backdoor access to digital devices.

"The USA would never try that!"

Yes, they damn well would.
Click to expand...
It goes back further than that, look at the espionage act of 1917, the scary words back then were socialism and communism.
 
lcpiper said:
The NSA isn't searching for US Person's data. They did collect data on overseas calls but that was because there was a great likelihood that a foreigner was on the other end of the call. In fact, now that things have changed, the NSA doesn't even ask for the providers to give them the data anymore because they can no longer store it.

Do you know how easy it was for the media to make all of you see things the way they wanted you to see them?

Do you know what an easy sell you were?

The NSA collected meta-data on overseas calls to try and identify who in the US some known terror targets were talking with. It really isn't more complex than that. Ahh well, your meta-data is safe now, much safer then my medical and bank records, my email and my [H] posts.


I wonder if anyone is ever going to start questioning that little tiny over-reach.

I've probably mentioned it ten times but no one has ever asked a single question about it. No acknowledgment.

Makes the work hypocrite come to mind :whistle:

U.S. intelligence officials to monitor federal employees with security clearances
Click to expand...

Actually Snowden revealed that the NSA was collecting Meta-Data on more than just overseas calls, and yes it is horrible how bad the security is on medical data etc. In fact is is downright scary how bad network / data security is at some places that we all depend on.

And yes they monitor their own people more than anyone else (makes sense, they have access to the most critical data).

The poor security of your bank/medical etc data is no excuse to lower the security elsewhere.
 
LazN said:
That entire claim was the truth.. The FBI asked for a new IOS build that reduced the security on phones that would get that version of the IOS installed. And yes the court order was to install that reduced security IOS on only one phone.. but several other agencies already said that they had HUNDREDS (thousands if you add them all up) of phones waiting to hear the outcome of this so that they could make the same claim against Apple for the same broken security IOS install on those other phones.

It would set a precedent of forcing Apple and other MFGs to reduce the security of their devices on demand. That would be BAD.
Click to expand...

Nope, the FBI asked for a special piece a software, the Court Order called it a SIF, that would load into RAM and specifically NOT alter the OS, would be coded to only run on that one specific phone, and could be controlled from beginning to end by Apple and did not require Apple to turn that code over to the FBI unless Apple chose not to perform the work at their own facilities. Nothing in the court order required Apple to return the phone to the FBI and it was made clear the FBI only needed the data.
You should read that court order for yourself, it's like two pages long and very easy to understand.
 
lcpiper said:
Nope, the FBI asked for a special piece a software, the Court Order called it a SIF, that would load into RAM and specifically NOT alter the OS, would be coded to only run on that one specific phone, and could be controlled from beginning to end by Apple and did not require Apple to turn that code over to the FBI unless Apple chose not to perform the work at their own facilities. Nothing in the court order required Apple to return the phone to the FBI and it was made clear the FBI only needed the data.
You should read that court order for yourself, it's like two pages long and very easy to understand.
Click to expand...

I have read it, and responded to others (and probably you too) about it before, quoting from it etc

The fact of the matter is that Forcing Apple via a Writ act to compromise their security sets a bad precedent.

Call it a SIF, or a magic genie I don't care.

It was a BAD call for the FBI to try to do this, and it would have been BAD for all of us had they succeeded in doing so.
 
LazN said:
Actually Snowden revealed that the NSA was collecting Meta-Data on more than just overseas calls, and yes it is horrible how bad the security is on medical data etc. In fact is is downright scary how bad network / data security is at some places that we all depend on.

And yes they monitor their own people more than anyone else (makes sense, they have access to the most critical data).

The poor security of your bank/medical etc data is no excuse to lower the security elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Wait up. Now everyone with a current clearance agreed to many things and gave up great details about their lives. But did we really consent to what is outlined in that article? When they announced that program you know they never told us if we would be removed from the list when we no longer have a clearance? I mean some day we all have to retire right? Did any of us really have a choice or a word about this program? Man they just decided this was what they wanted to do and did it. If you don't like it tough, live with it or move on, and there is no guarantee we still won't keep an eye on you cause face it, you were unhappy when you left, all the more reason to keep our thumb on you.

As I have said before. If you are hoping that in the future, if there are abuses, there will be another stand up whistle-blower to be your knight in shining armor, you might want to try and imagine where he is going to come from. Cause I am just thinking it's not going to be any of the guys who have lived under this level of monitoring for any period of time if you get my drift.

And LazN, Thank You for your comment about service. Personally I don't know how much I deserve it for myself. But I'll say Thanx for the guys who didn't get to here it from you if you know what I mean.
 
Silentbob343 said:
It goes back further than that, look at the espionage act of 1917, the scary words back then were socialism and communism.
Click to expand...
The scary words back then would have been Germans and WWI (or 'The Great War'). Socialism wasn't quite as reviled back then because of the eugenics and fascism and the economic failure and squaller hadn't come to light yet.
 
lcpiper said:
Wait up. Now everyone with a current clearance agreed to many things and gave up great details about their lives. But did we really consent to what is outlined in that article? When they announced that program you know they never told us if we would be removed from the list when we no longer have a clearance? I mean some day we all have to retire right? Did any of us really have a choice or a word about this program? Man they just decided this was what they wanted to do and did it. If you don't like it tough, live with it or move on, and there is no guarantee we still won't keep an eye on you cause face it, you were unhappy when you left, all the more reason to keep our thumb on you.

As I have said before. If you are hoping that in the future, if there are abuses, there will be another stand up whistle-blower to be your knight in shining armor, you might want to try and imagine where he is going to come from. Cause I am just thinking it's not going to be any of the guys who have lived under this level of monitoring for any period of time if you get my drift.

And LazN, Thank You for your comment about service. Personally I don't know how much I deserve it for myself. But I'll say Thanx for the guys who didn't get to here it from you if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt that most people serving in Govt don't realize how much they are being watched, and those watching are being watched. And there should be more disclosure of that kind of thing.

If we keep it up, soon we will have zero unemployment as we will all be watching what each other does and required to report it! Isn't that Great!!

Ok, enough sarcasm..
 
LazN said:
Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism
Click to expand...

Umm, well I guess that guy is entitled to his opinion, there is certainly nothing objective about it. But that is what this is, an opinion piece and not a news report. The fact that the Sneak-n-Peak provision referenced were struke down by the courts in 2007 certainly have no bearing for him.
These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[47][48]
Click to expand...
Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
lcpiper said:
Umm, well I guess that guy is entitled to his opinion, there is certainly nothing objective about it. But that is what this is, an opinion piece and not a news report. The fact that the Sneak-n-Peak provision referenced were struke down by the courts in 2007 certainly have no bearing for him.

Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Ok, how about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/u...pand-sharing-of-data-that-nsa-intercepts.html

And on the on our (citizenry) side of things: Representatives say NSA must end plans to expand domestic spying

I do find it odd that you are bemoaning the expansion of watching of government employees while arguing to watch the citizens closer.. Almost as if you are one of the watchers? (that is being watched)
 
DocSavage said:
If the owner refuses, then the government at least has to break into the house.
In Apple's case, the government wants the lock designed so that a skeleton key will open everybody's house and they promise to only use it to find terrorists. Hopefully criminals don't stumble across how to make their own skeleton keys.
Click to expand...

this is not correct. Why do you claim this?
In the San Bernadino case the Government specifically asked for a tool that would only work on that one phone. They did not require Apple give that tool to them, and there was no mention of future use of the tool because they are not asking for it to be given to them.

This is a complete falsehood. I have pointed it out over and over. Why do you guys continue to fall back on this false claim?
 
Open-Door.jpg
 
LazN said:
Ok, how about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/u...pand-sharing-of-data-that-nsa-intercepts.html

And on the on our (citizenry) side of things: Representatives say NSA must end plans to expand domestic spying

I do find it odd that you are bemoaning the expansion of watching of government employees while arguing to watch the citizens closer.. Almost as if you are one of the watchers? (that is being watched)
Click to expand...

I find it odd you come to this conclusion.

Look, I call them as I see them.

If a court order says one thing and a reporter twists it I am calling it. If other people do the same I am calling it.

I have a huge problem with the media and how easily people allow themselves to be misled by the media as long as the reporter is telling them something they want to believe.

Freedom of the press was important even back in the early days of our Country. Because even then they realized that an informed populace was important to our freedom. We can't make rational decisions based on bad information. It's a hell of alot more important then a meta-data database but no one cares and it doesn't matter how often I point out the misrepresentations and twisted reporting in the media, all anyone every gets out of it is that I am defending the government etc.

A reporter says the sky is purple when it's really blue and if I show that the reporter is wrong then I am a government shill.

And it's not the expansion of monitoring of government employees. It's stripping the privacy rights from US Citizens, I had those rights before, but not any more. When will it be your turn?
 
lcpiper said:
this is not correct. Why do you claim this?
In the San Bernadino case the Government specifically asked for a tool that would only work on that one phone. They did not require Apple give that tool to them, and there was no mention of future use of the tool because they are not asking for it to be given to them.

This is a complete falsehood. I have pointed it out over and over. Why do you guys continue to fall back on this false claim?
Click to expand...

Because once made other agencies could ask for the same thing under the same law.

It would be like saying: Make a device that creates gold from thin air for the FBI, but only use it once, however change the law (precedent) so that other Agencies can also ask you to use it. Then expect other Agencies to not ask for their free gold.

Edit:

It isn't about the specifics of the software created (skeleton key or not) it is about using the Writs act (an obsure law) to have them create it.

THAT is the issue, not the software created. The LAW precedent becomes the skeleton key.
 
LazN said:
Because once made other agencies could ask for the same thing under the same law.

It would be like saying: Make a device that creates gold from thin air for the FBI, but only use it once, however change the law (precedent) so that other Agencies can also ask you to use it. Then expect other Agencies to not ask for their free gold.

Edit:

It isn't about the specifics of the software created (skeleton key or not) it is about using the Writs act (an obsure law) to have them create it.

THAT is the issue, not the software created. The LAW precedent becomes the skeleton key.
Click to expand...

They can already do this now. Why is this not obvious ?

Today, the DEA could do the same exact thing. They could be investigating a case, have a government owned iPhone, and submit a court order for exactly the same thing even if the FBI had not done so previously.

Everyone harps on this case being different and yes there are differences but they have absolutely no bearing on the LAW and how the courts administer the law.

I will say it again, there is no precedent to this case.
 
lcpiper said:
They can already do this now. Why is this not obvious ?

Today, the DEA could do the same exact thing. They could be investigating a case, have a government owned iPhone, and submit a court order for exactly the same thing even if the FBI had not done so previously.

Everyone harps on this case being different and yes there are differences but they have absolutely no bearing on the LAW and how the courts administer the law.

I will say it again, there is no precedent to this case.
Click to expand...

There being no precedent yet is EXACTLY the point

Sure they could try, but so far no company has been forced to downgrade their security via a simple Judicial Writ.

If the FBI had won, then in the future Apple would not be able to say no.

The precedent has not been set either way yet. Once set that the Govt can not compel such an act then it would be harder for the DEA or FBI or whomever to do.. Once set that they do have that ability you will see them ordering companies all the time to write whatever software they want.

And this has bigger ramifications too.

Code has been decided to be speech. (as in free speech) So once you can compel someone to say what you want them to say (or write what you want them to write) Then a Judaical Writ would override the 1st Amendment.. Likely to happen? Perhaps not, but why start down that slide?
 
Last edited:
The court order did not require Apple to downgrade their security.

OMG this is frustrating as hell.

My forehead hurts so fucking bad :banghead:

How can Apple, writing a program that can only be executed on one phone, loading it into RAM, connecting the phone to a computer in their own lab, and allowing the FBI remote access to that computer to run a passcode cracker possibly effect any other phone anywhere?

If the case had progressed and not been dropped, and Apple had had their chance for the Judge to rule on their reply and claim of burden, and it been found in favor of Apple, yippie. But if Apple had lost then their argument of burden wasn't good enough. The phone being cracked by outsiders in a week suggests exactly this. But that aside it in no way effects the next case where Apple again gets to claim burden. Part of Apple's claim was that it would hurt their business, their rep. I don't think it's an empty claim. I actually believe Apple, given their marketing strategy and their expense and focus of their engineering has a valid claim in this. I don't know if judge Pym would have held it up, but I think it was a valid consideration for the Judge to consider.

Even then, it doesn't in any way change how the Law is applied.

Good night all, I've had enough for a day.

LazN, later man.
 
lcpiper said:
How can Apple, writing a program that can only be executed on one phone, loading it into RAM, connecting the phone to a computer in their own lab, and allowing the FBI remote access to that computer to run a passcode cracker possibly effect any other phone anywhere?
Click to expand...
Because Apple said (you can read it in the same link above where FBI director admits it will set precedent), by nature of that type of code would have to be able to run on ANY phone. If that software ever got out, it would be loose in the wild and it would have come from Apple and be signed by Apple certs, thus trusted by any Apple device and would try to run on any Apple device without restrictions.

Even then, it doesn't in any way change how the Law is applied.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in our country how Laws apply are set by precedent, that is how our judiciary works.

This means that if 1893 the first American made car was ruled to be illegal under Horse and Buggy Law X### even though it was not written with cars in mind, then to this day, unless a law reversing that decision was made, cars would be illegal under Horse and Buggy Law.

LazN, later man.
Click to expand...

gNight!
 
OK, I am wondering here, trying to put myself in Tim Cook's shoes. I get this court order to write some code. I don't like it but the Judge ruled I have to do it. So I don't want the code to get out, so I accept the option to perform all the wok at my facility, in my dev lab where I control everything.

I limit the dev team to just a couple of sharp guys and they produce the SIF, load it onto the phone, connect the phone to one of my computers. We create an account for the FBI to use so they can connect remotely, we secure the connection and let the FBI run their passcode cracker. After a week or so, they unlock the phone. Then they come to my facility where we extract the data, the FBI takes the data and now I am sitting there, job done, I've sent the government my bill.

Now what am I going to do with this phone and the SIF?

If I am really worried about it what I am going to do with it? I suppose I could destroy it, but I might have to write it again. Of course I did get paid to write it this time, next time should be no different.

Tell me, if it get's into the wild, who's fault would that be?

Ignorance is not a security measure. Unless we were lied to, it took some people one week to crack that phone without any special help from Apple. It's already not as secure as claimed. Is it reasonably secure, I would say so yes. Absolutely secure, I don't think so.



As for your insistence that precedent supersedes procedure, I think you need to look into things a little deeper. No matter what the precedent, it will never over ride, over rule, or set aside proper procedure. You claim there would be a precedent, what would that precedent be? Go ahead, it should be easy to show.

Perhaps some examples of precedent setting rulings would help.
 
In my opinion apple isnt some warrior fighting for the users. It was playing a dangerous legal game to sell more iphones. They then were painted by all the different media outlets into different colors (based on whatever the journalist felt like aligning them to) to sell the article. The fbi was not out to have some piece of software made for them that they could just run on a computer and mass unlock and sniff all information unencrypted. If people read court dockets instead of journalists headlines for information, we would all be much more powerful than we are.Even still if that software leaked out, patch x.x.1 would just change authentication keys and make it invalid, and as we know apple does have a speed on patch distribution.

Part of me kinda laughed though when they talk like they have created some fort knox of an encrypted system that no one can get in and then a week later it is cracked wide open. (kind of reminds me of the scene in iron man 2 when the russian guy is at the weapons plant and is told he needs encrypted passcodes to get in and then 5 seconds later he is in and says "your software is shit")
 
Darunion said:
Part of me kinda laughed though when they talk like they have created some fort knox of an encrypted system that no one can get in and then a week later it is cracked wide open. (kind of reminds me of the scene in iron man 2 when the russian guy is at the weapons plant and is told he needs encrypted passcodes to get in and then 5 seconds later he is in and says "your software is shit")
Click to expand...
This is the least secure iphone Apple has sold in something like 3 years, and even then it took a specialized firm a week. That makes me feel pretty good about my phone's prospects should I happen to lose it.
 
1/2 bent said:
Agree., I have nothing to hide. Im sure terroist have been watching this also.
Click to expand...

sweet, can I have your social security #, home address and mothers maiden name?
 
What if the FBI could hack it from day one?

What if they downloaded the information immediately got working on the leads. Meanwhile, they tell the press & everyone else they're trying to figure out how to get information from the locked phone so any terrorists that may have been connected to them keep talking thinking they're safe.

Art of War: when you're strong (or have an advantage), appear weak.

I've used this tactical advantage in many situations, when I know the information, but play dumb. "Act dumb, be smart." Then you see peoples true colors, when they think you don't know the truth. (or whatever the information may be)
 
DocSavage said:
This is the least secure iphone Apple has sold in something like 3 years, and even then it took a specialized firm a week. That makes me feel pretty good about my phone's prospects should I happen to lose it.
Click to expand...

You know that's just a guess. No one has actually told us anything about how the phone was unlocked unless you have seen something I haven't. It took about a week from the time the FBI told the court that they had a 3rd party willing to help. But for all we know it was a one hour crack and 4 days of trying passcodes to actually unlock it, and a day to pull the day and verify that the job was done before they called the Judge and said they were golden.
 
C-rizzle said:
What if the FBI could hack it from day one?

What if they downloaded the information immediately got working on the leads. Meanwhile, they tell the press & everyone else they're trying to figure out how to get information from the locked phone so any terrorists that may have been connected to them keep talking thinking they're safe.

Art of War: when you're strong (or have an advantage), appear weak.

I've used this tactical advantage in many situations, when I know the information, but play dumb. "Act dumb, be smart." Then you see peoples true colors, when they think you don't know the truth. (or whatever the information may be)
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter. None of us care about that individual phone. We are more worried about Apple being required by law to include a backdoor on all current and future phones.

Also, what if the FBI and government are all controlled by aliens? What then??
 
LazN said:
There is NO valid point to expanding Government powers, unless you want to live in Stalin Russia or Nazi Germany
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, there was no expansion of powers in this case.

Just in case you had any gross misconceptions about it: The FBI used a fully ratified process that came from our constitution. No expansion was necessary.
 
DocSavage said:
Also, what if the FBI and government are all controlled by aliens? What then??
Click to expand...

...then we would have more things to worry about than forcing Apple to unlock phones. You know, things like the laws of physics being wrong, etc...
 
LazN said:
It was a BAD call for the FBI to try to do this, and it would have been BAD for all of us had they succeeded in doing so.
Click to expand...

A bad idea? Apple and you may think so, but the court thought it was a good idea. Go figure...
 
lcpiper said:
OK, I am wondering here, trying to put myself in Tim Cook's shoes. I get this court order to write some code. I don't like it but the Judge ruled I have to do it.
Click to expand...

Stop right there.

Code is 1st Amendment protected speech. (Bernstein v. Department of Justice, April 15, 1996)

If the government can compel you to say things, then the 1st Amendment is void.

So you are saying a Judge can give a Writ and override the constitution?

Why not have a Judge give a Writ that tells JonBenet Ramsey's dad to confess to killing her in order to help the Police solve the crime! We can 'solve' ALL crime now! Writs for Everyone!
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
As for your insistence that precedent supersedes procedure, I think you need to look into things a little deeper. No matter what the precedent, it will never over ride, over rule, or set aside proper procedure. You claim there would be a precedent, what would that precedent be? Go ahead, it should be easy to show.
Click to expand...

Sure anytime something is referenced to a court case, like say Roe v. Wade it is referencing a precedent, in that case one that was set by the Supreme Court but still a precedent.

In that case: "The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion"

So even though the 14th amendment says NOTHING about abortions, that is how law via precedent is set.

And if this case had gone to court, Apple said they would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. And whatever was decided would be a precedent for future cases that are hard (still possible) to change.. So going forward, all instances of that same situation would by default resolve in the same manner as the last time it was fought in court.

So if the precedent was set that Judges can compel someone to write code (even if they don't want to), then going forward a Judical Writ would have more power than the constitution in regards to free speech since code is speech.
 
Last edited:
DocSavage said:
"the court", or just a judge? You do know that judges are human and fallible?
Click to expand...

And it doesn't have one iota of impact on how much power they have.

It's true that they screw up, make a bad call on occasion.

And the burden is on the rest of us to either accept the ruling or appeal it to a higher court.

And in a case like this one, the Judge is the Court as there is no Jury.
 
LazN said:
Stop right there.

Code is 1st Amendment protected speech. (Bernstein v. Department of Justice, April 15, 1996)

If the government can compel you to say things, then the 1st Amendment is void.

So you are saying a Judge can give a Writ and override the constitution?

Why not have a Judge give a Writ that tells JonBenet Ramsey's dad to confess to killing her in order to help the Police solve the crime! We can 'solve' ALL crime now! Writs for Everyone!
Click to expand...

I don't have to stop anywhere. Take it up with a Judge.

But since you want to play lawyer.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1317290.html

C. Concluding comments.

We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding.   We do not hold that all software is expressive.   Much of it surely is not.   Nor need we resolve whether the challenged regulations constitute content-based restrictions, subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, or whether they are, instead, content-neutral restrictions meriting less exacting scrutiny.   We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech.

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1317290.html#sthash.HZNRsR50.dpuf
Click to expand...

But if you believe that the SIF requested under the court order was indeed representative of speech I believe you have all the rights in the world to file your own law suite and be heard.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
I don't have to stop anywhere. Take it up with a Judge.

But if you believe that the SIF requested under the court order was indeed representative of speech I believe you have all the rights in the world to file your own law suite and be heard.
Click to expand...

You mean like Apple did?

You don't comply then sue, you fight the Writ.. Just Like Apple Was Doing..

Apple fighting this was the correct way for them to handle it, if they felt it was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top