Attorney General Hopes Apple Will Comply With Court Order

Tiberian said:
Apple is being ordered to do something that's never been done before that will obviously have tremendous implications on personal (and even governmental) privacy everywhere on the planet, not just here in the US - the past events where Apple has complied are entirely different in scope than from what's happening right now in this situation.
Click to expand...

This is where we disagree.

My understanding is that you believe as many others, that this will have a tremendous impact on privacy all over the world and I see it, but not from this angle.

Most see this as governments being able to pry into everything. Well in most of the world they already can and do. China doesn't hide it, South East Asia and South West Asia it's a given in almost every country, the African continent is for the most part the same. Russia, Turkey, all the 'Stans and South and Central Americas. Only a good number of countries in Europe and North America and Australia hold any real opportunity for real privacy.

That being said, what I see from "perfect privacy" an unbreakable encryption is that as an individual I will never ever again be able to go to court and make someone who has screwed me over, pony up the proof. The Court won't be able to make it happen for me in the same manner as against me. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my book.

As soon as the government gives up and says OK, you can have your perfect unbreakable encryption and the courts can no longer force Businesses who hold data for others, to release that data under a valid warrant, we are all open to a royal butt fucking. Your investments will disappear, your medical records will be sealed and any doctors notes on operations performed or medications prescribed will be locked away. We will never be able to prove such things as embezzlement, medical malpractice, nothing at all really.

Because a warrant issued by the court can be refused because the data is held by a 3rd party and encrypted.

Far too many people can't see this issue past the phone they hold in their hand to see the implications that extend to everything else there is that's digital.
 
DocSavage said:
Damn. I'm actually impressed with Congress for this.
Click to expand...

Why, there is just as many that just started proposing a committee to oversee the future of encryption standards and privacy issues. It will include "Industry partners", just not any of the Industry partners we recognize as being important business CEO's etc cause those guys are all refusing to join in. It means if the big shots won't come to the table, they'll create their own big shots and continue on anyway.
 
DocSavage said:
Damn. I'm actually impressed with Congress for this.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how inept or corrupted one thinks an authoritarian body might be, the worst possible thing to do is an attempt at an end-run around its authority (and worse to not succeed in that end-run attempt).

It's mind-boggling how the FBI has managed to screw itself in regards to this situation and its own overall position so thoroughly.
 
Tiberian said:
Yep, I read that front to back a few times over the past few weeks hence a lot of my posted info is basically from that and other documents including some articles written by security experts and professionals that understand the iPhone security subsystems infinitely better than I do. ;)
Click to expand...

Hm. :( The iOS device UDID is not used in key derivation.
 
Actually they just refer to it these days as the UID, that was my mistake (nothing to do with your post you just made), but I distinctly remember a few years ago that it was just named UDID so it was habit to keep using that acronym. Usually things get more complex (as George Carlin has a skit about once long ago) but apparently Apple just figured UID was more than enough. :)

It's still used by many people and even websites in documentation, however.
 
Tiberian said:
Actually they just refer to it these days as the UID, that was my mistake (nothing to do with your post you just made), but I distinctly remember a few years ago that it was just named UDID so it was habit to keep using that acronym. Usually things get more complex (as George Carlin has a skit about once long ago) but apparently Apple just figured UID was more than enough. :)

It's still used by many people and even websites in documentation, however.
Click to expand...

UDID did not become UID.
The UID key is something else, and is not related to the UDID.
The UDID is a 20-byte value used for device identification. It can be easily retrieved from a device and was used in the past by applications and advertising to track users. Its use has been curtailed by Apple. It has been called UDID since, oh, forever? I remember needing it for dev work in 2007. It's still called UDID today.
The UID key is a 256-bit AES key that's contained in the cryptographic processor on the device, and can't just be retrieved at will. Retrieving would require an expert-level attack on the A6 chip itself.

If anyone in this process could retrieve the UID key, then this issue would have never made the news. :)

These two links demonstrate some of the nature of the problem:
Why can't apple simply add the backdoor now and then remove it after the FBI is done?
Why does the FBI ask Apple for help to decrypt an iPhone?
 
lcpiper said:
That being said, what I see from "perfect privacy" an unbreakable encryption is that as an individual I will never ever again be able to go to court and make someone who has screwed me over, pony up the proof.
Click to expand...
Erm, you should collect the proof yourself and not rely on somebody screwing you over to collect it for you.


As soon as the government gives up and says OK, you can have your perfect unbreakable encryption and the courts can no longer force Businesses who hold data for others, to release that data under a valid warrant, we are all open to a royal butt fucking. Your investments will disappear, your medical records will be sealed and any doctors notes on operations performed or medications prescribed will be locked away. We will never be able to prove such things as embezzlement, medical malpractice, nothing at all really.
Click to expand...
What kind of logic is that? A doctor withholding your medical information is illegal. He will go to jail for that. It's just that you can't force Apple to help you get it.
 
lcpiper said:
I'll say it again. We do not want perfect encryption and privacy.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Preserving innocence and privacy are more important than punishing guilt. In fact tthat's why we have "innocent until proven guilty". Just because you're willing to sell your rights down the river doesn't mean I am.
 
babadook said:
Erm, you should collect the proof yourself and not rely on somebody screwing you over to collect it for you.
Click to expand...

When you go to court to sue a business, sometimes that business doesn't want to release data pertinent to the law suite, your lawyers will issue a demand for the records and it will be in the form of a subpoena and the if the Judge backs that up it will become a court order. But if that company stores that data in the cloud, (a 3rd party) and says they don't have anything or that they can't get it, and the Judge then demands that the cloud provider produce it, we won't be able to get it.

Why don't YOU GET THIS?

babadook said:
What kind of logic is that? A doctor withholding your medical information is illegal. He will go to jail for that. It's just that you can't force Apple to help you get it.
Click to expand...

My kid has a malpractice case going to court. The doctor may have called someone to get advice. The ruling may come down to whether the doctor made a decision based on my daughters age and not solely on the symptoms and test results. If the court demands access to his Company owned cell phone because they have reason to believe he called and consulted with another doctor, will they get it?

When it's you trying to prove something, how will you get proof ?

Apple is withholding information on that phone by not assisting with the retrieval of the data.

If the data was just on an unencrypted Disk, but the disk was somewhere that only Apple had access to, and the FBI had a warrant for the disk so they could search the data, would Apple have to comply?


/usr/sbin said:
Speak for yourself. Preserving innocence and privacy are more important than punishing guilt. In fact tthat's why we have "innocent until proven guilty". Just because you're willing to sell your rights down the river doesn't mean I am.
Click to expand...


Why is it only a matter of guilt and innocence to you? Why do you think this is only cops and robbers, or terrorists and security? Why can't you see that this extends to the entire legal system and that we as citizens need that same system to work for us as well?

Why is it so damned hard for you guys to understand this?
 
lcpiper said:
Apple is withholding information on that phone by not assisting with the retrieval of the data.
Click to expand...

Ok, I got a real problem with that line of thinking: Apple is most definitely not withholding information on that phone since the phone a) isn't theirs since it was sold and b) they're not in possession of the phone and c) they did turn over the iCloud backups made before the shooting event/acquisition of the phone from the vehicle.

Now, I could have just read your particular way of phrasing it incorrectly as the other interpretation could be "Apple is withholding information (that could be used to retrieve the) information on that phone..." which - if that was your actual meaning - is an entirely different thing altogether. But I did interpret it as you meaning they have info on that phone as to say they have some data from that specific device they haven't turned over as requested so, after a second glance at it you probably did mean info that could be used to retrieve data from the phone (the custom firmware, etc).

I hate to bring up that Benjamin Franklin quote, I do, because it gets often misused and even more often misquoted (the original actual quotation has never truly been verified as coming from Franklin himself anyway but it's believed to have been) and the original usage of the phrase was used in a taxation case facing the Pennsylvania General Assembly long ago. Most scholars nowadays seem to agree that in our world now - with all the technological advances and all the privacy and security issues - that the quote actually translates over quite well and becomes applicable to a lot of situations including this current iPhone fiasco which potentially could set that incredibly dangerous precedent.

We all have our opinions on this matter, and rarely do they align (or else we'd have nothing but a shitload of "me too" type posts so I consider discussion a good thing overall. I'm pretty sure most of us understand things better as time passes and more information becomes available. Some things are just right and some things are just wrong, regardless of whatever "law" man might have created so they have something to do which seems to be something that Congress - and most if not all state legislatures - does all too often, and not in a good way either.

As for the theoretical you asked about (the unencrypted Disk), I may have interpreted that wrong as well but I don't see it as a valid question: the only way Apple would have access to an unencrypted disk would be if they had possession of the disk and it was their property - that simply isn't comparable to the situation they're facing right now as mentioned in the three points I made above (a, b, and c). They don't own that iPhone, they don't have possession of it, and it's simply not their responsibility - period - to do what the FBI/DOJ/courts are attemtping to order them to do.

This is an entirely new and totally unique situation in the history of US legislation (at least that I'm aware of but I'm far from a legal historian or scholar in such matters) so there's going to be a huge push from the FBI to get it "set in stone" for the future, and I don't have any issues at all so far with Apple's position on the matter.

It ain't their phone, it shouldn't be their problem, to be as blunt as possible.
 
All this f
Tiberian said:
Ok, I got a real problem with that line of thinking: Apple is most definitely not withholding information on that phone since the phone a) isn't theirs since it was sold and b) they're not in possession of the phone and c) they did turn over the iCloud backups made before the shooting event/acquisition of the phone from the vehicle.
.
Click to expand...

A. The Owner has agreed to allow Apple to unlock the phone, actual ownership is not of import.

B. The Court Order says Apple can comply with the court order from an Apple Facility (Apple will be in possession of the phone)

C. The iCloud Backups are immaterial as they do not represent to complete data that is reasonably expected to remain on the phone, automatic iCloud backup was turned off by the user so the backups represent incomplete data.

Now I will give you this, that legally, Apple has not yet refused to cooperate with the court order because they have not officially responded to it. Apple received the court order, bitched about it and publicly claimed they would resist it. They have filed a motion to vacate the order based on a claim that the All Writs Act does not grant the court the power to force Apple to do what the FBI wants them to do. To the best of my knowledge the Judge has not ruled on this motion yet. So technically, Apple has not officially refused no matter what they have claimed publicly.

But if Judge Pym throws out the motion to vacate the court order and Apple then replies to the Court Order refusing to comply, then Apple is in effect, withholding that data from the FBI by refusing to assist in unlocking the phone. Now someone is going to spout back up with that bullshit about the Court Order not being about unlocking the phone but that is exactly the end result of what compliance with the court order will bring about if successful.

Apple makes the phone, Apple sold the phone to the County, the County owns the phones and said they are fine with Apple unlocking it. The All Writs Act is used to compel businesses or individuals to assist the government in matters where the government requires someones specific help.

No one else is in a better position to break into an iPhone then Apple. This is a completely reasonable request.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of you guys continuously debating with icpiper, you're the real MVP's (or just love to counter his thread bombs).
He keeps saying the same thing over and over like it's going to make everyone else agree with him.



 
Tiberian said:
If the methodology to decrypt an iPhone's internal storage (because that's what's necessary here) was anywhere near as easy as McAfree claimed in the first video (I won't need to watch the second one) then the FBI, the DOJ, the NSA, the CIA, most skilled hardcore blackhat hackers and security folk - not to mention every government of most every country on the planet - would have been doing this for years now. The "secret code" isn't something that's stored internally in the phone like he seems to be thinking it is and just sitting there for someone to read.

Let me explain it to you in the simplest possible terms: if the "secret code" was somewhere in the internal storage of the device - it's not in the firmware but the read/writable user storage of the device - then reading it would be a trivial thing, that is entirely true but there's a problem there because the internal storage is encrypted. See how that works? How the hell is anyone going to be able to find something required to decrypt such a device if what's needed happens to be encrypted itself? See how that works? Part of the decryption process requires the UDID of the given device and that can be located easily (by design because that's used for also being able to install signed Apple firmware on an iOS device) but it also requires the passcode in conjunction with that UDID to do the cryptological hashing work to decrypt the internal storage but it's a mathematical function. If the necessary info is encrypted, you can't read it and it's far far from trivial as McAfee seems to think it is.

If I could meet him or talk with him I'd just say "It's encrypted, stupid."

As for you being a hacker, no, you don't say. :D

And as for you liking McAfee, a lot of folk seem to like Donald Trump nowadays - that's not really a positive thing, honestly. McAfee is for all intents and purposes taking Trump's exact game plan and just running his mouth 24/7 about this because it was easy for him to latch onto it and it's a situation dealing with technology and people seem to think he's got some great understanding of technology in general. He's not saying or revealing anything that Edward Snowden hasn't revealed, he's not pushing out any info that hasn't been available for a decade now for people in the know on the type of monitoring going on (not tooting my own horn but I happen to be someone with a strong interest in computer and technology security since the 1970s).

Protip: he's a buffoon milking this situation for press as much as he can as long as someone is willing to hand him a microphone or sit him down in front of a video camera.
Click to expand...
He was talking about re-coding the passcode entry firmware. Which he assumes exists in a decryptable state in order to run before you enter a code and the logging of the number of attempts can be manipulated.
 
jpm100 said:
He was talking about re-coding the passcode entry firmware. Which he assumes exists in a decryptable state in order to run before you enter a code and the logging of the number of attempts can be manipulated.
Click to expand...

If anyone could modify the software without Apple's signing key, they would, and this would have never hit the news. See Page 6 of Apple's iOS security guide.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
All of you guys continuously debating with icpiper, you're the real MVP's (or just love to counter his thread bombs).
He keeps saying the same thing over and over like it's going to make everyone else agree with him.
Click to expand...


I'd be happy if they would even address my points but instead they stay focused on the details that actually don't mean anything.


That's OK, they didn't listen to me before about the NSA and now over 100,000 Americans have lost all their rights to online privacy and all their records, medical, bank accounts, social media, even activity on a forum like this, are subject to surveillance.

Let that sink in a little.


Because I am under surveillance and my activity on the [H] is subject to monitoring, ALL OF YOU ARE while you debate with me here.

Just keep that in mind and don't forget, I told you so.


And it's an "L" (lcpiper) ;)
 
Last edited:
Tiberian said:
That's the thing: it's not a request, it's never been done before, and there's nothing reasonable about it.

And as for Apple not having done anything since the vacate order request was put in, that's not quite true (fast movers inbound, check six):

Apple follows up earlier motion to vacate FBI court order with formal objection in order to guarantee appeal

So now they've acted, and it's official.
Click to expand...

That is not for you or I to decide Tiberian. It's for the Judge to decide after Apple makes their official reply to the Court Order. If Apple thinks it's unreasonable they get to tell the Judge and back it up.

I work in a development lab, the court order would involve Apples dev lab. From my experience in the dev business, it's a reasonable request. But Apple get's to try and convince the Judge otherwise. I am sure the Judge has already received opinions from other devs.

You have your opinion as well.
 
I meant that it's official that Apple has acted and moved forward on things by saying "we formally object to the order..."

As for the subject to being monitored when we're online in any and all situations, well, as I've been "online" since the 1970s, believe me, I've seen my own dossier several times and it ain't pretty. :p

Now the San Bernardino D.A. has officially jumped the fucking shark:

San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon | Techdirt

In the brief filed on behalf of San Bernardino County by Michael A. Ramos said:
The iPhone is a county owned telephone that may have connected to the San Bernardino County computer network. The seized IPhone may contain evidence that can only be found on the seized phone that it was used as a weapon to introduce a lying dormant cyber pathogen that endangers San Bernardino County's infrastructure, a violation of Cal. Penal Code §502 (Lexis 2016) and poses a continuing threat to the citizens of San Bernardino County.
Click to expand...

Good lord, what a moron. He's now making shit up out of thin air, literally.
 
Tiberian said:
I meant that it's official that Apple has acted and moved forward on things by saying "we formally object to the order..."

As for the subject to being monitored when we're online in any and all situations, well, as I've been "online" since the 1970s, believe me, I've seen my own dossier several times and it ain't pretty. :p

Now the San Bernardino D.A. has officially jumped the fucking shark:

San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon | Techdirt



Good lord, what a moron. He's now making shit up out of thin air, literally.
Click to expand...

It could contain self assembling code for distributed artificial intelligence or the location of the fountain of youth. It is going to be a harder upward battle this route
 
Tiberian said:
I meant that it's official that Apple has acted and moved forward on things by saying "we formally object to the order..."

As for the subject to being monitored when we're online in any and all situations, well, as I've been "online" since the 1970s, believe me, I've seen my own dossier several times and it ain't pretty. :p

Now the San Bernardino D.A. has officially jumped the fucking shark:

San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon | Techdirt



Good lord, what a moron. He's now making shit up out of thin air, literally.
Click to expand...

I had not seen that report previously, it sounds like it is the "official responce" required by the court order. I know the motion to vacate was not, that is different, That is a claim that the Court Order itself is a problem, not a yes or no compliance answer too the court order. But the motion to vacate must be dealt with first before things can continue and that alone could tie things up for awhile.

It is my understanding that Judge Pym could deny the motion to vacate, then Apple could appeal that to a higher court. I do not know if the case would have to wait on the appeal, I think it likely that until it was settled, things would remain on hold.

I saw something on that link but that headline isn't how I interpreted the the strange reference.

Ok, I was just reading the DA's amicus brief, despite the strange wording "a lying dormant cyber pathogen", which I would interpret means a virus with an, as yet, inactive payload, the DA seems to be saying that since the Phone was a County Phone intended for County Business and was likely connected at different times to the County network, it's possible it had been used to infect the network and they believe cracking the phone would help them be sure one way or the other.

It's plausible, and it's a County owned phone, and it's worth considering. But that is still some screwed up technical wana-be word-smithing.
 
Considering that security experts are basically having a blast laughing at the ignorance and outright idiocy of that D.A.'s claims this morning, I'd have a hard time believing that any smartphone in existence ever could be or has been used in such a manner.

But, just as this entire fiasco is predicated on the situation where Apple is being ordered to - for the first time ever - create a tool from scratch to provide a manner to access the data on that iPhone, I suppose it could be the first time ever that a phone could be a carrier of some mysterious cyber-pathogen.

If anything, I myself believe this iPhone should be forever considered "A Weapon of Mass Instruction" because of what's going to be learned from it - not any relevant data the FBI thinks it contains, of course, but instead it will teach us all just how fucking stupid things truly are in today's world and just how fucking stupid things will continue to become in the future.
 
You might want to look into this further.

Can smartphones get viruses and spread them to the network?

This is the first instance I found, ironically, it's a virus propagated by iOS devices.

Ikee: The first worm known for iOS platforms. It only works on terminals that were previously made a process of jailbreak, and spreads by trying to access other devices using the SSH protocol, first through the subnet that is connected to the device. Then, it repeats the process generating a random range and finally uses some preset ranges corresponding to the IP address of certain telephone companies. Once the computer is infected, the wallpaper is replaced by a photograph of the singer Rick Astley, a reference to the Rickroll phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Mobile virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further reading on the ikee virus doesn't say anything about infecting computers, this may be poorly worded writing on the wiki site, it also didn't say anything about contacting phone carriers either so.

Because there are examples of smartphones propagating mobile-malware via SSH, SMS, and other methods, and because Trojans and worms have both been identified in the mobile realm, I think it is entirely possible for a mobile device to be infected by a virus which has it download more malicious code that in turn attempts to propagate computer virus payloads.

What's more, there are utilities run on computers that allow you to run mobile-apps, I've used them. Now if you were to get a mobile-virus it might still have no effect, but if you were sent a computer virus, again. I think it's entirely possible and just hasn't been pursued yet that we are really aware of.
 
Last edited:
Tiberian said:
Considering that security experts are basically having a blast laughing at the ignorance and outright idiocy of that D.A.'s claims this morning, I'd have a hard time believing that any smartphone in existence ever could be or has been used in such a manner.

But, just as this entire fiasco is predicated on the situation where Apple is being ordered to - for the first time ever - create a tool from scratch to provide a manner to access the data on that iPhone, I suppose it could be the first time ever that a phone could be a carrier of some mysterious cyber-pathogen.

If anything, I myself believe this iPhone should be forever considered "A Weapon of Mass Instruction" because of what's going to be learned from it - not any relevant data the FBI thinks it contains, of course, but instead it will teach us all just how fucking stupid things truly are in today's world and just how fucking stupid things will continue to become in the future.
Click to expand...

Investigations are just like Intelligence Operations, it's just as important to confirm something as to deny it. Meaning negative is as useful as positive. You don't think that knowing the shooters didn't have any accomplices or contacts with similar ideas is just as important as actually finding that they do have such acquaintances? It is.

These people who make comments saying that the phone probably doesn't have any useful data do not understand that knowing this is all by itself, useful.
 
If the phone in question had been used to contact anyone at any time by cellular call, SMS or MMS text messaging, or anything else, that data is already available from the carrier and probably has already been provided. I don't personally believe the iPhone in question will yield a single piece of useful information at all if the data on it is ever fully recovered but that's just me.

The only "terrorism" I see at work here are the FBI actions and the D.A. in San Bernardino trying to scare everyone into doing something they don't want to and should not be forced to do which is precisely what terrorism actually is.

Simple Definition of terrorism
  • : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Click to expand...

with terror being defined as:

Simple Definition of terror
  • : a very strong feeling of fear

  • : something that causes very strong feelings of fear : something that is terrifying
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, what the FBI and that D.A. are basically doing is fear-mongering towards a political goal - that precedent - and they're not going to stop until they achieve it.

Now while I know implicitly that I am forever alone in that belief on this complete clusterfuck of a situation, I'm ok with that.
 
I don't see it that way. Maybe cause I ain't scared.

I don't fear them. I don't fear that they are all in a big cabal trying to control and manipulate me. I've been around them, I've never seen that. For me, from my experience, it's fantasy.

What I have seen is a government that is too big to know what it's doing and involved with doing way too many things. An Elephant in a china cabinet, it can't move without breaking something.

I've seen the government do harm but it wasn't while a group wearing dark suites sat around a table plotting despotic schemes. It was while menials who perform repetitive minor tasks, according to rule, regulation, and memo, that have an impact on real people in a negative way. It was by the bureaucracy of a train that moves at the speed of peanut-butter with no concern for people a thousand miles away whom they don't and will never know.

And what's more, I can't imagine that anyone anywhere is feeling afraid because the DA in California claims there might be evidence on that phone that points to a virus that has infected the San Bernadino County's computer network. I just don't see anyone waking up tonight in a cold sweat over that. I also have a hard time relating such a thing to this;

images


I know that image is a little unfair to use, but you brought up terrorism. I just don''t want to lose the ability to have my lawyer find and show proof that someone has fucked me or my family over in some way.

But more importantly, just like you I see a problem. I see a different problem than you do though. You see the evil boogie man going to spy on you and all that. I see the government, absent cooperation from the Industry, creating laws that will prevent what's going on between Google and the FBI. You must realize the government sees this as a problem. The Government has asked Industry to work with them on a good solution. Industry is for the most part refusing. It won't stop the government, they are just going to appoint "representatives" in their place and continue on.

The Elephant will get a little bigger, and probably break a lot more china.
 
Unfortunately (and rather on purpose I have to admit) you have no idea what problem I see but as stated that is by design on my part.

Terrorism doesn't require a Muslim name or even one that sounds like one, doesn't require guns, doesn't require bullets, doesn't require planes slamming into buildings (don't even get me started on that whole situation of fantasy), doesn't require some despotic fantasy action figure bad guy that can't be found by even the best security forces in the world, doesn't require a whole list of things that regularly and with absurd frequency get attributed to it.

In reality it just takes someone with a goal.

But now they can add another item to that list: a damned iPhone.

200_s.gif


Thank you for your service, lcpiper. ;)
 
Well, You are welcome and thank you for your involvement which is a service in itself.

The debate and talking and awareness and ideas are all good. These are things that I believe the writers of the constitution valued. This is involvement. It's part of the solution, not the problem.


You know, I usually have mixed feelings when people say that to me. It's not that I didn't have to do some messed up things, not evil, I never had to shoot anyone, drop a bomb on them. I never actually served in a war zone in the Army, I did go to Iraq as a contractor but that just isn't the same thing. I was exposed to some things while in service, most while in Korea. A virus almost killed me and a week into remodeling our bathrooms in a building I worked in they discovered asbestos so we were breathing that dust. How much I don't know, ain't killed me yet. Maybe next year.

But I did serve and if ordered I would have gone and if needed I would have fought. We all like to think we know how we'll behave in combat but no one really knows until they are in it. But I hope that I would have been able to deal with it, during and after.

Yet after all that, truthfully, I wasn't thinking of you, my neighbors, the South Koreans, or anyone else when I signed up for the Army. I did it because it's what I wanted to do. It's a volunteer service, and they offered me a deal and I decided it was good enough to take. Of course it didn't turn out the way I expected but I came out OK. Not everyone does.

Still, I don't feel completely like a hypocrite either because when someone says that, they really are not just thanking me, they are thanking the ones who really do deserve the thanks. I'm just the face that's handy at the time, by proxy. And oddly, it feels good to accept that for those who do deserve it.
 
My Dad served in WWII (joined the US Navy in 1934) in the Pacific and did see quite a bit of action, then went on to have some involvement in the Korean War as well before he moved back into civilian life, my brother served in the Navy as well for 18 years but when my time came and I offered my service (passed the ASVAB twice with perfect scores, go figure) they weren't interested because times had changed and I didn't "fit" into their particular way of doing things, literally.

So as I come from a family with a distinct military background and history when I offer that thanks it's never meant as just a passing comment, it's offered because I am grateful that some folk take it upon themselves to make the choice and the decision to serve.

As for me, looking back on those times in my youth when I offered myself up on a platter and they basically said "Pass..." I'm grateful now for it not happening as weird as that might sound. I always wondered how I'd have actually done and whether I could have served well enough to have made my Dad proud but alas that's something I'll never know.

These days, honestly, I'm getting kind of sick of this country and as a native born and bred American I have the right to bitch about it - I suppose the service I provide now is pointing out how fucked up it truly happens to be. :D

Anyway, going off-topic I suppose, will be on the lookout for more tidbits of interest related to this Apple/FBI shenanigans and will update if needed.

ps
No sooner than I post this that I find the shenanigans beginning:

Congressman Proposes Law Banning Government From Purchasing Apple Devices | Techdirt

LET THE WAR ON STUPID DUMBASS POLITICIANS BEGIN!!! :p
 
lcpiper said:
What I am trying to get across is simple. In the world of absolutes, there is no such thing as an absolutely perfectly safe and unbreakable phone. That is because in the end, it all comes down to people, and people sometimes do things they shouldn't, like steal from their employers, or the competition, whatever.

So we are not dealing with


Let me get this straight.

You are saying that Apple can't take this phone into their lab where they control the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Take this new code, use their own test network in their lab and push this code to this one phone. Connect this one phone to their test network inside their lab and using one of their own computers, crack the phone, yank the data, burn the data and pass it to the FBI, and then wipe the phone and destroy all the code?

Is this what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I'm saying a determined theif can steal anything if there determined and the price is right.
 
msny said:
I'm saying a determined theif can steal anything if there determined and the price is right.
Click to expand...

OK, so why not just be determined to steal Apple's encryption keys needed to push software updates. With those keys you could push anything you wanted to any Apple phone there is? You'd have to steal them anyway to push this "tool" we have been talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top