Why Are Apple's Competitors Staying Silent On the iPhone Unlocking Fight? 301
erier2003 writes: A court order forcing Apple to help the FBI access a terrorism suspect's iPhone has drawn responses from leading tech companies, newspaper editorial boards, and security experts. But one major faction is staying largely silent: the computer and smartphone manufacturers who compete with Apple for business and could be subject to similar orders in the future if the company loses its high-profile case. Silicon Valley software firms have universally backed Apple in its fight against the Justice Department, which won a ruling Tuesday from a California magistrate judge compelling Apple to design custom software to bypass security features on an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. But Apple's hardware competitors are staying on the sidelines.
Finally the debate is here (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally we have a debate on whether or whether not the state should have access to people's personal data. This is what snowden wanted, his goal is reached.
Re:Finally the debate is here (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure what Snowden wants in cases like this, because it is about evidence collected after a crime was committed. It isn't terribly different from a court demanding paper documentation.
The big concern, and the concern which ties into Snowden's revelations, is that US government agencies have proven untrustworthy. If Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. fulfill this presumably legitimate request, they may find themselves fulfilling requests for surveillance purposes or disclosing information that these agencies can use to engineer their own solutions for surveillance purposes.
Re:Finally the debate is here (Score:5, Insightful)
It's completely different. It's not about demanding paper documentation, it's about demanding that a company crack a code. The gov't can make me open my door, but they can't make me invent a new way of opening doors.
Re: (Score:3)
The phone belongs to his employer - the San Bernardino government. This is like a homeowner letting someone stay in his home, and the guest changes the locks. The guest then kills a bunch of people and himself. The homeowner wants to get back in and (clumsily) resets the lock so the old key won't work even if they managed to find it. They then ask the lock maker
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely the wrong case to fight that other fight, but this fight might be more important.
That said, I don't really care what some hardware companies have to say. They might not even have a strong record as any sort of moral or legal authority. ;)
The debate that matters here is the legal debate that lawyers are having. Congress is incapable of action on either side of this, and Joe Schmoe's opinion is irrelevant. And, most Schmoes don't understand the difference between opinions and analysis, or h
Re: (Score:3)
A proper encryption scheme does not rely on the secrecy of the scheme. The FBI almost certainly has the schematics and code. It won't help them.
Re:Finally the debate is here (Score:4, Insightful)
While it's a US only debate, it will still have long term repercussions. Apple won't be able to sell their phones abroad to governments or serious bizmen. Only as a toy phone, playing the latest and greatest Angry birds or Clash of clans.
American hw and sw is already a hard sell outside of US.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happens to Apple here will impact everyone else, especially if it gets worded in law. Don't believe Android, Windows Phone et al. will be unimpacted by this. Other companies are staying silent because they probably don't want to get involved in something high profile until it really impacts them or that they know the any publicity on their part may backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happens to Apple here will impact everyone else
So assume that if they never jump in, they are already compromised.
But if they're going to jump in, they won't do it now. Let Apple deal with the PR issues (which won't be entirely in their favor, a lot of people are terrified of terrorists and would gladly give their house keys to the government). If Google and MS are going to jump in, and i agree they pretty much have to if they are not already compromised, it will be when this hits the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
American hw and sw is already a hard sell outside of US.
Export data begs to differ. ;)
It turns out that pundits writing anti-American stuff in foreign media is not the same thing as lost sales. Who knew?! Oh, right, the marketing people. Turns out they did know something, even if it wasn't what the product features are. ;)
Gosh, if it is so hard to sell American software and hardware, why is the demand so high? Oh, right, there are people who disagree with you even in your own country, but you pretend they don't exist. It might turn out, they even have money and
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Only Android and IOS.
Well thank heaven those two don't have more market share, then!
Re: (Score:2)
In other words only about 99% of smartphones have American OSes?
Re: Finally the debate is here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't in the UK otherwise David Cameron wouldn't be demanding that US companies weaken their encryption and threatening them with new laws if they don't comply. The European Convention on Human Rights isn't as strong as the US Constitution, but people still have plenty of rights and the state has to justify any violation of those rights in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about what you're saying there. US companies have strong encryption, both in the US and the UK. And it is the UK government that demands that the US companies weaken their encryption for the UK market. What does that tell you?
No, t
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like asking a safe manufacturer to unlock one of their customers' safes.
To which, of course, the correct response is "Why the hell does the safe manufacturer have the ability to unlock the safe in the first place?".
It is exactly like that, because there is a service for opening safes, and it is called a "locksmith," and not all safe manufacturers offer locksmithing services. Some do, some do not. The manufacturer is usually hired to help the locksmith determine where to drill, but they don't actually do the work.
This is the same; there are companies that offer services to write custom firmware; Apple isn't one of those companies, and the firmware in question is not a tool that they have and use internally. Furthermore
Re:Finally the debate is here (Score:5, Informative)
Finally we have a debate on whether or whether not the state should have access to people's personal data. This is what snowden wanted, his goal is reached.
No, that's not what this is about at all. The government has a search warrant for this data. They have the right to get the data. Apple even handed over an iCloud backup based on a legal warrant. Apple has absolutely no problem with handing over data when the police comes with a valid search warrant.
What Apple refuses to do is to break the security of their phones that they sell to millions of honest, hardworking citizens, honest but lazy citizens, dishonest citizens, politicians, lawyers, army personnel and so on and so on and so on, by creating software that they don't have right now, to access data that they cannot access right now.
This is not about preventing the government from executing search warrants, it is about keeping customer data safe. Apple declares that your iCloud data is safe from hackers and criminals, even though Apple can access it, because all that data is under Apple's control and they don't let hackers and criminals near it. Apple also declars that your phone data is only safe if _nobody_, including Apple, can access that data, because your phone can get under total control of the hacker.
As a side effect, Apple can deliver data stored on iCloud if they get a search warrant, but they can't deliver data stored on your phone. If Apple could deliver the data on the phone without creating a risk to the security of everyone, they would.
Re: (Score:2)
They also have permission from the phone's owner: the San Bernadino Health Department. It's important to recognize that this phone was Farook's work phone. There was never an expectation of privacy for this phone.
Re: (Score:3)
As the phone is owned by the San Bernadino Health Department, why are they rolling out phones to employees without any proper MDM solution in place that would allow them to, among other things, unlock the phone even if they don't know the user's PIN/passcode?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this case is that Apple can comply with a court order to help the FBI break into the phone. If they had not screwed up by allowing the Secure Enclave's auto-erase and rate limiting functions to be disabled, we could get to the real question: will companies be allowed to build truly unbreakable encryption?
That's why everyone else is keeping quiet. Why risk saying something that affects the inevitable future legal case when the phone really cannot ever be unlocked? Then it will be down to lob
Ask the software guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
asked phone manufacturers LG, Samsung, and Sony and computer manufacturers Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, and Lenovo (which also owns phone manufacturer Motorola) whether they agreed with the government or Apple in the unfolding legal battle.
None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys. The FBI is asking for a software backdoor.
Google (those guys behind Android) has stood by Apple [macworld.com]
Re:Ask the software guys. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google may make the core OS for Android devices but I can assure you that Samsung and HTC and LG and the other OEMs releasing Android devices do a lot of software work themselves. More to the point, it would be HTC or LG or Samsung or whoever that would need to produce a customized software stack with a backdoor in it if the FBI needed it, not Google (especially if the device the FBI wanted cracked would only run signed firmware)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the OS developer who can unlock the secure memory that holds the encryption key or disable the rate limiting/auto erase. It's the CPU manufacturer.
Samsung make their own CPUs. Most others use Qualcomm or Allwinner parts. Samsung and Allwinner are not US companies which complicates things a bit. Qualcomm didn't make the mistake of allowing the secure memory's firmware to be altered so couldn't comply anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and the majority of Apple's hardware competitors aren't US companies, and hence operate under somewhat different legal environments; in some cases, legal environments where resisting government law enforcement efforts is suicide.
Microsoft is one of the few US competitors equivalent to Apple, and everyone knows where they stand on the security and privacy of their users.
Re:Ask the software guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be Samsung, not Google, that would have to bake a custom ROM in similar circumstances.
Re:Ask the software guys. (Score:5, Informative)
None of them also make the OS, they're just the hardware guys.
False. The other guys make enough OS customisations that they are well and truly in control of features to this level. Take a look at features like Samsung Knox to see what kind of security bolt-ons these vendors put on top of the features already in existence on Android. Many of these vendors also attempt to lock down the boot loader to prevent unauthorised code from running in ways that isn't part of the standard Android feature set so they most definitely do make major security changes to the OS before loading them on devices.
Re: (Score:2)
"They select the OS that they put on their device"
You mean like selecting KitKat or Lollipop or Marshmallow? What other mainstream, well-populated ecosystem exists outside of iOS and Android? Microsoft? Blackberry? Name me a successful consumer handset company which isn't "choosing" Android.
No - there's pretty much one choice if you don't plan on building entire, robust ecosystem from scratch (and you're not Apple).
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, if you wiggle hard enough while you read it, it almost looks like the words are wiggling. I kinda see your point. I guess I'd have to view it while riding in a bouncy truck to misconstrue the rest.
Why should they? (Score:5, Interesting)
What good would it do them? Since Google has taken point on designing, evangelizing, and (recently) mandating strong, backdoor-less crypto -- actions they, along with most of the technologentsia, are firmly in favor of -- they can ride the wave of inevitability, rather than stick their neck out with broad anti-government pronouncements. Sometimes the best PR is no PR.
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Apple wins, everyone of them win. If Apple loses, and they could, they lose alone.
Listen to the proffered positions of the pretenders to the Presidential nomination. To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Check your facts (Score:3)
the Error 53 thing has been disabled, and now, as long as you have an electronic copy of someone's fingerprint, you can pretty much unlock their device.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but:
If Touch ID on your device didn't work before you saw error 53, the feature still won't work after you update or restore your device. Contact Apple Support to ask about service options for Touch ID.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205628 [apple.com]
Also see virtually every other site that reported the error 53 fix [techcrunch.com].
TL:DNR: Disabling Touch ID when an unauthorised repair is made was intentional and hasn't changed. Bricking the entire phone so you couldn't even unlock it with your passcode was a bug, which is what has been fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
"pulled out of stolen iPhones bought off of eBay"
Huh. So that's where they come from.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.
That is only because most people like to have opinions on things they know nothing about.
I cannot begin to tell you how many non-pilots have strong opinions about aviation, helicopters, and all things flying, while having no idea whatsoever what they are talking about (I'm a professional pilot with commercial and instrument ratings in both airplanes and helicopters, a certified flight instructor in both airplanes and helicopters, with thousands of hours of flight time and over 2,000 hours of dual instruction given). Yet whenever major aviation stuff is in the news, they all like to talk like somehow they have a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To many non-tech people, Apple's stance is bordering on treason.
That is only because most people like to have opinions on things they know nothing about.
You mean like "treason" being applicable, when the only currently outstanding and ratified articles of war that the U.S. has are versus North Korea?
Otherwise, you know, we'd be going against Wall Street for their "treason" committed during the "War On Poverty" (another ongoing war on a concept that the U.S. has "declared").
Re: (Score:2)
False, it is legally well-established that when Congress authorizes money for a military action, that is the "declaration" that the War Powers Resolution and other documents talks about. There is not, and never was, a Declaration of War Form that gets filled out. Congress doesn't like to use the word, but they still authorize wars.
As an example, the Authorization for use of Force against Terrorists of 2001 specifically says that it satisfies the declaration of war requirement, even though it doesn't use the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we care how people with such fucked up concepts call traitors since it comes down to people in their Party can do no wrong while people outside are seen as evil?
Well, we care because this stupidity is among us, and because what stupid people do en masse can sometimes affect the rest of us.
The point is simply that Apple has found itself on the same side of the privacy argument as many of us, but there are factions of citizens who couldn't care less or begin to understand what is actually at stake here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a win-win situation for competitor corporations who might find themselves ideologically aligned with Apple's stance, yet lack the political will to stand against the governors ubiquitous snooping. If Apple wins, everyone of them win. If Apple loses, and they could, they lose alone.
First of all, corporations are rarely ideologically aligned to anything. Apple wants people to trust the iPhone so they'll buy iPhones. And post-Snowden, the more noise they can make about the US government not being able to crack it the better for world sales. Even if they lose, I think they'll still win by introducing the "iPhone Clipper Chip" edition for the US, creating an impossible situation where businessmen, tourists and others come to the US with uncrackable phones. I really doubt Apple gives a cra
Re: (Score:2)
But maybe some geek at the top of a tech superpower, who already has all the money he could ever spend, might just decide to stand for something he believes in.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit off-topic, but I'm going to love the debates in the general election when those candidates have to debate this against the backdrop of Snowden. Right now the Republican candidates are having a shouting contest over this only in the context of terrorism. In the general election, the broader issue of rights will be discussed, and they're going to have a hard time reconciling this standing across from somebody arguing that it violates people's rights. So far both the Democrats are refusing to "take a sid
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence the tweet:
"Simple security rule of thumb: don't build encryption for how the world is today, but how it could be if Donald Trump were President." from Aaron Levie, CEO of Box
They have made official statements backing Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They have made official statements backing App (Score:2)
Well Microsoft does make phone hardware...but...lol.
Why is someone silent? (Score:2)
Answer: NSL
case closed.
Re: Why is someone silent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue I can see with NSL's is the non-disclosure aspect... to the point that you aren't even allowed to say why you won't talk about something even if you are directly asked, and what I can see being the biggest problem there is that can put a person in a position where the only way that they may be able to prevent revealing that they aren't allowed to talk about something (by explicitly avoiding talking about it if they are asked, for example, which may suggest to someone who pays attention to
Only OEMs can offer hacker proof software? (Score:2)
I just have a question: Is it possible to download and install some software that will do exactly what Apple has done with their [iPhone] devices?
If so, let Apple do as they please then quietly advertise the availability of this software.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because (especially in current models) a major part of the encryption and related protections against brute forcing a key are engrained in the hardware. The best a software update could do is approach the iPhone 5 level (the kind of phone the FBI is now so desperate to unlock) of security.
Simple... (Score:2)
The Early Bird May Get the Worm... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.
They are watching Apple to see if they get hammered by the DOJ or win business due to not selling out their customer's privacy.
they probably don't have this problem (Score:2)
What's the situtaion with other phones? Hardware manufacturers don't handle Android backups, Google does. And Google
Re: (Score:2)
You have to reboot for an iOS update as well. However, the update would let you try all 10,000 pin combinations if the FBI had their way.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't whether you have to reboot the phone, but whether you have to unlock it for the upgrade and how they implement the unlock count. This is complicated because there are many different ways of implementing it. But whichever way you look at it, a secure system must guarantee that no matter what an external user does, you get to try your pin combinations only
Re: (Score:2)
They have long needed a reason to give that they charge a large markup on their hardware compared to their competitors.
Actually, they don't need a reason. Plenty of people are happy to buy their product already, without them needing to come up with any new motivations for people to do so.
I know it's tough for the haters to accept, but they produce a quality product that people are willing to pay a premium for.
Because they have already been compromised (Score:2)
Just a theory but there are some 4000 Android devices from 400 different manufacturers using who knows what version of Android that may or may not be in the original form since it's open source.
Because a backdoor damages Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And you are not the only one thinking that way. The only thing Apple does better is security and privacy. Other than that, there is no reason to get an iPhone (except maybe "lifestyle", i.e. it is a fetish). Apple stands to lose big-time here if they cave. The problem really is that the FBI does not ask them to unlock just this one phone, they are demanding a tool that would allow them to get into any similar iPhone (not the newer ones though), and Apple has to refuse in order to protect their reputation.
Wh
US Government Should Post an Ad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
O ye of simple minds. The issue here is not cracking that single phone.
Let's look at a few great reasons to stay quiet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's look at a few good reasons to stay silent if you're an Apple competitor.
1. Apple's competitors are based in South Korea and China. They're going to have a much harder time arguing privacy with the US government.
2. Apple has lots of money and excellent legal counsel. They'll put up a better fight than their competitors possibly could.
3. Staying silent won't piss off any American lobby groups, and it probably won't piss off the American general public.
4. This could be a PR nightmare if someone mis-words something. You don't want to accidentally paint yourself as pro-terrorist.
5. There's no obvious win here. If the corporations win and privacy remains paramount, eventually someone is going to do something awful that involves encrypted communication. At that point, the corporations look bad. If the government wins, things could devolve into 1984 if the wrong people ascend to power.
This is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens if Apple cooperates, but fails? (Score:2)
What happens if Apple tries to cooperate, attempts to write a version of iOS that will do what the FBI wants, and the result does not work? What if it takes a long time to write? Who compensates Apple for the programmers' time while that tool is being developed, tested, and debugged? What if the code they make accidentally has bugs that cause data loss on the device that simply were not exposed during QA testing?
Re: (Score:3)
FBI wants less than China, but.. (Score:2)
Mcafee says he'll do it (Score:2)
They are not American companies. (Score:2)
And, since this is an American legal matter, this is not any part of their business.
And, since China mainly wants the same thing as the U.S. government, they are against apple on this.
Voicing that could produce a backlash by some consumers, so they are better off keeping quiet on the subject.
This isn't a 4th amendment issue, it's a 1st. (Score:3)
Apple is being compelled to create speech in violation of the first amendment. It's not an issue of if they can do it. Unlike previous cases such as the Elayne Photography case [nytimes.com] when a photographer asserted first amendment rights against photographing a wedding where the couple was gay, the photographer hung out her shingle as a business for photographing weddings. Gays are protected in the state where this happened.
In this case, Apple is in the business of selling iphones, not selling custom firmware for iphones. They can't restrict sale from gays, for example, but forcing them to create custom firmware for random customers is not their business. Not to mention, the FBI isn't exactly a protected class, nor is apple refusing based on the fact they're FBI. They're refusing because they won't do it for anyone.
There were other cases where a 1st amendment defense wouldn't work, such as lavabit [theguardian.com] where they were handed a piece of equipment and ordered to install it.
Re: (Score:3)
The funny part is that the NY pen trap case that the FBI is citing goes into the exact stuff you say here; the order was legal because the phone company already used the tool for internal fraud prevention, and for customers who wanted to trace their own lines. The SCOTUS decision had a dissent that warned of this exact future problem; the majority ruling asserted that this wouldn't be a problem in the future, and that it was obvious that it wouldn't apply more broadly.
My prediction is that the SCOTUS will b
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't make iPhones, you dumb fuck.
WHOOSH!
Re:Looks kind of bad (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you bothered to read any of the news articles, Apple currently doesn't have that capability.
Too good to be true, I believe is the phrase....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Looks kind of bad (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a backdoor if the device is capable of installing new firmware without unlocking (or destroying the encryption keys) first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So basically, if Apple can do it at all, then the backdoor already exists, and is already awaiting exploitation.
Absolutely not. To exploit this, you'd first have to write working iPhone firmware. You know, firmware that can boot the iPhone and make it run. Obviously firmware with the passcode security removed. That's difficult. Even say the Samsung engineers that built the firmware for the Samsung phones would have a huge problem doing that, because they can talk to the Samsung hardware engineers but not to Apple's hardware engineers.
Then comes the minor problem that this firmware must be codesigned with Apple's m
Re: (Score:2)
Only if that capability has the capability to decrypt the data. A back door is something that bypasses the cryptographic requirements of encrypted data. None such method exists, even if you are capable of loading custom firmware.
Re: (Score:2)
It's encrypted, but with a very short key length: It's a four-digit pin, only 10,000 possible keys. The security is dependant upon trusting the hardware and firmware to do the auto-wipe after too many failures.
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't been given a 'lawful order' they've been given a 'strongly worded request'. There is precedent for what Apple is being asked to do and the precedent is they can say 'fuck off'.
They're not being asked to present data they have access to, they're being told to provide a mechanism to extract data. Picture a tech company that specializes in image manipulation and they make cameras. One of their cameras has a security still of a suspect. The government can ask that they turn over the still, th
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the fact that this is a criminal investigation, Dead people have very little in the way of "rights"
Then they won't mind using the dead guy's finger to unlock the phone without a passcode.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, they think they have a pretty good chance of showing that this order is not "lawful" at all. We call that a police-state where the police believes not to be bound by laws anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
An example we know about is our friend Lenovo using the PC ROM they modified to install their phone home spyware onto your PC after you do a clean install - it was Windows but something similar or worse could be done i
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung's flagship products cost around the same as the equivalent Apple products.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're a recluse old spinster portrayed by Kathy Bates, how can you force anyone, let alone a corporation, to write something.
It's more likely that anyone who starts working on it might accidentally get hit by a bus.
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty much Apple's point. Apple basically says "we think we could, but we think very strongly we should not, so fuck off".
Re: (Score:2)
Either the encryption is done properly and Apple is not able to decrypt it regardless of any court decision, or it is sham encryption, Apple is able to decrypt it (by say hacking the TPM containing the key) Apple knows it and it avoids the court decision as acknowledging ability do decrypt it would mean confessing to deceiving users about security of Iphones.
The encryption is safe. Even if the FBI gets what they want they'd have to try 10,000 different passcodes. They want two features turned off: One is a growing delay after each incorrect password attempt. After a few wrong passcodes, you have to wait until you can try the next one. A delay of 1 minute would mean up to 10,000 minutes or a week day and night enterning passcodes. What's worse is that after ten wrong attempts all the data on the phone is erased. You can turn these two features on on the iPhone.
Re: isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Re: Waitaminnit! Privacy is only a tiny part ot th (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already know how it's going to turn out, because it is all just theatre, Apple will comply again because they already have complied in the past.
That was with older versions of iOS that had weaker security. Since iOS 8 Apple has not had the same degree of access.
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't, for something as important as the loss of 14 innocent people, the people / person responsible for resetting
the password criminally charged?
The people responsible are FBI agents (they did not reset the password, but they requested it to be done). In a police-state, members of the police are never charged with anything, unless it can absolutely not be avoided, e.g. if a policeman murders somebody in cold blood and unfortunately a citizen filmed that and has already posted it online and it has been seen by a lot of people. Other than that, forget about police ever being charged with anything in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It also has a CEO that knows if things get too bad he will be one of those that go to the concentration camps for "sexual deviancy". It always helps if a threat is not only abstract. And yes, Apple does have a soul. Even a dark-gray one is far better than what most corporations and all governments have these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple doesn't claim to protect the rebellion from the government, they claim to not be in the business of hacking phones or writing custom firmware to do so. They claim the data on the phone is very private and nobody can access it without the password, and the data on the cloud is less private but requires a legit government request according to local customs. Of course China can get access to data stored on servers in China. Duh.
Why try to shout BS when you knew you didn't have the details? Oh, right, you
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually if you read slashdot you'd know that most of us do hate Apple, and yet Apple is in the legal right on this issue. They're still a elitist walled garden that I not only wouldn't be seen in, my stuff wouldn't even work there because I won't use proprietary toolsets.
I can hate Apple at the same time that I point out they're in the right on this case, that the cases the FBI cites actually support Apple if you read the rulings, and that this will get overturned on appeal. I can hate them at the same
Re: (Score:2)
This person is rather obviously advertising a scam. Stay away.
Re: (Score:3)
In chess if your opponent dies during the game, the result is a draw. If you think you're winning and your opponent is trying to commit suicide, it is in your best interests to stop him; it might be his one way to save the game!