[ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes...
pharos at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 18:52:31 UTC 2016
On 29 March 2016 at 15:17, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> If lives are truly at stake, and you could make a good case that they were,
> then that takes precedence over changing the programming. I do think a
> federal judge should handle this type of thing.
> So unless I hear from someone about the programming, then I 'll stick to
> this: public need to know trumps (sorry) private companies' needs or wants.
There are many factors in this case, most not mentioned in the court case.
Apple probably could break into the phone, but it wouldn't end there.
When everyone has a smartphone this would mean a continuous stream of
requests to break into phones and Apple would have to set up a whole
department to process the requests. And it wouldn't just be the FBI
making requests. Other agencies would 'need' access. IRS, TSA, even
local cops. Foreign governments also. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
would join in, putting citizens lives at risk.
The same would apply if back-door access was built in to the phone.
Everybody would expect access if required. Customers would not trust
their phone to be private.
Apple is also thinking years ahead. They see a future where customers
use their phone for *everything*.
They want to replace credit cards, money, passport, keys, maps,
camera, etc. If your phone is going to contain your whole life then it
has to be believed to be secure. Otherwise people won't buy into this
More information about the extropy-chat