---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <nd65dv$3fm$1@dont-email.me> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:16:30 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Wall Street Journal accuses FBI of lying in court The Wall Street Journal says the government "fibbed", Comey denies it. Sort of. The U.S. government claimed more than a dozen times in court filings that it could open the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone only with Apple's help. "The undisputed evidence," it asserted two weeks ago, "is that the FBI cannot unlock [Syed Rizwan] Farook's phone without Apple's assistance." That, we learned Monday, was not true. http://fortune.com/2016/03/24/apple-fbi-comey-lie/?iid=rightrail-more -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nd6610$5ha$1@dont-email.me> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:26:39 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Apple may not like the FBI's new alternative to 'GovtOS' By Chris Smith The FBI has seemingly admitted defeat to Apple in its quest to force the company to build an insecure version of its OS to load onto the iPhone owned by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. And that might be a good thing. However, a public court battle between Apple and the FBI might have been a lot better, even if Apple risked being forced to unlock the iPhone. Talking to CNBC, cyber security specialist John McAfee warns that Apple might not like the FBI's new alternative method for unlocking the iPhone 5c, even though they'll be doing so without Apple's help. "Apple and Tim Cook are not going to be happy with what the FBI has come up with," he said. "It's not worse than a universal master key, but it's much much easier to get into a phone with it." http://bgr.com/2016/03/24/apple-fbi-san-bernardino-iphone-encryption/ + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + The accused terrorist in the San Bernardino case did not own the iPhone in question: it is the property of the county government where he worked, and it is because the FBI asked that agency to change a password that this affair started. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nd66fe$77a$1@dont-email.me> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:34:18 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Apple stared down the FBI and won By Brad Reed When news first broke that the FBI wanted Apple to build an insecure version of iOS to help the agency access the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, I wrote that Apple needed to be careful to avoid the government's clever public relations trap. It seemed that law enforcement officials wanted to use a high-profile act of terrorism as a way to create political pressure on Apple to comply with its demands and set a precedent for future cases. While I believed Apple was right to resist such demands, I also thought there was a chance this could backfire since no one wants to be seen as impeding an investigation that could prevent future terrorist attacks. However, Apple stared down the FBI and won this fight for the best possible reason: It had the facts on its side. http://bgr.com/2016/03/24/apple-vs-fbi-iphone-encryption-case/ + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + Kudos to Mr. Reed for getting the facts straight: as we've seen, some other reporters didn't bother. IANALB, it seems to me that the court case the FBI brought against Apple will (if it is ever resumed) boil down to the question of precedent: whether or not any person or company has been forced to help decode an enciphered or encrypted document. After all, a search warrant entitles police to seize documents, but I have never heard of a court ordering a defendant (or, in this case, a blameless third party) to deliver plain-text copies when an enciphered version was seized. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sun, 27 Mar 2016