New twist in Apple -vs- The Ever-expanding-Security-Monster apparition.

Post #408,896 by Ashton 3/21/16 10:46:46 PM 3/21/16 10:46:46 PM Reply	New twist in Apple -vs- The Ever-expanding-Security-Monster apparition. NYT. U.S. Says It May Not Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone By KATIE BENNER MARCH 21, 2016 RIVERSIDE, Calif. — The Justice Department moved to cancel a Tuesday hearing over whether Apple should be forced to help investigators break into an iPhone used by a gunman in last year’s San Bernardino, Calif., mass shooting, saying it might no longer need Apple’s assistance to extract data from the device. In a new court filing on Monday, Justice Department lawyers wrote that as of Sunday, an outside party had demonstrated a way for the F.B.I. to possibly unlock the phone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino gunmen. “Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook’s iPhone,” the Justice Department wrote in the filing. “If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple.” The Justice Department requested that the court cancel Tuesday’s hearing and said it would file a status report by April 5 on its progress on unlocking the iPhone. Hmmmm.. fraught [as regards state of the present 'security'] ?? or.. Guess we'll sorta find out.
Post #408,902 by drook 3/22/16 8:19:21 AM 3/22/16 8:19:21 AM Reply	They didn't want the precedent of losing in court -- Drew
Post #408,903 by Another Scott 3/22/16 8:27:47 AM 3/22/16 8:27:47 AM Reply	That too. But it could be as simple as they didn't know or didn't believe that external crackers could do it. With all the reports in the press, e.g. "I could crack it in three weeks", they had the responsibility to check before swearing in court that only Apple could do it. It'll be interesting to see how Congress manages to square the circle of all the competing arguments, if it's even possible. Cheers, Scott.
Post #408,904 by drook 3/22/16 9:27:21 AM 3/22/16 9:27:21 AM Reply	Mostly that I've seen more than enough analysis to be convinced this was entirely about setting a precedent. Given that, any change in apparent strategy should be seen in terms of what precedent will be set ... or not set. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!