IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Except
This is about his work phone. They both had personal phones which they destroyed before the attack. Chances that anything useful is on the work phone is rather slim. Plus, any people contacted would be available from the telco/ISP, so that can't be it.
New They had the phone with them before and after the attack, before they were killed.
The Feb 16 court filing (p. 4 of the PDF file).

I'm not convinced this is just a fishing expedition or just a desire to set a precedent. Maybe so. We'll see.

Cheers,
Scott.
     All you need to know about the Apple phone encryption case - (drook) - (14)
         gumment uber alles, you have no right to remain silent -NT - (boxley)
         Cringley's take... - (dmcarls) - (8)
             Interesting. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
             That's some high-stakes poker, if true -NT - (drook)
             If so, maybe that autopsy should be reconsidered... - (scoenye) - (5)
                 Presumably when Apple was developing this hardware encryption... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     The phones don't brick - (scoenye) - (3)
                         Here's the (other) thing about this case - (drook) - (2)
                             It is about the legal landgrab - (scoenye)
                             Now that is a Bingo! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         Conspiracy theory ++ - (drook) - (3)
             I haven't read a lot about this... - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Except - (scoenye) - (1)
                     They had the phone with them before and after the attack, before they were killed. - (Another Scott)

I've never been so insulted in all my week!
79 ms