subject:"Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search"

qualifications and certifications in 
>>>>>>>> regards to cryptography, steganography and cyber security. I don’t 
>>>>>>>> bring this up to brag but instead to outline that I’m speaking from a 
>>>>>>>> place of experience. In this letter to us, the customers Tim Cook does 
>>>>>>>> a decent job of outlining the issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I can say with 100% certainty that by creating access to a single 
>>>>>>>> phone apple will significantly reduce it’s ability to protect your 
>>>>>>>> data, and, what’s worse they’ll give that access to the FBI. There’s 
>>>>>>>> no such thing as a backdoor into 1 device. One of the most potent 
>>>>>>>> security measures, and one that Apple has implemented is to ensure 
>>>>>>>> that nobody again nobody has access to secured data, including Apple 
>>>>>>>> themselves. When I’m contracted out to build secure apps or websites I 
>>>>>>>> do the same thing, for example, once a password has been created for a 
>>>>>>>> user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users account.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the operating 
>>>>>>>> system. This means every iOS operating system would become vulnerable 
>>>>>>>> to both malicious hackers and our government. But let me give it to 
>>>>>>>> you in an analogy: Imagine that the iPhone is your home. Now imagine 
>>>>>>>> that your home is in a bad neighborhood and is a high-profile home. So 
>>>>>>>> the FBI comes along and asks you to please smash out one of your own 
>>>>>>>> windows in broad daylight. When you say it lowers the security of your 
>>>>>>>> home the answer is “Well it’s ok, thieves in the area don’t know which 
>>>>>>>> window you smashed out.”
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their 
>>>>>>>> accessibility, I love their products but knowing about cyber security 
>>>>>>>> I can guarantee you right now that if they build this backdoor I will 
>>>>>>>> immediately stop using apple products.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating 
>>>>>>>> system that houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not 
>>>>>>>> enough for you? What about your keychain? You know, the one where you 
>>>>>>>> store all your passwords for things like your bank account.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but 
>>>>>>>> I’m here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your 
>>>>>>>> security it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>-Software Engineer
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ok,
>>>>>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the 
>>>>>>>>> device. Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still 
>>>>>>>>> available, and that were the only method of encryption, then the FBI 
>>>>>>>>> already has its problem solved. If, however, there was a secondary 
>>>>>>>>> method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get 
>>>>>>>>> into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. 
>>>>>>>>> they aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law 
>>>>>>>>> enforcement. all they need to do is provide a technician who knows 
>>>>>>>>> the method (and has the program). since that program will not be 
>>>>>>>>> turned over to the FBI, there is essent

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-24 Thread 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries

ered your security it’s done and 
the product will never be as secure again.

Tyler K. Thompson

-Software Engineer


On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:

ok,
the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. Hell, 
if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that were the 
only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem solved. If, 
however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a 
lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.

Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they aren't 
required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they need to 
do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the program). since 
that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no 
problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the method and law 
enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, 
there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that 
the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

Sent from my iPad


On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list mod

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

>>> So I feel it’s about time to throw in my 2 cents here. I’m a
>>>>>>>> Certified Ethical Hacker and I’ve got qualifications and
>>>>>>>> certifications in regards to cryptography, steganography and cyber
>>>>>>>> security. I don’t bring this up to brag but instead to outline that
>>>>>>>> I’m speaking from a place of experience. In this letter to us, the
>>>>>>>> customers Tim Cook does a decent job of outlining the issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I can say with 100% certainty that by creating access to a single
>>>>>>>> phone apple will significantly reduce it’s ability to protect your
>>>>>>>> data, and, what’s worse they’ll give that access to the FBI. There’s
>>>>>>>> no such thing as a backdoor into 1 device. One of the most potent
>>>>>>>> security measures, and one that Apple has implemented is to ensure
>>>>>>>> that nobody again nobody has access to secured data, including Apple
>>>>>>>> themselves. When I’m contracted out to build secure apps or websites
>>>>>>>> I do the same thing, for example, once a password has been created
>>>>>>>> for a user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users
>>>>>>>> account.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the
>>>>>>>> operating system. This means every iOS operating system would become
>>>>>>>> vulnerable to both malicious hackers and our government. But let me
>>>>>>>> give it to you in an analogy: Imagine that the iPhone is your home.
>>>>>>>> Now imagine that your home is in a bad neighborhood and is a
>>>>>>>> high-profile home. So the FBI comes along and asks you to please
>>>>>>>> smash out one of your own windows in broad daylight. When you say it
>>>>>>>> lowers the security of your home the answer is “Well it’s ok, thieves
>>>>>>>> in the area don’t know which window you smashed out.”
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their
>>>>>>>> accessibility, I love their products but knowing about cyber security
>>>>>>>> I can guarantee you right now that if they build this backdoor I will
>>>>>>>> immediately stop using apple products.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating
>>>>>>>> system that houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not
>>>>>>>> enough for you? What about your keychain? You know, the one where you
>>>>>>>> store all your passwords for things like your bank account.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but
>>>>>>>> I’m here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your
>>>>>>>> security it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>-Software Engineer
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ok,
>>>>>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the
>>>>>>>>> device. Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still
>>>>>>>>> available, and that were the only method of encryption, then the FBI
>>>>>>>>> already has its problem solved. If, however, there was a secondary
>>>>>>>>> method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get
>>>>>>>>> into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone.
>>>>>>>>> they aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law
>>>>>>>>> enforcement. all they need to do is pr

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-24 Thread Carter Temm

in nobody has access to secured data, including Apple
>>>>>>> themselves. When I’m contracted out to build secure apps or websites
>>>>>>> I do the same thing, for example, once a password has been created
>>>>>>> for a user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users
>>>>>>> account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the
>>>>>>> operating system. This means every iOS operating system would become
>>>>>>> vulnerable to both malicious hackers and our government. But let me
>>>>>>> give it to you in an analogy: Imagine that the iPhone is your home.
>>>>>>> Now imagine that your home is in a bad neighborhood and is a
>>>>>>> high-profile home. So the FBI comes along and asks you to please
>>>>>>> smash out one of your own windows in broad daylight. When you say it
>>>>>>> lowers the security of your home the answer is “Well it’s ok, thieves
>>>>>>> in the area don’t know which window you smashed out.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their
>>>>>>> accessibility, I love their products but knowing about cyber security
>>>>>>> I can guarantee you right now that if they build this backdoor I will
>>>>>>> immediately stop using apple products.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating
>>>>>>> system that houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not
>>>>>>> enough for you? What about your keychain? You know, the one where you
>>>>>>> store all your passwords for things like your bank account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but
>>>>>>> I’m here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your
>>>>>>> security it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Software Engineer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok,
>>>>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the
>>>>>>>> device. Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still
>>>>>>>> available, and that were the only method of encryption, then the FBI
>>>>>>>> already has its problem solved. If, however, there was a secondary
>>>>>>>> method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get
>>>>>>>> into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone.
>>>>>>>> they aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law
>>>>>>>> enforcement. all they need to do is provide a technician who knows
>>>>>>>> the method (and has the program). since that program will not be
>>>>>>>> turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no problem. Apple would
>>>>>>>> retain custody of the program and the method and law enforcement
>>>>>>>> would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point,
>>>>>>>> there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would
>>>>>>>> props that the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated)
>>>>>>>> device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would
>>>>>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -eric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device
>>>>>>>>

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

 it to you in 
>>>>>> an analogy: Imagine that the iPhone is your home. Now imagine that your 
>>>>>> home is in a bad neighborhood and is a high-profile home. So the FBI 
>>>>>> comes along and asks you to please smash out one of your own windows in 
>>>>>> broad daylight. When you say it lowers the security of your home the 
>>>>>> answer is “Well it’s ok, thieves in the area don’t know which window you 
>>>>>> smashed out.”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their 
>>>>>> accessibility, I love their products but knowing about cyber security I 
>>>>>> can guarantee you right now that if they build this backdoor I will 
>>>>>> immediately stop using apple products.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating system 
>>>>>> that houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not enough for 
>>>>>> you? What about your keychain? You know, the one where you store all 
>>>>>> your passwords for things like your bank account.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m 
>>>>>> here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your 
>>>>>> security it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -Software Engineer
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ok,
>>>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>>>>>>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and 
>>>>>>> that were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its 
>>>>>>> problem solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a 
>>>>>>> passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. 
>>>>>>> Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. 
>>>>>>> they aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law 
>>>>>>> enforcement. all they need to do is provide a technician who knows the 
>>>>>>> method (and has the program). since that program will not be turned 
>>>>>>> over to the FBI, there is essentially no problem. Apple would retain 
>>>>>>> custody of the program and the method and law enforcement would have to 
>>>>>>> follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, there would be no 
>>>>>>> back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that the 
>>>>>>> program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
>>>>>>> cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a 
>>>>>>> password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -eric
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device 
>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Iargree
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>> 
>>>

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Why do you think companies like Thawte and VeriSign moved to South Africa?

So their keys wouldn’t be compromised rendering their certs worthless.  That’s 
exactly what apple should do, move off shore and work more favorable countries.


> On Feb 23, 2016, at 11:02 PM, 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries 
> <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm no lawyer but I have to wonder if Apple could simply move ownership of 
> certain bits of intellectual property to some overseas haven to avoid 
> complications where security and US sovereignty conflict. Much like some 
> cruise lines were notorious for registering their vessels in certain locales 
> that were "more friendly" to their corporate desires, maybe Apple could move 
> ownership of iOS to some Swiss subsidiary who calls the shots from there. A 
> sort of off-shore intellectual property haven. I recall Microsoft doing 
> something similar on an economic front where a subsidiary in a tax-free haven 
> officially owned a number of their software assets and would sell licenses to 
> the other parts of Microsoft such that the other divisions showed no profit 
> on their books. Only on the tax-free haven's books would recognize the profit.
> 
> CB
> 
> On 2/23/16 11:45 AM, Tyler Thompson wrote:
>> Call me overly optimistic but considering that apple is one of the richest 
>> companies in the world with a billion dollars in just cash right now I don’t 
>> really believe their stance is on the money. I honestly believe it’s about 
>> security. Someone had posited earlier that agreeing to create this backdoor 
>> will somehow enhance their security. I respectfully disagree.
>> 
>> Devices that are not up to date still have the old key hard-coded into 
>> memory. This means that when a new version of iOS comes out (possibly using 
>> a new key since the FBI ruined the old one) all devices that are not up to 
>> date will immediately become not just vulnerable, but extremely vulnerable. 
>> While iOS has an astonishing adoption rate that’s still around 25% of iOS 
>> users who will have vulnerable devices.
>> 
>> My sincere hope is, as someone else had mentioned that Apple battle it to 
>> the supreme court, and if they do lose I hope they pack up their HQ and move 
>> it outside of the US. You’ve all probably seen the quote but it’s worth 
>> repeating: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little 
>> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
>> 
>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:terjestrmb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They can swim 
>>> in dollars. 
>>> 
>>> Take care
>>> 
>>> 23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty < 
>>> <mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>si...@blinky-net.com 
>>> <mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>>:
>>> 
>>> Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,
>>> 
>>> So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
>>> terrorists?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>  <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
>>> To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries < 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>> 
>>> Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset 
>>> the account password and thus prevented those all-important (but 
>>> incomplete) iCloud backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are 
>>> another way in, which is something many customers aren’t aware of.)
>>> 
>>> And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the 
>>> government that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that 
>>> these clowns are pushing for even more power, even though it would be 
>>> limited to after-the-fact exams, probably says that they aren’t finished 
>>> grasping, and not by a long shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any 
>>> legal protections that you might get as a result of all this, particularly 
>>> while passing throug

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-24 Thread Eric Oyen

I have a couple of friends who work for apple at their california offices. 
>From what they tell me, this idea has been bounced around the office more than 
once. No one saw a real serious need for it until now. Of course, they could 
always pull a Theo De Raadt (OpenBSD) and simply just move their codebase (and 
other resources) out of the US completely.

Has anyone ever wondered why Google started a holding company in India called 
Alphabet? Has anyone even wondered why it is that a lot of Google's resources 
are now outside the US? Its the same reason as with apple right now. Friendlier 
terms for Intellectual property rights elsewhere (as well as protection from 
government over reach here).

The government needs to step back and take its licks. They screwed up and then 
tried to get apple to fix the problem they created in the first place.

-eric

On Feb 23, 2016, at 9:02 PM, 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries wrote:

> I'm no lawyer but I have to wonder if Apple could simply move ownership of 
> certain bits of intellectual property to some overseas haven to avoid 
> complications where security and US sovereignty conflict. Much like some 
> cruise lines were notorious for registering their vessels in certain locales 
> that were "more friendly" to their corporate desires, maybe Apple could move 
> ownership of iOS to some Swiss subsidiary who calls the shots from there. A 
> sort of off-shore intellectual property haven. I recall Microsoft doing 
> something similar on an economic front where a subsidiary in a tax-free haven 
> officially owned a number of their software assets and would sell licenses to 
> the other parts of Microsoft such that the other divisions showed no profit 
> on their books. Only on the tax-free haven's books would recognize the profit.
> 
> CB
> 
> On 2/23/16 11:45 AM, Tyler Thompson wrote:
>> Call me overly optimistic but considering that apple is one of the richest 
>> companies in the world with a billion dollars in just cash right now I don’t 
>> really believe their stance is on the money. I honestly believe it’s about 
>> security. Someone had posited earlier that agreeing to create this backdoor 
>> will somehow enhance their security. I respectfully disagree.
>> 
>> Devices that are not up to date still have the old key hard-coded into 
>> memory. This means that when a new version of iOS comes out (possibly using 
>> a new key since the FBI ruined the old one) all devices that are not up to 
>> date will immediately become not just vulnerable, but extremely vulnerable. 
>> While iOS has an astonishing adoption rate that’s still around 25% 
>> of iOS users who will have vulnerable devices.
>> 
>> My sincere hope is, as someone else had mentioned that Apple battle it to 
>> the supreme court, and if they do lose I hope they pack up their HQ and move 
>> it outside of the US. You’ve all probably seen the quote but it’s worth 
>> repeating: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little 
>> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
>> 
>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They can swim 
>>> in dollars. 
>>> 
>>> Take care
>>> 
>>> 23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com>:
>>> 
>>> Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,
>>> 
>>> So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
>>> terrorists?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
>>> To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>> 
>>> Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset 
>>> the account password and thus prevented those all-important (but 
>>> incomplete) iCloud backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are 
>>> another way in, which is something many customers aren’t   
>>> aware of.)
>>> 
>>> And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the 
>>> government that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that 
>>> these clowns are pushing for even more power, even though it would be 
>>> limited to after-the-fact exams, probably

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-24 Thread Simon Fogarty

Isn't your supreme court a government agency?

Wont this be fixed so that apple have to release things?

Surely all intelegent people know what will happen if they are forced to give 
the Feds a back door in to apple phones.

A hackers paradise, 

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Terje Strømberg
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2016 9:34 PM
To: Tyler Thompson <tktpianostud...@gmail.com>
Cc: Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com>; Mac Group 
<macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

If Apple stand the ground and gets lucky in the supreme court, they will be a 
very respected company all over the world in information technology companies, 
shops on the corner, shopping malls and Wall Street etc. Apple pay and medical 
apps etc. Because almost everybody on the earth that uses information 
technology devices will think apple devices is safe. Fantastic advertisement 
and good press. Well deserved, but then they can sell their iPhones a little 
bit cheaper. Time will tell.

Take care

23. feb. 2016 kl. 17:45 skrev Tyler Thompson <tktpianostud...@gmail.com>:

Call me overly optimistic but considering that apple is one of the richest 
companies in the world with a billion dollars in just cash right now I don’t 
really believe their stance is on the money. I honestly believe it’s about 
security. Someone had posited earlier that agreeing to create this backdoor 
will somehow enhance their security. I respectfully disagree.

Devices that are not up to date still have the old key hard-coded into memory. 
This means that when a new version of iOS comes out (possibly using a new key 
since the FBI ruined the old one) all devices that are not up to date will 
immediately become not just vulnerable, but extremely vulnerable. While iOS has 
an astonishing adoption rate that’s still around 25% of iOS users who will have 
vulnerable devices.

My sincere hope is, as someone else had mentioned that Apple battle it to the 
supreme court, and if they do lose I hope they pack up their HQ and move it 
outside of the US. You’ve all probably seen the quote but it’s worth repeating: 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They can swim 
> in dollars. 
> 
> Take care
> 
> 23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com>:
> 
> Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,
> 
> So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
> terrorists?
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
> To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the 
> account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) 
> iCloud backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are another way 
> in, which is something many customers aren’t aware of.)
> 
> And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the 
> government that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that 
> these clowns are pushing for even more power, even though it would be limited 
> to after-the-fact exams, probably says that they aren’t finished grasping, 
> and not by a long shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any legal 
> protections that you might get as a result of all this, particularly while 
> passing through your delightful TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, 
> being asked for my phone so they can take an image for later cryptanalysis, 
> because I “Look foreign".  Ugh.
> 
> But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the court’s 
> decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather uncomfortable 
> about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big “Hack me!” sign on its 
> gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with Apple insofar as I believe we’re 
> entitled to security, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of being 
> able to trust the technology while it’s in such close proximity to the powers 
> that be(TM), much less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to 
> obtain the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t forget 
> that some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the cont

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-24 Thread Terje Strømberg

If Apple stand the ground and gets lucky in the supreme court, they will be a 
very respected company all over the world in information technology companies, 
shops on the corner, shopping malls and Wall Street etc. Apple pay and medical 
apps etc. Because almost everybody on the earth that uses information 
technology devices will think apple devices is safe. Fantastic advertisement 
and good press. Well deserved, but then they can sell their iPhones a little 
bit cheaper. Time will tell.

Take care

23. feb. 2016 kl. 17:45 skrev Tyler Thompson <tktpianostud...@gmail.com>:

Call me overly optimistic but considering that apple is one of the richest 
companies in the world with a billion dollars in just cash right now I don’t 
really believe their stance is on the money. I honestly believe it’s about 
security. Someone had posited earlier that agreeing to create this backdoor 
will somehow enhance their security. I respectfully disagree.

Devices that are not up to date still have the old key hard-coded into memory. 
This means that when a new version of iOS comes out (possibly using a new key 
since the FBI ruined the old one) all devices that are not up to date will 
immediately become not just vulnerable, but extremely vulnerable. While iOS has 
an astonishing adoption rate that’s still around 25% of iOS users who will have 
vulnerable devices.

My sincere hope is, as someone else had mentioned that Apple battle it to the 
supreme court, and if they do lose I hope they pack up their HQ and move it 
outside of the US. You’ve all probably seen the quote but it’s worth repeating: 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They can swim 
> in dollars. 
> 
> Take care
> 
> 23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com>:
> 
> Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,
> 
> So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
> terrorists?
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
> To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the 
> account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) 
> iCloud backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are another way 
> in, which is something many customers aren’t aware of.)
> 
> And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the 
> government that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that 
> these clowns are pushing for even more power, even though it would be limited 
> to after-the-fact exams, probably says that they aren’t finished grasping, 
> and not by a long shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any legal 
> protections that you might get as a result of all this, particularly while 
> passing through your delightful TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, 
> being asked for my phone so they can take an image for later cryptanalysis, 
> because I “Look foreign".  Ugh.
> 
> But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the court’s 
> decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather uncomfortable 
> about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big “Hack me!” sign on its 
> gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with Apple insofar as I believe we’re 
> entitled to security, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of being 
> able to trust the technology while it’s in such close proximity to the powers 
> that be(TM), much less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to 
> obtain the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t forget 
> that some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the control of 
> other, less well-adjusted governments.  Ironic, given the message Apple is 
> sending about the importance of security.  If they know they’re a weak link, 
> they’re not exactly eager to tell the world. :)
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries

I'm no lawyer but I have to wonder if Apple could simply move ownership 
of certain bits of intellectual property to some overseas haven to avoid 
complications where security and US sovereignty conflict. Much like some 
cruise lines were notorious for registering their vessels in certain 
locales that were "more friendly" to their corporate desires, maybe 
Apple could move ownership of iOS to some Swiss subsidiary who calls the 
shots from there. A sort of off-shore intellectual property haven. I 
recall Microsoft doing something similar on an economic front where a 
subsidiary in a tax-free haven officially owned a number of their 
software assets and would sell licenses to the other parts of Microsoft 
such that the other divisions showed no profit on their books. Only on 
the tax-free haven's books would recognize the profit.


CB

On 2/23/16 11:45 AM, Tyler Thompson wrote:
Call me overly optimistic but considering that apple is one of the 
richest companies in the world with a billion dollars in just cash 
right now I don’t really believe their stance is on the money. I 
honestly believe it’s about security. Someone had posited earlier that 
agreeing to create this backdoor will somehow enhance their security. 
I respectfully disagree.


Devices that are not up to date still have the old key hard-coded into 
memory. This means that when a new version of iOS comes out (possibly 
using a new key since the FBI ruined the old one) all devices that are 
not up to date will immediately become not just vulnerable, but 
extremely vulnerable. While iOS has an astonishing adoption rate 
that’s still around 25% of iOS users who will have vulnerable devices.


My sincere hope is, as someone else had mentioned that Apple battle it 
to the supreme court, and if they do lose I hope they pack up their HQ 
and move it outside of the US. You’ve all probably seen the quote but 
it’s worth repeating: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to 
purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor 
Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin


On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com 
<mailto:terjestrmb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They 
can swim in dollars.


Take care

23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com 
<mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>>:


Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,

So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for 
the terrorists?




-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sabahattin 
Gucukoglu

Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries 
<macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>>

Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, 
reset the account password and thus prevented those all-important 
(but incomplete) iCloud backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud 
backups are another way in, which is something many customers aren’t 
aware of.)


And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the 
government that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact 
that these clowns are pushing for even more power, even though it 
would be limited to after-the-fact exams, probably says that they 
aren’t finished grasping, and not by a long shot.  Certainly 
off-worlders can forget any legal protections that you might get as a 
result of all this, particularly while passing through your 
delightful TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, being asked for 
my phone so they can take an image for later cryptanalysis, because I 
“Look foreign".  Ugh.


But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the 
court’s decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather 
uncomfortable about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big 
“Hack me!” sign on its gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with 
Apple insofar as I believe we’re entitled to security, but there’s 
not a snowball’s chance in hell of being able to trust the technology 
while it’s in such close proximity to the powers that be(TM), much 
less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to obtain 
the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t 
forget that some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the 
control of other, less well-adjusted governments.  Ironic, given the 
message Apple is sending about the importance of security.  If they 
know they’re a weak link, they’re not exactly eager to tell the world. :)


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
Visionaries list.


If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, 
or if you feel tha

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries

My understanding of the logistics is that the user key and the unique 
signature burned into each device are hashed together as the key for 
encrypting the data, so there is no way Apple could decrypt it for the 
FBI. What Apple did do was implement the self-destruct where you get 10 
tries and the data goes poof. There is also a small but real slowdown in 
responsiveness after each failed attempt. So the FBI would like a 
version of iOS that lacks the self destruct and the slowdown, which 
would allow them to brute-force entry. The FBI can't make FBios and 
install it because Apple also digitally signs their installers. This is 
where the rubber meets the road. Apple or the FBI could create a 
non-imploding version of iOS but only Apple holds the digital signature 
which would allow a phone to accept the build. This is what Apple has 
have been asked to do, to put their signature to something which defeats 
the self-destruct and no longer thwarts a brute force attack on the 
unlock code. If they sign the FBios install then they will also be 
compelled to sign LibyaOS, SudanOS, BurmaOS etc. or sign for other less 
clear-cut cases. In short, they will never get the genie back in the bottle.


As you say, a longer user key would go to great lengths to thwart a 
brute force attack. If Apple takes the blue pill and compromises its own 
security system it simply means the bad actors will just move on to apps 
that encrypt things on their own from companies or loose collections of 
folks whom the FBI has no leverage with.


CB

On 2/23/16 6:41 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:

My understanding is that the FBI is asking Apple for the technical capability 
to brute-force the key.  That’s all.  The problem with Apple’s current design 
is that it is vulnerable to simple firmware substitution.  The assumptions that 
it makes about the user’s key are all predicated on the notion that Apple would 
never replace the firmware.  As we now see, this was a bad choice.  With FBIos 
in place, that four-digit or even six-digit key will be cracked in no time.  
Regardless of whether Apple develops it, we now have positive confirmation that 
it’s possible.  Quite simply, the iOS remote wipe, manual entry requirements, 
and delayed entry are no obstacles to key recovery.

Or in other words, Apple can (and should!) fix this problem, simply and 
effectively, by providing a strength meter for the passcode selection screen, 
with the strongest indicator reserved for passphrases that will not be 
trivially recovered using firmware substitution, and then force every user of 
iOS to select a new passphrase on upgrade.  I have already selected a 
nine-character passphrase with uppercase, lowercase, numbers and punctuation.  
With Touch ID, I really don’t feel a thing.



--
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries

get into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.

Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they aren't 
required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they need to 
do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the program). since 
that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no 
problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the method and law 
enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, 
there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that 
the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

Sent from my iPad


On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Seyoon Choi

Agreed,
The question that might draw people to major unanswered question might be what 
suspect’s passcode might have set as, rather a number digit combination or 
consisting of letters and numbers. I still voice towards Apple in this case 
however. If they open up backdoor for one device, Apple is technically breaking 
their own security and privacy commitment themselves. I still think security 
and privacy is like a key to the fortune. 
Seyoon Choi
syc20...@gmail.com
YouTube Video Content Producer
Head of Blindinsider
www.blindinsider.com
Technology news, podcasts, videos and lifestyle for blind and visually impaired

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Carter Temm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I understand both sides of the case. If the iPhone is set with a complex 
> passcode consisting of letters and numbers, it could take the government up 
> to 100 years to brute-force the passcode, depending on the strength of the 
> key.
> Apple is perfectly capable of this, but they would completely loose the war 
> on security. In my opinion, apple should not give out any of the required 
> resources to make this possible. Because, it would only stay secret for so 
> long. Its just an amount of time before someone finds a hack for it.
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu  wrote:
>> 
>> My understanding is that the FBI is asking Apple for the technical 
>> capability to brute-force the key.  That’s all.  The problem with Apple’s 
>> current design is that it is vulnerable to simple firmware substitution.  
>> The assumptions that it makes about the user’s key are all predicated on the 
>> notion that Apple would never replace the firmware.  As we now see, this was 
>> a bad choice.  With FBIos in place, that four-digit or even six-digit key 
>> will be cracked in no time.  Regardless of whether Apple develops it, we now 
>> have positive confirmation that it’s possible.  Quite simply, the iOS remote 
>> wipe, manual entry requirements, and delayed entry are no obstacles to key 
>> recovery.
>> 
>> Or in other words, Apple can (and should!) fix this problem, simply and 
>> effectively, by providing a strength meter for the passcode selection 
>> screen, with the strongest indicator reserved for passphrases that will not 
>> be trivially recovered using firmware substitution, and then force every 
>> user of iOS to select a new passphrase on upgrade.  I have already selected 
>> a nine-character passphrase with uppercase, lowercase, numbers and 
>> punctuation.  With Touch ID, I really don’t feel a thing.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Carter Temm

Hi,
I understand both sides of the case. If the iPhone is set with a complex 
passcode consisting of letters and numbers, it could take the government up to 
100 years to brute-force the passcode, depending on the strength of the key.
Apple is perfectly capable of this, but they would completely loose the war on 
security. In my opinion, apple should not give out any of the required 
resources to make this possible. Because, it would only stay secret for so 
long. Its just an amount of time before someone finds a hack for it.
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu  wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that the FBI is asking Apple for the technical capability 
> to brute-force the key.  That’s all.  The problem with Apple’s current design 
> is that it is vulnerable to simple firmware substitution.  The assumptions 
> that it makes about the user’s key are all predicated on the notion that 
> Apple would never replace the firmware.  As we now see, this was a bad 
> choice.  With FBIos in place, that four-digit or even six-digit key will be 
> cracked in no time.  Regardless of whether Apple develops it, we now have 
> positive confirmation that it’s possible.  Quite simply, the iOS remote wipe, 
> manual entry requirements, and delayed entry are no obstacles to key recovery.
> 
> Or in other words, Apple can (and should!) fix this problem, simply and 
> effectively, by providing a strength meter for the passcode selection screen, 
> with the strongest indicator reserved for passphrases that will not be 
> trivially recovered using firmware substitution, and then force every user of 
> iOS to select a new passphrase on upgrade.  I have already selected a 
> nine-character passphrase with uppercase, lowercase, numbers and punctuation. 
>  With Touch ID, I really don’t feel a thing.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Sabahattin Gucukoglu

My understanding is that the FBI is asking Apple for the technical capability 
to brute-force the key.  That’s all.  The problem with Apple’s current design 
is that it is vulnerable to simple firmware substitution.  The assumptions that 
it makes about the user’s key are all predicated on the notion that Apple would 
never replace the firmware.  As we now see, this was a bad choice.  With FBIos 
in place, that four-digit or even six-digit key will be cracked in no time.  
Regardless of whether Apple develops it, we now have positive confirmation that 
it’s possible.  Quite simply, the iOS remote wipe, manual entry requirements, 
and delayed entry are no obstacles to key recovery.

Or in other words, Apple can (and should!) fix this problem, simply and 
effectively, by providing a strength meter for the passcode selection screen, 
with the strongest indicator reserved for passphrases that will not be 
trivially recovered using firmware substitution, and then force every user of 
iOS to select a new passphrase on upgrade.  I have already selected a 
nine-character passphrase with uppercase, lowercase, numbers and punctuation.  
With Touch ID, I really don’t feel a thing.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Tyler Thompson

Apple already engineered products so that this cannot happen. That’s kind of 
the point. They already use a strong encryption, so strong in fact, that our 
government can’t break into them. Passwords are already hashed, Data is already 
encrypted as much as is legal (yes, there are illegal encryptions because 
they’re too strong). The U.S. government is asking them to redesign iOS so that 
these security measures go away.


> On Feb 23, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu  wrote:
> 
> The FBI asked the owner of the phone to change the iCloud account password, 
> with the result that the iPhone didn’t back up to iCloud, which would have 
> provided a way for the FBI to access recent (if incomplete) data.  Hence 
> there followed the question of whether or not the FBI is complicit in 
> furthering this precedent by engineering the case to require it, and 
> therefore whether or not Apple should help them in their objective.  
> Something about not ascribing to malice that which can be adequately 
> explained by stupidity, but you never know with the Feds. :)
> 
> Apple now says this is about civil liberties.  I think this is a rather 
> strange comment coming from the CEO of Apple—or at least it would certainly 
> have been if the CEO were still Steve Jobs.  I'm fairly sure that if liberty 
> is your objective, Apple isn’t the right platform provider.  Still, I accept 
> Tim Cook’s personally principled stand in this affair, and genuinely hope 
> good comes of it in the long run.  you can’t have too much liberty, and it’s 
> tempting to think that he’s being entirely sincere and is simply unaware of 
> the caveats of what he is suggesting as a solution to government overreach.  
> Unfortunately, that doesn’t change my belief  that half-measures are 
> inadequate.  Much as I’d love Apple to keep the US government from such 
> extreme forms of intrusion, or for Apple to leave the US for somewhere more 
> privacy-respecting, I doubt very much that this will happen, because 
> ultimately business is more important than principles.  It doesn’t solve all 
> the other problems of a central point of failure, either, and it’s not clear 
> to me that the world would be any less free with better cryptography in it, 
> except perhaps for control and convenience freaks like Apple.  So Apple is 
> still left with the problem of how to engineer their products so that this 
> simply cannot ever happen again.
> 
> That is my opinion, anyway.  You get to choose yours. :)
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Sabahattin Gucukoglu

The FBI asked the owner of the phone to change the iCloud account password, 
with the result that the iPhone didn’t back up to iCloud, which would have 
provided a way for the FBI to access recent (if incomplete) data.  Hence there 
followed the question of whether or not the FBI is complicit in furthering this 
precedent by engineering the case to require it, and therefore whether or not 
Apple should help them in their objective.  Something about not ascribing to 
malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but you never know 
with the Feds. :)

Apple now says this is about civil liberties.  I think this is a rather strange 
comment coming from the CEO of Apple—or at least it would certainly have been 
if the CEO were still Steve Jobs.  I'm fairly sure that if liberty is your 
objective, Apple isn’t the right platform provider.  Still, I accept Tim Cook’s 
personally principled stand in this affair, and genuinely hope good comes of it 
in the long run.  you can’t have too much liberty, and it’s tempting to think 
that he’s being entirely sincere and is simply unaware of the caveats of what 
he is suggesting as a solution to government overreach.  Unfortunately, that 
doesn’t change my belief  that half-measures are inadequate.  Much as I’d love 
Apple to keep the US government from such extreme forms of intrusion, or for 
Apple to leave the US for somewhere more privacy-respecting, I doubt very much 
that this will happen, because ultimately business is more important than 
principles.  It doesn’t solve all the other problems of a central point of 
failure, either, and it’s not clear to me that the world would be any less free 
with better cryptography in it, except perhaps for control and convenience 
freaks like Apple.  So Apple is still left with the problem of how to engineer 
their products so that this simply cannot ever happen again.

That is my opinion, anyway.  You get to choose yours. :)

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Blee Blat

And another quote from the creator of PGP, Philip Zimmermann: "If privacy is 
outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Tyler Thompson

Call me overly optimistic but considering that apple is one of the richest 
companies in the world with a billion dollars in just cash right now I don’t 
really believe their stance is on the money. I honestly believe it’s about 
security. Someone had posited earlier that agreeing to create this backdoor 
will somehow enhance their security. I respectfully disagree.

Devices that are not up to date still have the old key hard-coded into memory. 
This means that when a new version of iOS comes out (possibly using a new key 
since the FBI ruined the old one) all devices that are not up to date will 
immediately become not just vulnerable, but extremely vulnerable. While iOS has 
an astonishing adoption rate that’s still around 25% of iOS users who will have 
vulnerable devices.

My sincere hope is, as someone else had mentioned that Apple battle it to the 
supreme court, and if they do lose I hope they pack up their HQ and move it 
outside of the US. You’ve all probably seen the quote but it’s worth repeating: 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They can swim 
> in dollars. 
> 
> Take care
> 
> 23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com>:
> 
> Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,
> 
> So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
> terrorists?
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
> To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the 
> account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) 
> iCloud backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are another way 
> in, which is something many customers aren’t aware of.)
> 
> And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the 
> government that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that 
> these clowns are pushing for even more power, even though it would be limited 
> to after-the-fact exams, probably says that they aren’t finished grasping, 
> and not by a long shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any legal 
> protections that you might get as a result of all this, particularly while 
> passing through your delightful TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, 
> being asked for my phone so they can take an image for later cryptanalysis, 
> because I “Look foreign".  Ugh.
> 
> But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the court’s 
> decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather uncomfortable 
> about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big “Hack me!” sign on its 
> gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with Apple insofar as I believe we’re 
> entitled to security, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of being 
> able to trust the technology while it’s in such close proximity to the powers 
> that be(TM), much less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to 
> obtain the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t forget 
> that some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the control of 
> other, less well-adjusted governments.  Ironic, given the message Apple is 
> sending about the importance of security.  If they know they’re a weak link, 
> they’re not exactly eager to tell the world. :)
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionari

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-23 Thread Terje Strømberg

This FBI case is a enormous value for apple in $ if they win. They can swim in 
dollars. 

Take care

23. feb. 2016 kl. 08:22 skrev Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com>:

Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,

 So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
terrorists?



-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the 
account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) iCloud 
backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are another way in, which 
is something many customers aren’t aware of.)

And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the government 
that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that these clowns are 
pushing for even more power, even though it would be limited to after-the-fact 
exams, probably says that they aren’t finished grasping, and not by a long 
shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any legal protections that you might 
get as a result of all this, particularly while passing through your delightful 
TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, being asked for my phone so they can 
take an image for later cryptanalysis, because I “Look foreign".  Ugh.

But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the court’s 
decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather uncomfortable 
about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big “Hack me!” sign on its 
gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with Apple insofar as I believe we’re 
entitled to security, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of being able 
to trust the technology while it’s in such close proximity to the powers that 
be(TM), much less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to obtain 
the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t forget that 
some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the control of other, less 
well-adjusted governments.  Ironic, given the message Apple is sending about 
the importance of security.  If they know they’re a weak link, they’re not 
exactly eager to tell the world. :)

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-22 Thread Simon Fogarty

Sorrylist but I think I missed something here,

  So are you saying that the USA's FBI deleted the iCloud backup for the 
terrorists?



-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 9:06 AM
To: 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the 
account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) iCloud 
backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are another way in, which 
is something many customers aren’t aware of.)

And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the government 
that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that these clowns are 
pushing for even more power, even though it would be limited to after-the-fact 
exams, probably says that they aren’t finished grasping, and not by a long 
shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any legal protections that you might 
get as a result of all this, particularly while passing through your delightful 
TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, being asked for my phone so they can 
take an image for later cryptanalysis, because I “Look foreign".  Ugh.

But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the court’s 
decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather uncomfortable 
about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big “Hack me!” sign on its 
gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with Apple insofar as I believe we’re 
entitled to security, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of being able 
to trust the technology while it’s in such close proximity to the powers that 
be(TM), much less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to obtain 
the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t forget that 
some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the control of other, less 
well-adjusted governments.  Ironic, given the message Apple is sending about 
the importance of security.  If they know they’re a weak link, they’re not 
exactly eager to tell the world. :)

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-22 Thread Sabahattin Gucukoglu

Yep, it later emerged that the FBI, through malice or incompetence, reset the 
account password and thus prevented those all-important (but incomplete) iCloud 
backups from occurring.  (Notice that iCloud backups are another way in, which 
is something many customers aren’t aware of.)

And I don’t blame you one bit for distrusting the FBI.  This is the government 
that gave birth to “National Security Letters”.  The fact that these clowns are 
pushing for even more power, even though it would be limited to after-the-fact 
exams, probably says that they aren’t finished grasping, and not by a long 
shot.  Certainly off-worlders can forget any legal protections that you might 
get as a result of all this, particularly while passing through your delightful 
TSL checkpoints.  I can just imagine it, being asked for my phone so they can 
take an image for later cryptanalysis, because I “Look foreign".  Ugh.

But, alas, we’re still in the precarious situation that even if the court’s 
decision is somehow overturned, we now know something rather uncomfortable 
about iOS security.  Apple just painted a great big “Hack me!” sign on its 
gigantic half-eaten Apple logo.  I side with Apple insofar as I believe we’re 
entitled to security, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of being able 
to trust the technology while it’s in such close proximity to the powers that 
be(TM), much less all the h4x3rz who will be trying their damned best to obtain 
the golden keys and make life miserable for the 99%.  And don’t forget that 
some of these actors will be well-funded, and under the control of other, less 
well-adjusted governments.  Ironic, given the message Apple is sending about 
the importance of security.  If they know they’re a weak link, they’re not 
exactly eager to tell the world. :)

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Yes, I believe the previous poster is correct we’ve deviated to far from the 
topic.

I do appreciate everyone’s well thought out responses.  If anyone is interested 
in deviating from the topic contact me off list we can move this to my list or 
else where where we won’t overly burden or offend folks not interested.

Thank you all though for great discussion.

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:11 PM, E.T.  wrote:
> 
> Scott,
>   Spot on! And I will lay this to rest since even the apple in the first book 
> is not being discussed. (smiles)
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> Many believe that we have been visited
> in the past. What if it were true?
> 
> On 2/22/2016 10:55 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>> E.T. is correct.
>> 
>> The fore fathers used spiritual principles in the idea of the constitution 
>> as well as references to a general creator and inalienable rights but the 
>> Christian God and the bible are not mentioned.  In fact, a good percentage 
>> of the founders were Masons who were a very religious tolerant bunch (still 
>> are) and who wrote the constitution from more of a Deist point of view than 
>> Christian.  (hence the all seeing eye and many other symbols in our 
>> historical documents and places)
>> 
>> Also, contrary to common belief, church and state separation aren’t 
>> specifically mentioned other than the Government shall not limit religion 
>> but there is no real barrier to incorporating religious thought in to 
>> governance.  Church and state separation were discussed much more in Thomas 
>> Jefferson’s own writings and sometimes that’s what’s quoted incorrectly in 
>> place of the constitution.
>> 
>> That being said, E.T’s comments are valid because the bible isn’t 
>> specifically sited and really government should not support or favor any 
>> religion.  Christians bastardize the document as much as non believers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:16 PM, CHUCK REICHEL 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi E.T.
>>> Apparently you haven't read the constitution and the bill of rights!
>>> If your open to learning about the USA history here you go;
>>> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution/
>>> Also heres what being politically correct gets you!
>>> 
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/judge-jeanine-neighbors-of-san-bernardino-attackers-afraid-of-being-called-islamaphobic-part-of-islamic-terrorist-plan/
>>> Barack Hussein Obama is ultimately approving the home land security and  
>>> FBI Iphone "power grab",
>>> And all the other privacy's we have and them being usurped!
>>> Power corrupts! But absolute power corrupts absolutely!
>>> 
>>> PS I know!
>>> You believe ancient  aliens brought us the iphone! LOL
>>> YMWV
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, E.T. wrote:
>>> 
  All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on biblical 
 principles.
 
 From E.T.'s Keyboard...
  ancient.ali...@icloud.com
 Many believe that we have been visited
 in the past. What if it were true?
 
 On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> I agree 1776 was a great year!
> This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we  had "locked down" the
> borders and through out all the illegals in the USA!
> Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not
> politically correct and we dig it!
> I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
> Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
> HTH
> 
> Chuck
> 
> CHUCK REICHEL
> soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com 
> www.SoundPictureRecording.com 
> 954-742-0019
> Isaiah 26 : 3
> Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
> because he trusteth in thee.
> 
> In GOD I Trust
> 
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
> 
>> Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
>> really well made by the way.
>> 
>> The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s
>> come out in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local
>> coverage is reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their
>> possession and Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as
>> well ad decrypt anything etc.
>> 
>> Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
>> for Fat, Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying
>> to scare us in to submission.
>> 
>> You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for
>> strong, real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to
>> cry out against a bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the
>> people and by the people phrase and

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Scott,
Spot on! And I will lay this to rest since even the apple in the
first book is not being discussed. (smiles)

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/22/2016 10:55 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

E.T. is correct.

The fore fathers used spiritual principles in the idea of the constitution as
well as references to a general creator and inalienable rights but the
Christian God and the bible are not mentioned. In fact, a good percentage of
the founders were Masons who were a very religious tolerant bunch (still are)
and who wrote the constitution from more of a Deist point of view than
Christian. (hence the all seeing eye and many other symbols in our historical
documents and places)

Also, contrary to common belief, church and state separation aren’t
specifically mentioned other than the Government shall not limit religion but
there is no real barrier to incorporating religious thought in to governance.
Church and state separation were discussed much more in Thomas Jefferson’s own
writings and sometimes that’s what’s quoted incorrectly in place of the
constitution.

That being said, E.T’s comments are valid because the bible isn’t specifically
sited and really government should not support or favor any religion.
Christians bastardize the document as much as non believers.

On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:16 PM, CHUCK REICHEL
wrote:

Hi E.T.
Apparently you haven't read the constitution and the bill of rights!
If your open to learning about the USA history here you go;
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution/
Also heres what being politically correct gets you!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/judge-jeanine-neighbors-of-san-bernardino-attackers-afraid-of-being-called-islamaphobic-part-of-islamic-terrorist-plan/
Barack Hussein Obama is ultimately approving the home land security and FBI Iphone
"power grab",
And all the other privacy's we have and them being usurped!
Power corrupts! But absolute power corrupts absolutely!

PS I know!
You believe ancient aliens brought us the iphone! LOL
YMWV

Chuck

On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, E.T. wrote:

All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on biblical
principles.

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:

Hi Scott,
I agree 1776 was a great year!
This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we had "locked down" the
borders and through out all the illegals in the USA!
Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not
politically correct and we dig it!
I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
HTH

Chuck

CHUCK REICHEL
soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com
www.SoundPictureRecording.com
954-742-0019
Isaiah 26 : 3
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
because he trusteth in thee.

In GOD I Trust

On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
really well made by the way.

The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession. So it’s
come out in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local
coverage is reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their
possession and Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as
well ad decrypt anything etc.

Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
for Fat, Bald and Ignorant. These are bulls in a china closet trying
to scare us in to submission.

You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for
strong, real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to
cry out against a bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the
people and by the people phrase and rather treats us as subjects.
That might work for you queen lovers across the pond:) but not so
much here. Something about a small skirmish back in 1776 or so.

I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything,
especially to circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.

As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.

I like both sides on this. I’m encouraged so many support protection
of the 4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with
someone who feels the opposite.

Thank you

On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu > wrote:

OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I
think, even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.

I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore
don’t enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Chuck,
Feel free to email me off list if you want to know the truth.

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/22/2016 10:16 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:

PS I know!
You believe ancient aliens brought us the iphone! LOL
YMWV

Chuck

On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, E.T. wrote:

All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on biblical
principles.

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:

Chuck

CHUCK REICHEL
soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com
www.SoundPictureRecording.com
954-742-0019
Isaiah 26 : 3
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
because he trusteth in thee.

In GOD I Trust

On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
really well made by the way.

Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
for Fat, Bald and Ignorant. These are bulls in a china closet trying
to scare us in to submission.

I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything,
especially to circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.

As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.

I like both sides on this. I’m encouraged so many support protection
of the 4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with
someone who feels the opposite.

Thank you

On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu > wrote:

OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I
think, even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.

I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore
don’t enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case.
Nor do I believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real
trend; at best it is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I
daresay you can guess how I feel about those. I don’t even believe
the U.S. is safe, given what we now know is possible, following the
revelation of the specifics.

This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/

In summary, I agree with the judge. I believe this was a PR campaign
intended to attract public support for Apple’s business practices,
regardless of Cook’s genuine ethical alignment on the issue. I
believe Apple would have acceded to the demands, had they been filed
under seal, as Apple had initially requested, and that Apple’s plea
was necessary as a response to the FBI’s refusal. I think this
firmware hack qualifies as legal assistance—particularly horrible
legal assistance, but assistance nevertheless, made more than
possible by the ineffectual security of these devices—and that the
case for proper security far exceeds any question of legal precedent,
particularly when the search was legitimate and would otherwise have
been authorised without Apple’s assistance. Clearly, the

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-22 Thread Tyler Thompson

How exactly is this on topic? I was under the impression the discussion was 
about whether apple should cave to the FBI’s demands. For the sake of a 
reasonable, clean debate on the subject I’d like to ask we avoid religious and 
political beliefs. The question is a simple one, what do we think of the 
concept, is it a dangerous security breach or is it fine to let the FBI force 
apple to create this backdoor.

Donald Trump, god and immigration are completely irrelevant.


> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Scott Granados  wrote:
> 
> E.T. is correct.
> 
> The fore fathers used spiritual principles in the idea of the constitution as 
> well as references to a general creator and inalienable rights but the 
> Christian God and the bible are not mentioned.  In fact, a good percentage of 
> the founders were Masons who were a very religious tolerant bunch (still are) 
> and who wrote the constitution from more of a Deist point of view than 
> Christian.  (hence the all seeing eye and many other symbols in our 
> historical documents and places)
> 
> Also, contrary to common belief, church and state separation aren’t 
> specifically mentioned other than the Government shall not limit religion but 
> there is no real barrier to incorporating religious thought in to governance. 
>  Church and state separation were discussed much more in Thomas Jefferson’s 
> own writings and sometimes that’s what’s quoted incorrectly in place of the 
> constitution.
> 
> That being said, E.T’s comments are valid because the bible isn’t 
> specifically sited and really government should not support or favor any 
> religion.  Christians bastardize the document as much as non believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:16 PM, CHUCK REICHEL  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi E.T.
>> Apparently you haven't read the constitution and the bill of rights!
>> If your open to learning about the USA history here you go;
>> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution/
>> Also heres what being politically correct gets you!
>> 
>> http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/judge-jeanine-neighbors-of-san-bernardino-attackers-afraid-of-being-called-islamaphobic-part-of-islamic-terrorist-plan/
>> Barack Hussein Obama is ultimately approving the home land security and  FBI 
>> Iphone "power grab",
>> And all the other privacy's we have and them being usurped!
>> Power corrupts! But absolute power corrupts absolutely!
>> 
>> PS I know!
>> You believe ancient  aliens brought us the iphone! LOL
>> YMWV
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, E.T. wrote:
>> 
>>> All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on biblical 
>>> principles.
>>> 
>>> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>>> ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>>> Many believe that we have been visited
>>> in the past. What if it were true?
>>> 
>>> On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:
 Hi Scott,
 I agree 1776 was a great year!
 This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we  had "locked down" the
 borders and through out all the illegals in the USA!
 Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not
 politically correct and we dig it!
 I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
 Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
 HTH
 
 Chuck
 
 CHUCK REICHEL
 soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com 
 www.SoundPictureRecording.com 
 954-742-0019
 Isaiah 26 : 3
 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
 because he trusteth in thee.
 
 In GOD I Trust
 
 On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
 
> Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
> really well made by the way.
> 
> The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s
> come out in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local
> coverage is reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their
> possession and Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as
> well ad decrypt anything etc.
> 
> Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
> for Fat, Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying
> to scare us in to submission.
> 
> You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for
> strong, real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to
> cry out against a bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the
> people and by the people phrase and rather treats us as subjects.
> That might work for you queen lovers across the pond:) but not so
> much here.  Something about a small skirmish back in 1776 or so.
> 
> I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything,
> especially to circumvent security whether

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

E.T. is correct.

The fore fathers used spiritual principles in the idea of the constitution as 
well as references to a general creator and inalienable rights but the 
Christian God and the bible are not mentioned.  In fact, a good percentage of 
the founders were Masons who were a very religious tolerant bunch (still are) 
and who wrote the constitution from more of a Deist point of view than 
Christian.  (hence the all seeing eye and many other symbols in our historical 
documents and places)

Also, contrary to common belief, church and state separation aren’t 
specifically mentioned other than the Government shall not limit religion but 
there is no real barrier to incorporating religious thought in to governance.  
Church and state separation were discussed much more in Thomas Jefferson’s own 
writings and sometimes that’s what’s quoted incorrectly in place of the 
constitution.

That being said, E.T’s comments are valid because the bible isn’t specifically 
sited and really government should not support or favor any religion.  
Christians bastardize the document as much as non believers.

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:16 PM, CHUCK REICHEL  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi E.T.
> Apparently you haven't read the constitution and the bill of rights!
> If your open to learning about the USA history here you go;
> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution/
> Also heres what being politically correct gets you!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/judge-jeanine-neighbors-of-san-bernardino-attackers-afraid-of-being-called-islamaphobic-part-of-islamic-terrorist-plan/
> Barack Hussein Obama is ultimately approving the home land security and  FBI 
> Iphone "power grab",
> And all the other privacy's we have and them being usurped!
> Power corrupts! But absolute power corrupts absolutely!
> 
> PS I know!
> You believe ancient  aliens brought us the iphone! LOL
> YMWV
> 
> Chuck
> 
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, E.T. wrote:
> 
>>  All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on biblical 
>> principles.
>> 
>> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>>  ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>> Many believe that we have been visited
>> in the past. What if it were true?
>> 
>> On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:
>>> Hi Scott,
>>> I agree 1776 was a great year!
>>> This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we  had "locked down" the
>>> borders and through out all the illegals in the USA!
>>> Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not
>>> politically correct and we dig it!
>>> I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
>>> Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
>>> HTH
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>> CHUCK REICHEL
>>> soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com 
>>> www.SoundPictureRecording.com 
>>> 954-742-0019
>>> Isaiah 26 : 3
>>> Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
>>> because he trusteth in thee.
>>> 
>>> In GOD I Trust
>>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
 Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
 really well made by the way.

 The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s
 come out in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local
 coverage is reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their
 possession and Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as
 well ad decrypt anything etc.

 Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
 for Fat, Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying
 to scare us in to submission.

 You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for
 strong, real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to
 cry out against a bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the
 people and by the people phrase and rather treats us as subjects.
 That might work for you queen lovers across the pond:) but not so
 much here.  Something about a small skirmish back in 1776 or so.

 I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything,
 especially to circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.

 As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.

 I like both sides on this.  I’m encouraged so many support protection
 of the 4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with
 someone who feels the opposite.

 Thank you

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu  > wrote:
> 
> OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I
> think, even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.
> 
> I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-22 Thread CHUCK REICHEL

Hi E.T.
Apparently you haven't read the constitution and the bill of rights!
If your open to learning about the USA history here you go;
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution/
Also heres what being politically correct gets you!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/12/06/judge-jeanine-neighbors-of-san-bernardino-attackers-afraid-of-being-called-islamaphobic-part-of-islamic-terrorist-plan/
Barack Hussein Obama is ultimately approving the home land security and  FBI 
Iphone "power grab",
And all the other privacy's we have and them being usurped!
Power corrupts! But absolute power corrupts absolutely!

PS I know!
You believe ancient  aliens brought us the iphone! LOL
YMWV

Chuck

On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, E.T. wrote:

>   All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on biblical 
> principles.
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> Many believe that we have been visited
> in the past. What if it were true?
> 
> On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>> I agree 1776 was a great year!
>> This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we  had "locked down" the
>> borders and through out all the illegals in the USA!
>> Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not
>> politically correct and we dig it!
>> I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
>> Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
>> HTH
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> CHUCK REICHEL
>> soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com 
>> www.SoundPictureRecording.com 
>> 954-742-0019
>> Isaiah 26 : 3
>>  Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
>> because he trusteth in thee.
>> 
>> In GOD I Trust
>> 
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>> 
>>> Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
>>> really well made by the way.
>>> 
>>> The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s
>>> come out in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local
>>> coverage is reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their
>>> possession and Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as
>>> well ad decrypt anything etc.
>>> 
>>> Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
>>> for Fat, Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying
>>> to scare us in to submission.
>>> 
>>> You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for
>>> strong, real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to
>>> cry out against a bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the
>>> people and by the people phrase and rather treats us as subjects.
>>> That might work for you queen lovers across the pond:) but not so
>>> much here.  Something about a small skirmish back in 1776 or so.
>>> 
>>> I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything,
>>> especially to circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.
>>> 
>>> As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.
>>> 
>>> I like both sides on this.  I’m encouraged so many support protection
>>> of the 4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with
>>> someone who feels the opposite.
>>> 
>>> Thank you
>>> 
>>> 
 On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu > wrote:

 OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I
 think, even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.

 I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore
 don’t enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case.
 Nor do I believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real
 trend; at best it is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I
 daresay you can guess how I feel about those.  I don’t even believe
 the U.S. is safe, given what we now know is possible, following the
 revelation of the specifics.

 This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well:
 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/

 In summary, I agree with the judge.  I believe this was a PR campaign
 intended to attract public support for Apple’s business practices,
 regardless of Cook’s genuine ethical alignment on the issue.  I
 believe Apple would have acceded to the demands, had they been filed
 under seal, as Apple had initially requested, and that Apple’s plea
 was necessary as a response to the FBI’s refusal.  I think this
 firmware hack qualifies as legal assistance—particularly horrible
 legal assistance, but assistance nevertheless, made more than
 possible by the ineffectual security of these devices—and that the
 case for proper security far exceeds any question of legal precedent,
 particularly when the

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

   All I will say to this is that this country was not founded on 
biblical principles.


From E.T.'s Keyboard...
   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/22/2016 9:09 AM, CHUCK REICHEL wrote:

Hi Scott,
I agree 1776 was a great year!
This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we  had "locked down" the
borders and through out all the illegals in the USA!
Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not
politically correct and we dig it!
I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
HTH

Chuck

CHUCK REICHEL
soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com 
www.SoundPictureRecording.com 
954-742-0019
Isaiah 26 : 3
  Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee:
because he trusteth in thee.

In GOD I Trust

On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:


Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though
really well made by the way.

The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s
come out in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local
coverage is reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their
possession and Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as
well ad decrypt anything etc.

Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands
for Fat, Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying
to scare us in to submission.

You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for
strong, real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to
cry out against a bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the
people and by the people phrase and rather treats us as subjects.
 That might work for you queen lovers across the pond:) but not so
much here.  Something about a small skirmish back in 1776 or so.

I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything,
especially to circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.

As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.

I like both sides on this.  I’m encouraged so many support protection
of the 4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with
someone who feels the opposite.

Thank you



On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu > wrote:

OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I
think, even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.

I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore
don’t enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case.
 Nor do I believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real
trend; at best it is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I
daresay you can guess how I feel about those.  I don’t even believe
the U.S. is safe, given what we now know is possible, following the
revelation of the specifics.

This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/

In summary, I agree with the judge.  I believe this was a PR campaign
intended to attract public support for Apple’s business practices,
regardless of Cook’s genuine ethical alignment on the issue.  I
believe Apple would have acceded to the demands, had they been filed
under seal, as Apple had initially requested, and that Apple’s plea
was necessary as a response to the FBI’s refusal.  I think this
firmware hack qualifies as legal assistance—particularly horrible
legal assistance, but assistance nevertheless, made more than
possible by the ineffectual security of these devices—and that the
case for proper security far exceeds any question of legal precedent,
particularly when the search was legitimate and would otherwise have
been authorised without Apple’s assistance.  Clearly, the fact that
the judiciary can ask for the data is the vulnerability here, and not
that they can compel a manufacturer to exploit a weakness in their
products.

Therefore, the only defence is cryptography; anything less is mere
security by obscurity.  We must have cryptography that works, is
provable and is verifiable.  The iPhone does not provide this: Apple
maintains the key for the software upgrade process, and that process
exposes the weakness of the cryptography now in use to any person in
possession of it, including but not limited to the U.S. judiciary
courtesy of Apple itself.  Between Apple’s hubris and the need for
user convenience, Apple is using the court to defend the
indefensible, and are fighting entirely the wrong fight.  We need
cryptography, under our control, and without the threat of trivial
circumvention.  Until this changes, Apple’s appeal to the court and
the public is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

So Apple should accede to the FBI, as ordered.  It’s the best

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-22 Thread CHUCK REICHEL

Hi Scott,
I agree 1776 was a great year!
This discussion wouldn't be taking place if we  had "locked down" the borders 
and through out all the illegals in the USA!
Thats correct I & the majority of the heartland of the USA are not politically 
correct and we dig it!
I'd rather be "biblically Correct" than politically correct any day!
Thank GOD for the second amendment! :)
HTH

Chuck

CHUCK REICHEL
soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com
www.SoundPictureRecording.com
954-742-0019
Isaiah 26 : 3
 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he 
trusteth in thee.

In GOD I Trust

On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

> Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though really 
> well made by the way.
> 
> The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s come out 
> in the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local coverage is 
> reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their possession and 
> Apple is now being asked to reconstruct that data as well ad decrypt anything 
> etc.
> 
> Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands for Fat, 
> Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying to scare us in 
> to submission.
> 
> You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for strong, 
> real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to cry out against a 
> bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the people and by the people 
> phrase and rather treats us as subjects.  That might work for you queen 
> lovers across the pond:) but not so much here.  Something about a small 
> skirmish back in 1776 or so.
> 
> I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything, especially to 
> circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.
> 
> As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.
> 
> I like both sides on this.  I’m encouraged so many support protection of the 
> 4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with someone who feels 
> the opposite.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu  wrote:
>> 
>> OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I think, 
>> even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.
>> 
>> I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore don’t 
>> enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case.  Nor do I 
>> believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real trend; at best 
>> it is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I daresay you can guess how I 
>> feel about those.  I don’t even believe the U.S. is safe, given what we now 
>> know is possible, following the revelation of the specifics.
>> 
>> This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/
>> 
>> In summary, I agree with the judge.  I believe this was a PR campaign 
>> intended to attract public support for Apple’s business practices, 
>> regardless of Cook’s genuine ethical alignment on the issue.  I believe 
>> Apple would have acceded to the demands, had they been filed under seal, as 
>> Apple had initially requested, and that Apple’s plea was necessary as a 
>> response to the FBI’s refusal.  I think this firmware hack qualifies as 
>> legal assistance—particularly horrible legal assistance, but assistance 
>> nevertheless, made more than possible by the ineffectual security of these 
>> devices—and that the case for proper security far exceeds any question of 
>> legal precedent, particularly when the search was legitimate and would 
>> otherwise have been authorised without Apple’s assistance.  Clearly, the 
>> fact that the judiciary can ask for the data is the vulnerability here, and 
>> not that they can compel a manufacturer to exploit a weakness in their 
>> products.
>> 
>> Therefore, the only defence is cryptography; anything less is mere security 
>> by obscurity.  We must have cryptography that works, is provable and is 
>> verifiable.  The iPhone does not provide this: Apple maintains the key for 
>> the software upgrade process, and that process exposes the weakness of the 
>> cryptography now in use to any person in possession of it, including but not 
>> limited to the U.S. judiciary courtesy of Apple itself.  Between Apple’s 
>> hubris and the need for user convenience, Apple is using the court to defend 
>> the indefensible, and are fighting entirely the wrong fight.  We need 
>> cryptography, under our control, and without the threat of trivial 
>> circumvention.  Until this changes, Apple’s appeal to the court and the 
>> public is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
>> 
>> So Apple should accede to the FBI, as ordered.  It’s the best thing that 
>> privacy advocates could hope for.  Next time, Apple will have got it right, 
>> and their responses to requests for

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Just one thing that to me puts a whole in your argument all though really well 
made by the way.

The FBI actually reset the phone while in it’s possession.  So it’s come out in 
the US news, KGO radio specifically as part of their local coverage is 
reporting that the FBI hard reset the phone while in their possession and Apple 
is now being asked to reconstruct that data as well ad decrypt anything etc.

Personally this just indicates what I’ve always believed, FBI stands for Fat, 
Bald and Ignorant.  These are bulls in a china closet trying to scare us in to 
submission.

You make strong points and I whole heartedly support your cries for strong, 
real cryptography under nobody’s control but I also have to cry out against a 
bumbling government that doesn’t respect the for the people and by the people 
phrase and rather treats us as subjects.  That might work for you queen lovers 
across the pond:) but not so much here.  Something about a small skirmish back 
in 1776 or so.

I just get very nervous when the government asks for anything, especially to 
circumvent security whether it’s good security or not.

As always though, well presented and thank you for the thought provoker.

I like both sides on this.  I’m encouraged so many support protection of the 
4th amendment but I also welcome the chance to discuss with someone who feels 
the opposite.

Thank you
 

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu  wrote:
> 
> OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I think, 
> even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.
> 
> I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore don’t 
> enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case.  Nor do I 
> believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real trend; at best it 
> is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I daresay you can guess how I feel 
> about those.  I don’t even believe the U.S. is safe, given what we now know 
> is possible, following the revelation of the specifics.
> 
> This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/
> 
> In summary, I agree with the judge.  I believe this was a PR campaign 
> intended to attract public support for Apple’s business practices, regardless 
> of Cook’s genuine ethical alignment on the issue.  I believe Apple would have 
> acceded to the demands, had they been filed under seal, as Apple had 
> initially requested, and that Apple’s plea was necessary as a response to the 
> FBI’s refusal.  I think this firmware hack qualifies as legal 
> assistance—particularly horrible legal assistance, but assistance 
> nevertheless, made more than possible by the ineffectual security of these 
> devices—and that the case for proper security far exceeds any question of 
> legal precedent, particularly when the search was legitimate and would 
> otherwise have been authorised without Apple’s assistance.  Clearly, the fact 
> that the judiciary can ask for the data is the vulnerability here, and not 
> that they can compel a manufacturer to exploit a weakness in their products.
> 
> Therefore, the only defence is cryptography; anything less is mere security 
> by obscurity.  We must have cryptography that works, is provable and is 
> verifiable.  The iPhone does not provide this: Apple maintains the key for 
> the software upgrade process, and that process exposes the weakness of the 
> cryptography now in use to any person in possession of it, including but not 
> limited to the U.S. judiciary courtesy of Apple itself.  Between Apple’s 
> hubris and the need for user convenience, Apple is using the court to defend 
> the indefensible, and are fighting entirely the wrong fight.  We need 
> cryptography, under our control, and without the threat of trivial 
> circumvention.  Until this changes, Apple’s appeal to the court and the 
> public is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
> 
> So Apple should accede to the FBI, as ordered.  It’s the best thing that 
> privacy advocates could hope for.  Next time, Apple will have got it right, 
> and their responses to requests for legal assistance will be much shorter.
> 
> There!  Don’t you feel much better now? :)
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
>

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-22 Thread Sabahattin Gucukoglu

OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I think, even 
if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.

I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore don’t 
enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case.  Nor do I 
believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real trend; at best it 
is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I daresay you can guess how I feel 
about those.  I don’t even believe the U.S. is safe, given what we now know is 
possible, following the revelation of the specifics.

This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/

In summary, I agree with the judge.  I believe this was a PR campaign intended 
to attract public support for Apple’s business practices, regardless of Cook’s 
genuine ethical alignment on the issue.  I believe Apple would have acceded to 
the demands, had they been filed under seal, as Apple had initially requested, 
and that Apple’s plea was necessary as a response to the FBI’s refusal.  I 
think this firmware hack qualifies as legal assistance—particularly horrible 
legal assistance, but assistance nevertheless, made more than possible by the 
ineffectual security of these devices—and that the case for proper security far 
exceeds any question of legal precedent, particularly when the search was 
legitimate and would otherwise have been authorised without Apple’s assistance. 
 Clearly, the fact that the judiciary can ask for the data is the vulnerability 
here, and not that they can compel a manufacturer to exploit a weakness in 
their products.

Therefore, the only defence is cryptography; anything less is mere security by 
obscurity.  We must have cryptography that works, is provable and is 
verifiable.  The iPhone does not provide this: Apple maintains the key for the 
software upgrade process, and that process exposes the weakness of the 
cryptography now in use to any person in possession of it, including but not 
limited to the U.S. judiciary courtesy of Apple itself.  Between Apple’s hubris 
and the need for user convenience, Apple is using the court to defend the 
indefensible, and are fighting entirely the wrong fight.  We need cryptography, 
under our control, and without the threat of trivial circumvention.  Until this 
changes, Apple’s appeal to the court and the public is naive at best and 
disingenuous at worst.

So Apple should accede to the FBI, as ordered.  It’s the best thing that 
privacy advocates could hope for.  Next time, Apple will have got it right, and 
their responses to requests for legal assistance will be much shorter.

There!  Don’t you feel much better now? :)

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

owing about cyber security
>>>> I can guarantee you right now that if they build this backdoor I will
>>>> immediately stop using apple products.
>>>> 
>>>> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating
>>>> system that houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not
>>>> enough for you? What about your keychain? You know, the one where you
>>>> store all your passwords for things like your bank account.
>>>> 
>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but
>>>> I’m here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your
>>>> security it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>> 
>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>> 
>>>> -Software Engineer
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com 
>>>>> <mailto:eric.o...@icloud.com>
>>>>> <mailto:eric.o...@icloud.com <mailto:eric.o...@icloud.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ok,
>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the
>>>>> device. Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still
>>>>> available, and that were the only method of encryption, then the FBI
>>>>> already has its problem solved. If, however, there was a secondary
>>>>> method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get
>>>>> into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone.
>>>>> they aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law
>>>>> enforcement. all they need to do is provide a technician who knows
>>>>> the method (and has the program). since that program will not be
>>>>> turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no problem. Apple would
>>>>> retain custody of the program and the method and law enforcement
>>>>> would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point,
>>>>> there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would
>>>>> props that the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated)
>>>>> device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would
>>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -eric
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device
>>>>>> users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of
>>>>>> that type.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Iargree
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>>
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
>>>>>> search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this
>>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they don't
>>>>>> cooperate  with the FBI?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> George,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:si...@blinky-net.c

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device
users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of
that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this
doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't
 cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

Sent from my iPad


On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com
<mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you
need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they
just use the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so
you don’t have to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)
 Couldn’t they lift a print or even a finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen
<klewel...@shellworld.net <mailto:klewel...@shellworld.net>> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other
doors, such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is
simply unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one
should have  their privacy compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it
could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against
being forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have
any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the
Mac Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate,
please contact the owners or moderators directly rather than
posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your
owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
<mailto:caraqu...@caraquinn.com>

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac
Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please
contact the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on
the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
<mailto:caraqu...@caraquinn.com>

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac
Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel tha

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

your bank account.
>>>> 
>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m 
>>>> here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security 
>>>> it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>> 
>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>> 
>>>>-Software Engineer
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ok,
>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>>>>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that 
>>>>> were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>>>>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>>>>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>>>>> impossible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and 
>>>>> would also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -eric
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>>> type.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Iargree
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> George,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
>>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just 
>>>>>>> use the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t 
>>>>>>> have to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they 
>>>>>>> lift a print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now I really smell a rat

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

 it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>>>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that 
>>>> were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>>>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>>>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>>>> impossible.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>> 
>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> -eric
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>> type.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Iargree
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> George,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>> search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by t

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

like a decent proposal?
>>> 
>>> -eric
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree,
>>>> 
>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>> 
>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>> type.
>>>> 
>>>> Iargree
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>> 
>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
>>>> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the 
>>>> FBI?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> George,
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>> search
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, 
>>>>>>> or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact 
>>>>>>> the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list 
>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from thi

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>> 
>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>> 
>>> -eric
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree,
>>>> 
>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>> 
>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>> type.
>>>> 
>>>> Iargree
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> 
>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>> 
>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
>>>> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the 
>>>> FBI?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> George,
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com 
>>>>> <mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>> search
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net 
>>>>>> <mailto:klewel...@shellworld.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, 
>>>>>>> or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact 
>>>>>>> the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

+1, said better than I ever could.  I feel like trumpeting this from the roof 
tops.


Well said!

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Tyler Thompson <tktpianostud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> So I feel it’s about time to throw in my 2 cents here. I’m a Certified 
> Ethical Hacker and I’ve got qualifications and certifications in regards to 
> cryptography, steganography and cyber security. I don’t bring this up to brag 
> but instead to outline that I’m speaking from a place of experience. In this 
> letter <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/> to us, the customers Tim Cook 
> does a decent job of outlining the issue.
> 
> I can say with 100% certainty that by creating access to a single phone apple 
> will significantly reduce it’s ability to protect your data, and, what’s 
> worse they’ll give that access to the FBI. There’s no such thing as a 
> backdoor into 1 device. One of the most potent security measures, and one 
> that Apple has implemented is to ensure that nobody again nobody has access 
> to secured data, including Apple themselves. When I’m contracted out to build 
> secure apps or websites I do the same thing, for example, once a password has 
> been created for a user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users 
> account.
> 
> In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the operating 
> system. This means every iOS operating system would become vulnerable to both 
> malicious hackers and our government. But let me give it to you in an 
> analogy: Imagine that the iPhone is your home. Now imagine that your home is 
> in a bad neighborhood and is a high-profile home. So the FBI comes along and 
> asks you to please smash out one of your own windows in broad daylight. When 
> you say it lowers the security of your home the answer is “Well it’s ok, 
> thieves in the area don’t know which window you smashed out.”
> 
> I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their accessibility, I 
> love their products but knowing about cyber security I can guarantee you 
> right now that if they build this backdoor I will immediately stop using 
> apple products.
> 
> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating system that 
> houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not enough for you? What 
> about your keychain? You know, the one where you store all your passwords for 
> things like your bank account. 
> 
> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m here 
> to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security it’s 
> done and the product will never be as secure again.
> 
> Tyler K. Thompson
> 
>   -Software Engineer
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com 
>> <mailto:eric.o...@icloud.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> ok,
>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that 
>> were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>> impossible.
>> 
>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they 
>> need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>> 
>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>> 
>> -eric
>> 
>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree,
>>> 
>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>> 
>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
>>> 
>>> Iargree
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> 
>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of George Cha

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

So I almost fell out of my chair this morden.  Michael Hayden, the former NSA 
director who lead the warrantless wiretapping program and the meta data 
collection program, came out strongly in favor of Apple and against  the 
government.  He feels the government’s request is far over reaching and a 
danger to privacy.

I never thought I’d say this but I agree with Michael Hayden, wow!

 

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
> 
> Apple can still provide the level of security needed, and with the proper 
> methodology, still allow the FBI, et al to have access to the information 
> that is needed (and all without having to install a backdoor). It is a  
> pretty simple arrangement, but a little hard to implement.
> 
> -eric
> 
> On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:33 AM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
> 
>> Not following it but I agree with him whole hartedly 
>> 
>> It doesn't take much for someone to work a jailbreak for an iphone IOS when 
>> it's out, so how long would it take for someone to find the back door into 
>> the OS if they did put one in.
>> 
>> 
>> There was the same sort of issue with blackberrys and their encryption.
>> 
>> I say stay true apple,  your customers want the security of their data
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:28 AM
>> To: MacVisionaries 'Chris Blouch' via <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>> 
>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>> 
>> -- 
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries"

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-21 Thread Karen Lewellen

d (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a 
lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.

Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they aren't 
required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they need to 
do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the program). since 
that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no 
problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the method and law 
enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, 
there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that 
the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

Sent from my iPad


On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this gro

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

ds for things like your bank account. 
>>>> 
>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m 
>>>> here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security 
>>>> it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>> 
>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>> 
>>>>-Software Engineer
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ok,
>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>>>>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that 
>>>>> were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>>>>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>>>>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>>>>> impossible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and 
>>>>> would also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -eric
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>>> type.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Iargree
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> George,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just 
>>>>>>> use the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t 
>>>>>>> have to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they 
>>>>>>> lift a print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>&

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

gt;>> here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security 
>>>> it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>> 
>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>> 
>>>>-Software Engineer
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ok,
>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>>>>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that 
>>>>> were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>>>>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>>>>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>>>>> impossible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and 
>>>>> would also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -eric
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>>> type.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Iargree
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> George,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just 
>>>>>>> use the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t 
>>>>>>> have to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they 
>>>>>>> lift a print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 18,

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries

e of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

Sent from my iPad


On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread Sarai Bucciarelli

ondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>>>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>>>> impossible.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>> 
>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> -eric
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>> type.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Iargree
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> George,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>> search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Won

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

backdoor I will 
>>>>> immediately stop using apple products.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating system 
>>>>> that houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not enough for 
>>>>> you? What about your keychain? You know, the one where you store all your 
>>>>> passwords for things like your bank account.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m 
>>>>> here to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security 
>>>>> it’s done and the product will never be as secure again.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tyler K. Thompson
>>>>> 
>>>>>   -Software Engineer
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ok,
>>>>>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>>>>>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and 
>>>>>> that were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its 
>>>>>> problem solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a 
>>>>>> passcode) used, then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. 
>>>>>> Note: I did not say impossible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has 
>>>>>> the program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, 
>>>>>> there is essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the 
>>>>>> program and the method and law enforcement would have to follow the law 
>>>>>> (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to 
>>>>>> exploit To further secure it, I would props that the program be placed 
>>>>>> on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged 
>>>>>> into any network and would also require the use of a password (only 
>>>>>> known to apple) to work.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -eric
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Iargree
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> George,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
>>>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@go

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread E.T.

thod and law 
enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, 
there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that 
the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

Sent from my iPad


On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your M

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

y method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>>>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>>>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>>>> impossible.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>>>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all 
>>>> they need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>>>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>>>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>>> 
>>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> -eric
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>>> type.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Iargree
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this 
>>>>> doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  
>>>>> with the FBI?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> George,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>>> search
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
&g

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread Terje Strømberg

ody of the program and the 
>>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>> 
>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>> 
>>> -eric
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree,
>>>> 
>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>> 
>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>> type.
>>>> 
>>>> Iargree
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>> 
>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
>>>> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the 
>>>> FBI?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> George,
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>> search
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, 
>>>>>>> or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact 
>>>>>>> the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list 
>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>>>>>

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread E.T.

   Given how cyber crime is increasingly effective (and profitable), 
let's not allow even the  tiniest hole invisible to all but the 
criminals to be put into the armor.


From E.T.'s Keyboard...
   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/20/2016 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:

hmmm. good points.
now, I am not a crypto specialist. I am a basic IT/security tech. my thing is 
firewalls, intrusion detection and disinfection

There has to be a way where apple doesn't have to give up security and still 
allow the FBI access to that one device (without compromising all others). Is 
this possible or am I smoking a real pipe dream here?

-eric

On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Tyler Thompson wrote:


So I feel it’s about time to throw in my 2 cents here. I’m a Certified Ethical 
Hacker and I’ve got qualifications and certifications in regards to 
cryptography, steganography and cyber security. I don’t bring this up to brag 
but instead to outline that I’m speaking from a place of experience. In this 
letter to us, the customers Tim Cook does a decent job of outlining the issue.

I can say with 100% certainty that by creating access to a single phone apple 
will significantly reduce it’s ability to protect your data, and, what’s worse 
they’ll give that access to the FBI. There’s no such thing as a backdoor into 1 
device. One of the most potent security measures, and one that Apple has 
implemented is to ensure that nobody again nobody has access to secured data, 
including Apple themselves. When I’m contracted out to build secure apps or 
websites I do the same thing, for example, once a password has been created for 
a user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users account.

In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the operating system. 
This means every iOS operating system would become vulnerable to both malicious 
hackers and our government. But let me give it to you in an analogy: Imagine 
that the iPhone is your home. Now imagine that your home is in a bad 
neighborhood and is a high-profile home. So the FBI comes along and asks you to 
please smash out one of your own windows in broad daylight. When you say it 
lowers the security of your home the answer is “Well it’s ok, thieves in the 
area don’t know which window you smashed out.”

I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their accessibility, I 
love their products but knowing about cyber security I can guarantee you right 
now that if they build this backdoor I will immediately stop using apple 
products.

You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating system that 
houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not enough for you? What 
about your keychain? You know, the one where you store all your passwords for 
things like your bank account.

We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m here to 
tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security it’s done and 
the product will never be as secure again.

Tyler K. Thompson

-Software Engineer


On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:

ok,
the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. Hell, 
if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that were the 
only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem solved. If, 
however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a 
lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.

Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they aren't 
required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they need to 
do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the program). since 
that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no 
problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the method and law 
enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, 
there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that 
the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:


I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread Tyler Thompson

 placed on a specialized (and 
>>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>>> 
>>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>>> 
>>> -eric
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree,
>>>> 
>>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>>> 
>>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that 
>>>> type.
>>>> 
>>>> Iargree
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>>> 
>>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
>>>> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the 
>>>> FBI?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> George,
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>>> search
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have 
>>>>> to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a 
>>>>> print or even a finger and just use that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply 
>>>>>> unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  
>>>>>> their privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, 
>>>>>>> or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact 
>>>>>>> the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list 
>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>>>>

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

hmmm. good points. 
now, I am not a crypto specialist. I am a basic IT/security tech. my thing is 
firewalls, intrusion detection and disinfection

There has to be a way where apple doesn't have to give up security and still 
allow the FBI access to that one device (without compromising all others). Is 
this possible or am I smoking a real pipe dream here?

-eric

On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Tyler Thompson wrote:

> So I feel it’s about time to throw in my 2 cents here. I’m a Certified 
> Ethical Hacker and I’ve got qualifications and certifications in regards to 
> cryptography, steganography and cyber security. I don’t bring this up to brag 
> but instead to outline that I’m speaking from a place of experience. In this 
> letter to us, the customers Tim Cook does a decent job of outlining the issue.
> 
> I can say with 100% certainty that by creating access to a single phone apple 
> will significantly reduce it’s ability to protect your data, and, what’s 
> worse they’ll give that access to the FBI. There’s no such thing as a 
> backdoor into 1 device. One of the most potent security measures, and one 
> that Apple has implemented is to ensure that nobody again nobody has access 
> to secured data, including Apple themselves. When I’m contracted out to build 
> secure apps or websites I do the same thing, for example, once a password has 
> been created for a user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users 
> account.
> 
> In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the operating 
> system. This means every iOS operating system would become vulnerable to both 
> malicious hackers and our government. But let me give it to you in an 
> analogy: Imagine that the iPhone is your home. Now imagine that your home is 
> in a bad neighborhood and is a high-profile home. So the FBI comes along and 
> asks you to please smash out one of your own windows in broad daylight. When 
> you say it lowers the security of your home the answer is “Well it’s ok, 
> thieves in the area don’t know which window you smashed out.”
> 
> I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their accessibility, I 
> love their products but knowing about cyber security I can guarantee you 
> right now that if they build this backdoor I will immediately stop using 
> apple products.
> 
> You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating system that 
> houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not enough for you? What 
> about your keychain? You know, the one where you store all your passwords for 
> things like your bank account. 
> 
> We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m here 
> to tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security it’s 
> done and the product will never be as secure again.
> 
> Tyler K. Thompson
> 
>   -Software Engineer
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ok,
>> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. 
>> Hell, if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that 
>> were the only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem 
>> solved. If, however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, 
>> then it becomes a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say 
>> impossible.
>> 
>> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
>> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they 
>> need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
>> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
>> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
>> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
>> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
>> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
>> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
>> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
>> 
>> does this sound like a decent proposal?
>> 
>> -eric
>> 
>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree,
>>> 
>>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>>> 
>>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
>>> 
>>> Iargree
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George C

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread E.T.

o:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this
doesn't make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't
 cooperate  with the FBI?

George,

Sent from my iPad

On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com
<mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>> wrote:

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to
use the pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
[mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable
search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they
just use the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so
you don’t have to worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)
 Couldn’t they lift a print or even a finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.

On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen
<klewel...@shellworld.net <mailto:klewel...@shellworld.net>> wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other
doors, such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply
unwise to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should
have  their privacy compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been
hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could
be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against
being forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any
comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac
Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate,
please contact the owners or moderators directly rather than
posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
<mailto:caraqu...@caraquinn.com>

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac
Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please
contact the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on
the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
<mailto:caraqu...@caraquinn.com>

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
<mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac
Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please
contact the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on
the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
<mailto:caraqu...@caraquinn.com>

The archi

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread Kawal Gucukoglu

 to all devices of that type.
>>> 
>>> Iargree
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> 
>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of George Cham
>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>>> 
>>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
>>> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the 
>>> FBI?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> George,
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com 
>>>> <mailto:si...@blinky-net.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>>> 
>>>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> 
>>>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>>>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>>>> <mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>>>> search
>>>> 
>>>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use 
>>>> the fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to 
>>>> worry about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print 
>>>> or even a finger and just use that?
>>>> 
>>>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net 
>>>>> <mailto:klewel...@shellworld.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, 
>>>>> such as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:caraqu...@caraquinn.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/ 
>>>>>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>>>>> an email to macvisionaries+unsu

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-20 Thread Tyler Thompson

So I feel it’s about time to throw in my 2 cents here. I’m a Certified Ethical 
Hacker and I’ve got qualifications and certifications in regards to 
cryptography, steganography and cyber security. I don’t bring this up to brag 
but instead to outline that I’m speaking from a place of experience. In this 
letter <http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/> to us, the customers Tim Cook 
does a decent job of outlining the issue.

I can say with 100% certainty that by creating access to a single phone apple 
will significantly reduce it’s ability to protect your data, and, what’s worse 
they’ll give that access to the FBI. There’s no such thing as a backdoor into 1 
device. One of the most potent security measures, and one that Apple has 
implemented is to ensure that nobody again nobody has access to secured data, 
including Apple themselves. When I’m contracted out to build secure apps or 
websites I do the same thing, for example, once a password has been created for 
a user I do not, and cannot ever gain access to that users account.

In order to build a “backdoor” you have to build it into the operating system. 
This means every iOS operating system would become vulnerable to both malicious 
hackers and our government. But let me give it to you in an analogy: Imagine 
that the iPhone is your home. Now imagine that your home is in a bad 
neighborhood and is a high-profile home. So the FBI comes along and asks you to 
please smash out one of your own windows in broad daylight. When you say it 
lowers the security of your home the answer is “Well it’s ok, thieves in the 
area don’t know which window you smashed out.”

I’ve been a very avid Apple fan for years now, I love their accessibility, I 
love their products but knowing about cyber security I can guarantee you right 
now that if they build this backdoor I will immediately stop using apple 
products.

You want one even scarier? Think about a backdoor to an operating system that 
houses your credit card info for Apple Pay. That’s not enough for you? What 
about your keychain? You know, the one where you store all your passwords for 
things like your bank account. 

We can say “Surely you can just do it this once” all we want to but I’m here to 
tell you there’s no such thing. Once you’ve lowered your security it’s done and 
the product will never be as secure again.

Tyler K. Thompson

-Software Engineer

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.o...@icloud.com> wrote:
> 
> ok,
> the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. Hell, 
> if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that were the 
> only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem solved. If, 
> however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes 
> a lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.
> 
> Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they 
> aren't required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they 
> need to do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the 
> program). since that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is 
> essentially no problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the 
> method and law enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, 
> etc.). At this point, there would be no back door to exploit To further 
> secure it, I would props that the program be placed on a specialized (and 
> isolated) device. THis device cannot be plugged into any network and would 
> also require the use of a password (only known to apple) to work.
> 
> does this sound like a decent proposal?
> 
> -eric
> 
> On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
> 
>> I agree,
>> 
>> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
>> 
>> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
>> 
>> Iargree
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>> 
>> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
>> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?
>> 
>> 
>> George,
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>>> 
>>> Or did they even have fingue

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

ok,
the way I see it, apple can come up with a method to access the device. Hell, 
if the fingerprints of the terrorists are still available, and that were the 
only method of encryption, then the FBI already has its problem solved. If, 
however, there was a secondary method (like a passcode) used, then it becomes a 
lot harder to get into the device. Note: I did not say impossible.

Now, apple can develop a method by which they can access the phone. they aren't 
required to publish it nor to provide it to law enforcement. all they need to 
do is provide a technician who knows the method (and has the program). since 
that program will not be turned over to the FBI, there is essentially no 
problem. Apple would retain custody of the program and the method and law 
enforcement would have to follow the law (file a warrant, etc.). At this point, 
there would be no back door to exploit To further secure it, I would props that 
the program be placed on a specialized (and isolated) device. THis device 
cannot be plugged into any network and would also require the use of a password 
(only known to apple) to work.

does this sound like a decent proposal?

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:

> I agree,
> 
> It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.
> 
> A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.
> 
> Iargree
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of George Cham
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?
> 
> 
> George,
> 
>  Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
>> use the pin code to open it for the first time
>> 
>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>> search
>> 
>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
>> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
>> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even 
>> a finger and just use that?
>> 
>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>> 
>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread Simon Fogarty

Surely the back door to the ios app to allow the FBI in after the act has been 
committed isn't the thing they should be focusing on.

 Why don’t they start doing something to stop the actions not only against the 
USA but the rest of the world.

I'd say lock down the middle east and everyone but the people that  should be 
there get the heck out.

 Like in the late 70s early 80s when people stopped flying in there
Then when the locals start running out of food and resources start working a 
deal with them.

Mind you then there are people like Richard branson I guess who start doing the 
opposite

 

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2016 2:39 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Cc: Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Well theres one thing Apple can guaranty, I’m not upgrading my IOS on my 
primary phone any more.:)

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> You have a valid point, but it is a double-edged sword. Apple say’s if thet 
> let FBI get it, the bad guys will also get it. The backdoor in the software. 
> I like the private IOS device, but if most terrorists starts to use iPhone, 
> they have to give the information to FBI. There most likely is a FBI way i.e. 
> not open up the backdoor in software for anyone, but for only FBI. 
> 
> Take care
> 
> 19. feb. 2016 kl. 09:20 skrev George Cham <george.c...@optusnet.com.au>:
> 
> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?
> 
> 
> George,
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need 
>> to use the pin code to open it for the first time
>> 
>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
>> search
>> 
>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
>> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
>> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even 
>> a finger and just use that?
>> 
>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it 
>>> could be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner 
>>>> is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>> 
>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread Simon Fogarty

Yeah but still no one really cares about us.

 What are we going to do, throw stones at people ok we got guns but only our 
special forces SAS are worth their weight in a real fight.



-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2016 2:35 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Actually, a good number of the calls going in and out of your country as well 
as Internet and other data is monitored out of white plains new york.:)

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:50 AM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> 
> Doesn't the NSA watch you guys when your on the John?
> 
> I'm glad I live in the deep south down under, no one really cares 
> about us other than in rugby
> 
> That's a sport where players don't wear pads or helmets
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 7:41 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
> search
> 
> You don’t have to sell me about the over reach of Government.  I’ve 
> been a Libertarian since before it was cool.:)
> 
> (ok it still probably isn’t but that’s besides the point)
> 
> You’re absolutely right though.  I have worked for telephone companies and 
> global carriers for years now and I’ll tell you that all the stuff you 
> mentioned is already done  They do listen to every call with complex systems 
> that preprocess conversations and sort them in to interest / prioritized 
> piles.  Your phone tracks your position.  The way you deal with this is 
> understand what is being done to you, restrict as much as you can and deal 
> with the political system and your representatives.
> 
> That’s about all you can do.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse <sandi1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Scot, but now imagine that apple looses… just for the sake of the 
>> discussion… what will be next, our cars? the sat nav? when will it 
>> stop?
>> 
>> On 2/18/16, Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net> wrote:
>>> So the EFF is with apple I believe, Google and Facebook, it’s just 
>>> the media who the government controls and the FBI who want this.
>>> 
>>> Just to add one small correction though, the pin isn’t the key it’s self.
>>> So while you’re right about the number of combinations of 4 digits 
>>> the actual number of combinations is probably more like 2 to the 
>>> 2048th power combinations.  The pin is but a seed / pass phrase 
>>> component of the key pair.
>>> 
>>> Since it seems most people are on the side of Apple we should all 
>>> write Apple in support and write our congress persons letting them 
>>> know we don’t support this intrusion.
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse 
>>>> <sandi1...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> so here is the thing, from what i understand and iPhones are not my 
>>>> favorite subject, but ill try my best.
>>>> When you lock your iPhone the key too encrypt it all is on your 
>>>> phone, apple don't have it anymore, so not even they can unlock the 
>>>> iPhone, not even if they wanted, if you use a lock code on say 4 
>>>> digits, there is 1 different combinations, and it gets worse 
>>>> seen form Fbis point of view, because after i believe it is 10 
>>>> times wrong passcode, the phone erases it self.
>>>> I personally like this feature, not that i have anything 
>>>> interesting on my phone, but i like the fact that my data is 
>>>> actually secure, problem is if they find a way to force apple into 
>>>> making something that works, even if it is just for one iPhone, 
>>>> guess  what the next time the shit hits the fan there will be 
>>>> precedence for having apple roll their magic again.
>>>> And that might be the dangerous part. It seems that google is with 
>>>> apple on this one at least they sites with them, but have anyone 
>>>> heard any Ms comments?
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/18/16, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>  I urge you to do your own moderating by using that delete key on 
>>>>> messages that bother you. I had to do that very task hundreds of 
>>>>> times just this week. And

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread Simon Fogarty

I agree,

It's not just terrorist that this will effect it's all IOS device users.

 A back door access to one device is a back door to all devices of that type.

Iargree


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of George Cham
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 9:21 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

  Sent from my iPad

> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> 
> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to 
> use the pin code to open it for the first time
> 
> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable 
> search
> 
> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
> finger and just use that?
> 
> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
>> develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
>> compromised in this fashion.
>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>> Visionaries list.
>>> 
>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners 
>>> or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>> 
>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>> 
>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Ma

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread Eric Oyen

Apple can still provide the level of security needed, and with the proper 
methodology, still allow the FBI, et al to have access to the information that 
is needed (and all without having to install a backdoor). It is a  pretty 
simple arrangement, but a little hard to implement.

-eric

On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:33 AM, Simon Fogarty wrote:

> Not following it but I agree with him whole hartedly 
> 
> It doesn't take much for someone to work a jailbreak for an iphone IOS when 
> it's out, so how long would it take for someone to find the back door into 
> the OS if they did put one in.
> 
> 
> There was the same sort of issue with blackberrys and their encryption.
> 
> I say stay true apple,  your customers want the security of their data
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:28 AM
> To: MacVisionaries 'Chris Blouch' via <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread CHUCK REICHEL


Ahoy!
Cant wait for the "Trump" White house!
Being that I am a "independent" small business man we need that kind of freedom 
granted by the CREATOR.
Unalienable Rights From God.
Check out this link.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html
We wouldn't even be having this discussion about the privacy if our so called 
"elected officials" were doing there job!
Their most important duty is to protect our borders!
If this was being done the terrorist" would not be over here at least not in 
the numbers they are now!
FBI sates that they have terrorist investigations in every state of the USA!
It may be time to call on the "Ancient Aliens" for the encryption code! LOL

If you need more clarification contact me! :)
Chuck

Chuck
 

CHUCK REICHEL
soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com
www.SoundPictureRecording.com
954-742-0019
GUFFAWING :)
In GOD I Trust

On Feb 19, 2016, at 9:55 AM, E.T. wrote:

>   We now have a fight between Trump and Pope. I pale at the possibility of a 
> Trump White House, that would make this Apple vs FBI a non issue. Religion is 
> what drives this madness.
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> Many believe that we have been visited
> in the past. What if it were true?
> 
> On 2/18/2016 11:45 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:
>> I'm not an American, but
>> It does concern me if Donald trump gets in.
>> God help us all.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of E.T.
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:54 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>> 
>> The Patriot Act was exactly what came to mind. This is what scares me 
>> about the Republicans. I shall say no more.
>> 
>> Just keep those grubby little fingers out of my private life which is 
>> hardly private any more.
>> 
>>  From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>> ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>> Many believe that we have been visited
>> in the past. What if it were true?
>> 
>> On 2/18/2016 9:40 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> ET very well stated.
>>> 
>>> The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking 
>>> what Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to 
>>> the specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a 
>>> tool that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any 
>>> security on the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short 
>>> form for horse hockey.
>>> 
>>> This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an end 
>>> run right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once in 
>>> place there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and father 
>>> land security I mean home land security were also supposed to be temporary. 
>>>  Good luck!
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I 
>>>> say, once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a 
>>>> sticky wicket. We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?
>>>> 
>>>>  From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>>>>ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>>>> Many believe that we have been visited in the past. What if it were
>>>> true?
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>> 
>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread E.T.

   We now have a fight between Trump and Pope. I pale at the 
possibility of a Trump White House, that would make this Apple vs FBI a 
non issue. Religion is what drives this madness.


From E.T.'s Keyboard...
   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 11:45 PM, Simon Fogarty wrote:

I'm not an American, but
It does concern me if Donald trump gets in.
God help us all.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of E.T.
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:54 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

 The Patriot Act was exactly what came to mind. This is what scares me 
about the Republicans. I shall say no more.

 Just keep those grubby little fingers out of my private life which is 
hardly private any more.

  From E.T.'s Keyboard...
 ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:40 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

ET very well stated.

The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking what 
Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to the 
specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a tool 
that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any security on 
the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse 
hockey.

This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an end run 
right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once in place 
there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and father land 
security I mean home land security were also supposed to be temporary.  Good 
luck!


On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:

Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I say, 
once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a sticky wicket. 
We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?

  From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited in the past. What if it were
true?

On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You receive

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Well theres one thing Apple can guaranty, I’m not upgrading my IOS on my 
primary phone any more.:)

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Terje Strømberg <terjestrmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> You have a valid point, but it is a double-edged sword. Apple say’s if thet 
> let FBI get it, the bad guys will also get it. The backdoor in the software. 
> I like the private IOS device, but if most terrorists starts to use iPhone, 
> they have to give the information to FBI. There most likely is a FBI way i.e. 
> not open up the backdoor in software for anyone, but for only FBI. 
> 
> Take care
> 
> 19. feb. 2016 kl. 09:20 skrev George Cham <george.c...@optusnet.com.au>:
> 
> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?
> 
> 
> George,
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to use 
>> the pin code to open it for the first time
>> 
>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>> 
>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
>> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
>> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even 
>> a finger and just use that?
>> 
>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>> 
>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> --
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvi

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

No at best I think it means they are in contempt of court.  Tim Cook might also 
be somewhat personally involved as their chief but again this will be the clash 
of the titans.  A wet dream for law school professors and lawyers for decades 
to come.  Something tells me in the end it ends in a draw where everyone 
loses.:(

Very interesting.

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 3:20 AM, George Cham <george.c...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't 
> make apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?
> 
> 
> George,
> 
>  Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to use 
>> the pin code to open it for the first time
>> 
>> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
>> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
>> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
>> 
>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
>> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
>> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even 
>> a finger and just use that?
>> 
>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>> 
>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> --
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to mac

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Actually, a good number of the calls going in and out of your country as well 
as Internet and other data is monitored out of white plains new york.:)

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:50 AM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> 
> Doesn't the NSA watch you guys when your on the John?
> 
> I'm glad I live in the deep south down under, no one really cares about us 
> other than in rugby 
> 
> That's a sport where players don't wear pads or helmets 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 7:41 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> You don’t have to sell me about the over reach of Government.  I’ve been a 
> Libertarian since before it was cool.:)
> 
> (ok it still probably isn’t but that’s besides the point)
> 
> You’re absolutely right though.  I have worked for telephone companies and 
> global carriers for years now and I’ll tell you that all the stuff you 
> mentioned is already done  They do listen to every call with complex systems 
> that preprocess conversations and sort them in to interest / prioritized 
> piles.  Your phone tracks your position.  The way you deal with this is 
> understand what is being done to you, restrict as much as you can and deal 
> with the political system and your representatives.
> 
> That’s about all you can do.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse <sandi1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Scot, but now imagine that apple looses… just for the sake of the 
>> discussion… what will be next, our cars? the sat nav? when will it 
>> stop?
>> 
>> On 2/18/16, Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net> wrote:
>>> So the EFF is with apple I believe, Google and Facebook, it’s just 
>>> the media who the government controls and the FBI who want this.
>>> 
>>> Just to add one small correction though, the pin isn’t the key it’s self.
>>> So while you’re right about the number of combinations of 4 digits 
>>> the actual number of combinations is probably more like 2 to the 
>>> 2048th power combinations.  The pin is but a seed / pass phrase 
>>> component of the key pair.
>>> 
>>> Since it seems most people are on the side of Apple we should all 
>>> write Apple in support and write our congress persons letting them 
>>> know we don’t support this intrusion.
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse 
>>>> <sandi1...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> so here is the thing, from what i understand and iPhones are not my 
>>>> favorite subject, but ill try my best.
>>>> When you lock your iPhone the key too encrypt it all is on your 
>>>> phone, apple don't have it anymore, so not even they can unlock the 
>>>> iPhone, not even if they wanted, if you use a lock code on say 4 
>>>> digits, there is 1 different combinations, and it gets worse 
>>>> seen form Fbis point of view, because after i believe it is 10 times 
>>>> wrong passcode, the phone erases it self.
>>>> I personally like this feature, not that i have anything interesting 
>>>> on my phone, but i like the fact that my data is actually secure, 
>>>> problem is if they find a way to force apple into making something 
>>>> that works, even if it is just for one iPhone, guess  what the next 
>>>> time the shit hits the fan there will be precedence for having apple 
>>>> roll their magic again.
>>>> And that might be the dangerous part. It seems that google is with 
>>>> apple on this one at least they sites with them, but have anyone 
>>>> heard any Ms comments?
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/18/16, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>  I urge you to do your own moderating by using that delete key on 
>>>>> messages that bother you. I had to do that very task hundreds of 
>>>>> times just this week. And I expect that task is far from over. 
>>>>> (smiles)
>>>>> 
>>>>> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>>>>>  ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>>>>> Many believe that we have been visited in the past. What if it were 
>>>>> true?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/18/2016 9:52 AM, Michael Malver wrote:
>>>>>> Two questions:
>>>>>> 1. Why is this topic

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

I remember that Blackberry had to hand over keys or some how lessen the 
security of their devices to be sold in Saudi Arabia.  But then we gave the 
kingdom a Naris Systems 6400 and I thought the security problem was solved.:)  
(that device is what the NSA uses for mass data collection, at least it was)

Our friends in germany should be especially sensitive to this considering how 
much phone tapping the US does internal to their country including your chief 
executive.  That would be the equivalent of Germany bugging Obama’s cellphone. 

Anyway, Glad to see such a large company and an industry stand up on the right 
side for once.

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:33 AM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> 
> Not following it but I agree with him whole hartedly 
> 
> It doesn't take much for someone to work a jailbreak for an iphone IOS when 
> it's out, so how long would it take for someone to find the back door into 
> the OS if they did put one in.
> 
> 
> There was the same sort of issue with blackberrys and their encryption.
> 
> I say stay true apple,  your customers want the security of their data
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:28 AM
> To: MacVisionaries 'Chris Blouch' via <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Funny how that sums up most arguments whether it’s cryptography, guns or 
wrenches.

Well said.  The only problem is it’s an almost fair fight.  It’s a more fair 
fight than usual which gives me hope but Apple doesn’t get to have guns meaning 
they don’t get to grab bank accounts of their adversary and they don’t get to 
claim national security and executive action and all that.  But, you’re right 
on a financial level.  Actually, one could make a real case that Apple is more 
credit worthy although I’d counter that by factoring in all the physical 
holdings and so forth, anyway outside the scope of this list but I like the 
comparison.  Maybe the rights of the citizens will stand a chance.  Facebook 
and Twitter are behind apple as well, that’s additional war chests.  That’s a 
lot of political influence.  Ah well I think I’ll just campaign for Trump and 
then move to New Zealand when he wins.
  

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:40 PM, 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries 
> <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> 
> Just a few summary bits:
> 
> 1. The phone uses the user's PIN and a unique value burned into the device to 
> come up with encryption key so there isn't a way to get that ID out of the 
> device without first unlocking the device. There is also the 10 try limit and 
> then the data self destructs, so it's a pretty tough nut for the law folks to 
> crack without ruining the contents.
> 
> 2. The issue is not the event but the path it places Apple on. The US 
> government is not the only one clamoring for a crack in the armor. If Apple 
> does it for the US, I'm sure the firehose would be open and they would have 
> every other government and nation on the planet lined up at their door as 
> well. Some of those nations may or may not keep that special privileged for 
> the purpose intended. So I can understand Cook's lack of enthusiasm to open 
> Pandora's box.
> 
> 3. At least it's a somewhat fair fight. Apple is a Goliath that has the 
> resources to stand behind what it says. Not so much if the government went 
> after some little software vendor or the like. Apple can wait it out, fight 
> it out and do whatever it takes to stand their ground.
> 
> 4. If Apple loses or caves and anyone can snoop your device, that just 
> scatters the roaches to other places and platforms. If Apple, due to it's 
> US-centric operations can't hold onto it's security then the bad guys will 
> just migrate to other tools from other locales which have not been cracked.
> 
> A wrench can be used to both repair and maim, so should it be saddled with 
> regulation and control due to a potential bad actor using it for ill 
> purposes? If so, will the tool's utility be diminished or ruined under the 
> burden?
> 
> CB
> 
> On 2/18/16 12:57 PM, Scott Granados wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>> 
>> I agree with you on the first I think this topic is equally important to any 
>> citizens or anyone who does business or transacts with in the US.  So I 
>> agree I think it’s important for blind users but in the same way it’s 
>> important for left handed users or PC users.:)
>> 
>> Secondly, you ask a good question but think it through with me.  Once you 
>> introduce a mechanism to break through security you make an opening 
>> available to be exploited.  So let’s say Apple develops some magical way to 
>> crack their cyphers, that method now exists for the bad guys.  Once it 
>> exists you can’t put it back in the box.  So what Apple doesn’t want to do 
>> is compromise everyones security just to examine the contents of a single 
>> phone.
>> 
>> Does that make sense I hope I explained that well.
>> 
>> Good question btw.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Michael Malver <mmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Two questions:
>>> 1. Why is this topic any more important for blind users than for any other? 
>>> That supposition is non-sensical to me.
>>> 
>>> 2. Since this topic is apparently on-topic, why couldn't Apple design some 
>>> sort of tool whereby law enforcement could send a specific device to Apple, 
>>> who could then take the device apart, and read/decrypt the data, much as 
>>> one might now do through the removal of a hard rive from a laptop?
>>> Asked another way, could something be developed which isn't part of the 
>>> operating system, but which could helplaw enforcement perform their task?
>>> For what it's worth, I think Tim is doing absolutely the right thing. A 
>>> couple bad Americans shouldn't disrupt the majority of us who deserve 
>>> incryption and who would not misuse it.
>>> I ask the above purely as hypotheticles.
>>&

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Actually, I beg to disagree with you. The major media is owned by 4 
corporations for the most part.  I was the lead network engineer for 
Knight-Ridder digital which was the online portion of the publisher’s products. 
 That company no longer exists as they went the way of paper.:)  I think there 
are a lot of Journalists who feel as you do and as I hope they do and are 
impartial and let the story take them where it needs to go not them creating or 
being manipulated to create the story.  I’ve also seen the other cases where 
stories were pulled.  I’ve also seen cases where the government threatened 
station owners licenses over stories.  On the flip side though, there’s a lot 
of great citizen journalism out there and some real old school professionals 
doing creative things.the former editor of the SF Chronicle comes to mind 
with his bay area citizens project.  I was also lucky to work in a cube farm 
next to a small online team who were in your camp.  As you said you have to 
diversify your sources.  I tend to find better reporting from outside the 
country.  The national providers are way to bought and sold, fox, msnbc or 
otherwise.And since the republicans verses democrats thing came up on this 
tread, both parties are evil, both are owned by the special interests and both 
have done equal all be it different harm to our civil liberties.  I’m a very 
strict libertarian so the whole thing is nuts to me.

I think this deviates from the thread to much though, should you wish to 
continue the general journalism conversation or non apple / general technology 
/ privacy n general thread we should take it off list or else where but as this 
relates to Apple and our freedoms in general I hope this continues.  I’m happy 
to see a lively discussion it means people care.  That’s a step in the right 
direction.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:
> 
> I have been a media professional for many years.  These days, someone might 
> read a twitter post or a Facebook one and decide it is news, but i assure you 
> that  the  major American media is not in the pocket of the government. Far 
> too many  of them are getting the story right to base an entire industry on 
> one  station  using one newsroom located  in one city.
> I am not surprised someone corrected the issue on air in California though.
> Kare  
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
> 
>> No, they are traditional news sources.  The KGO radio story ran for more 
>> than one day with that misinformation.  It was one of the talk show hosts 
>> themselves that set the news department straight on the air.  WBZ I have no 
>> idea what their problem is, it’s a major CBS station.  I think it just 
>> convinces me more that the media is in the pocket of the government.  It’s 
>> the gun deal all over again, spread as much misinformation and then act like 
>> it was an honest mistake.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Karen Lewellen  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> really?
>>> Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do their 
>>> homework.
>>> A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly so 
>>> does reading Tim's statement.
>>> were those blogs?
>>> Might explain the error.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
 CBS, WBZ out of Boston this morning was reporting that Apple was being 
 asked to break in to the individual phone only, not develop a tool to 
 access all phones which is in fact the case.

 Also, KGO out of San Francisco was reporting the same thing.  So no but 
 I’m glad to see that the sources you mention are discussing the topic 
 correctly.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Karen Lewellen  
> wrote:
> 
> I am wondering what media you are following.
> articles in the La times, the Washington post, bloomberg, even usa today, 
> are linking directly  to Mr. Cook's statement.  Further many are sharing 
> how the FBI could be solving this issue, taking note of other industry 
> companies who are concerned.  Almost everywhere I have read points out 
> that the
> FBI seeks a master key, and that this is more than than about one phone.
> Unless you are just reading fox news that is laughs.
> Kare
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
> 
>> ET very well stated.
>> 
>> The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking 
>> what Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to 
>> the specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create 
>> a tool that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any 
>> security on the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is 
>> short form for horse hockey.
>> 
>> This is just another attempt like clipper was in the

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread Bill Gallik

A much wiser man than myself is quoted as saying, “A society that is willing to 
surrender privacy for the sake of security shall have neither.”

I completely support the position Tim Cook and Apple has taken in this matter.

The real question in this matter should be - why isn’t our government willing 
to take the steps to bring the individuals driving this mad terrorism to 
justice?  I’m sure western governments are quietly taking measures to make 
those persons accountable, but I believe we need a number more of Bin Laden 
like operations to “help” those folks understand the errors of their ways.  And 
more importantly, that the United States will not tolerate this insanity!


Bill & Leader Dog Holland

wfgal...@icloud.com




-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread Terje Strømberg

You have a valid point, but it is a double-edged sword. Apple say’s if thet let 
FBI get it, the bad guys will also get it. The backdoor in the software. I like 
the private IOS device, but if most terrorists starts to use iPhone, they have 
to give the information to FBI. There most likely is a FBI way i.e. not open up 
the backdoor in software for anyone, but for only FBI. 

Take care

19. feb. 2016 kl. 09:20 skrev George Cham <george.c...@optusnet.com.au>:

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

 Sent from my iPad

> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> 
> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to use 
> the pin code to open it for the first time
> 
> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
> finger and just use that?
> 
> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
>> develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
>> compromised in this fashion.
>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>> Visionaries list.
>>> 
>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners 
>>> or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>> 
>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>> 
>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-19 Thread George Cham

That's a good point about the fingerprint. But my question is this doesn't make 
apple an accessory to terrorism if they  don't  cooperate  with the FBI?


George,

  Sent from my iPad

> On 19 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> 
> Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to use 
> the pin code to open it for the first time
> 
> Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
> Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search
> 
> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
> finger and just use that?
> 
> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
>> develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
>> compromised in this fashion.
>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
>> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>> Visionaries list.
>>> 
>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners 
>>> or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>> 
>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>> 
>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
&g

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

And you can have up to 5 setup on the device so you've got a good chance of 
getting it right if they have all setup.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:18 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

You should be able to dust the phone for prints and see which ones are in 
contact with the surface?

Plus you only have 10, you could try at least 8 of them probably with out issue.


Good thought though, this is the type of stuff the investigators think about so 
it’s a good effort to try to think about the problem from their angle.

Great responses Michael, thanks for the thought provokers.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Michael Malver <mmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe he chose not to activate the fingerprint reader. Even if he did, how 
> would you know which finger he chose? If you didn't get the fingers 
> absolutely right the first time, you could destroy the data on the phone.
> 
> Michael
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
>> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
>> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even 
>> a finger and just use that?
>> 
>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
>>> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it 
>>> could be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>>>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>>> Visionaries list.
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
>>>> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
>>>> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner 
>>>> is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>>> 
>>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this gro

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Apart from that point where if your phone battery dies and you need to use the 
pin code to open it for the first time

Or did they even have finguerprints setup on the devices.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 8:11 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote:
> 
> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
> develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
> compromised in this fashion.
> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been 
> hacked, not only could this key be abused by the government, it could 
> be stolen by others. Just my take, Karen
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
> 
>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>> 
>> --
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Doesn't the NSA watch you guys when your on the John?

I'm glad I live in the deep south down under, no one really cares about us 
other than in rugby 

That's a sport where players don't wear pads or helmets 

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 7:41 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

You don’t have to sell me about the over reach of Government.  I’ve been a 
Libertarian since before it was cool.:)

(ok it still probably isn’t but that’s besides the point)

You’re absolutely right though.  I have worked for telephone companies and 
global carriers for years now and I’ll tell you that all the stuff you 
mentioned is already done  They do listen to every call with complex systems 
that preprocess conversations and sort them in to interest / prioritized piles. 
 Your phone tracks your position.  The way you deal with this is understand 
what is being done to you, restrict as much as you can and deal with the 
political system and your representatives.

That’s about all you can do.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse <sandi1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Scot, but now imagine that apple looses… just for the sake of the 
> discussion… what will be next, our cars? the sat nav? when will it 
> stop?
> 
> On 2/18/16, Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net> wrote:
>> So the EFF is with apple I believe, Google and Facebook, it’s just 
>> the media who the government controls and the FBI who want this.
>> 
>> Just to add one small correction though, the pin isn’t the key it’s self.
>> So while you’re right about the number of combinations of 4 digits 
>> the actual number of combinations is probably more like 2 to the 
>> 2048th power combinations.  The pin is but a seed / pass phrase 
>> component of the key pair.
>> 
>> Since it seems most people are on the side of Apple we should all 
>> write Apple in support and write our congress persons letting them 
>> know we don’t support this intrusion.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse 
>>> <sandi1...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> so here is the thing, from what i understand and iPhones are not my 
>>> favorite subject, but ill try my best.
>>> When you lock your iPhone the key too encrypt it all is on your 
>>> phone, apple don't have it anymore, so not even they can unlock the 
>>> iPhone, not even if they wanted, if you use a lock code on say 4 
>>> digits, there is 1 different combinations, and it gets worse 
>>> seen form Fbis point of view, because after i believe it is 10 times 
>>> wrong passcode, the phone erases it self.
>>> I personally like this feature, not that i have anything interesting 
>>> on my phone, but i like the fact that my data is actually secure, 
>>> problem is if they find a way to force apple into making something 
>>> that works, even if it is just for one iPhone, guess  what the next 
>>> time the shit hits the fan there will be precedence for having apple 
>>> roll their magic again.
>>> And that might be the dangerous part. It seems that google is with 
>>> apple on this one at least they sites with them, but have anyone 
>>> heard any Ms comments?
>>> 
>>> On 2/18/16, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael,
>>>>   I urge you to do your own moderating by using that delete key on 
>>>> messages that bother you. I had to do that very task hundreds of 
>>>> times just this week. And I expect that task is far from over. 
>>>> (smiles)
>>>> 
>>>> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>>>>   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>>>> Many believe that we have been visited in the past. What if it were 
>>>> true?
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/18/2016 9:52 AM, Michael Malver wrote:
>>>>> Two questions:
>>>>> 1. Why is this topic any more important for blind users than for 
>>>>> any other? That supposition is non-sensical to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Since this topic is apparently on-topic, why couldn't Apple 
>>>>> design some sort of tool whereby law enforcement could send a 
>>>>> specific device to Apple, who could then take the device apart, 
>>>>> and read/decrypt the data, much as one might now do through the 
>>>>> removal of a hard rive from a laptop?
>>>>> Asked another way, could something be developed which i

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

I'm not an American, but 
It does concern me if Donald trump gets in.
God help us all.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of E.T.
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:54 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

The Patriot Act was exactly what came to mind. This is what scares me about 
the Republicans. I shall say no more.

Just keep those grubby little fingers out of my private life which is 
hardly private any more.

 From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:40 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
> ET very well stated.
>
> The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking what 
> Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to the 
> specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a tool 
> that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any security on 
> the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse 
> hockey.
>
> This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an end 
> run right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once in 
> place there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and father 
> land security I mean home land security were also supposed to be temporary.  
> Good luck!
>
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I 
>> say, once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a sticky 
>> wicket. We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?
>>
>>  From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>>ancient.ali...@icloud.com
>> Many believe that we have been visited in the past. What if it were 
>> true?
>>
>> On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>>
>>
>> --
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>>
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@goo

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Were they americans?

 I thought they were European of some kind?
And on that note of another type of tool that could get things unlocked and 
able to be viewed by the FBI,
I guess it's security again though but could they somehow take copies of 
fingerprints setup on a device and then if the situation required it apple 
could provide that to the feds for use in apples presence to aquire the data.

Either way, if something gets out it's all our data availe to be world.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Michael Malver
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:53 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Two questions:
1. Why is this topic any more important for blind users than for any other? 
That supposition is non-sensical to me.

2. Since this topic is apparently on-topic, why couldn't Apple design some sort 
of tool whereby law enforcement could send a specific device to Apple, who 
could then take the device apart, and read/decrypt the data, much as one might 
now do through the removal of a hard rive from a laptop?
Asked another way, could something be developed which isn't part of the 
operating system, but which could helplaw enforcement perform their task?
For what it's worth, I think Tim is doing absolutely the right thing. A couple 
bad Americans shouldn't disrupt the majority of us who deserve incryption and 
who would not misuse it.
I ask the above purely as hypotheticles.

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of E.T.
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:40 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Not to encourage more heavy traffic but this IS an important issue 
especially for blind users.

 From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:30 AM, Michael Malver wrote:
> I have a very important comment:
> This topic should be off topic for this list, which deals with how blind 
> people interact with iPhones. I am not a moderator, but I hope I am right 
> about this.
>
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net> wrote:
>>
>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>
>> --
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>>
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
>> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

And it will effect everyone world wide using  iPhones or possibly any IOS 
device.

I'd say just don't sell them to terrorists but hay which one is the terrorist?



-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:40 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

ET very well stated.

The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking what 
Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to the 
specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a tool 
that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any security on 
the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse 
hockey.

This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an end run 
right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once in place 
there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and father land 
security I mean home land security were also supposed to be temporary.  Good 
luck!

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T. <ancient.ali...@icloud.com> wrote:
> 
>   Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I say, 
> once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a sticky 
> wicket. We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> Many believe that we have been visited in the past. What if it were 
> true?
> 
> On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>> 
> 
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is 
> Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Not following it but I agree with him whole hartedly 

It doesn't take much for someone to work a jailbreak for an iphone IOS when 
it's out, so how long would it take for someone to find the back door into the 
OS if they did put one in.

 
There was the same sort of issue with blackberrys and their encryption.

I say stay true apple,  your customers want the security of their data
-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2016 6:28 AM
To: MacVisionaries 'Chris Blouch' via <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread 'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries


Just a few summary bits:

1. The phone uses the user's PIN and a unique value burned into the 
device to come up with encryption key so there isn't a way to get that 
ID out of the device without first unlocking the device. There is also 
the 10 try limit and then the data self destructs, so it's a pretty 
tough nut for the law folks to crack without ruining the contents.


2. The issue is not the event but the path it places Apple on. The US 
government is not the only one clamoring for a crack in the armor. If 
Apple does it for the US, I'm sure the firehose would be open and they 
would have every other government and nation on the planet lined up at 
their door as well. Some of those nations may or may not keep that 
special privileged for the purpose intended. So I can understand Cook's 
lack of enthusiasm to open Pandora's box.


3. At least it's a somewhat fair fight. Apple is a Goliath that has the 
resources to stand behind what it says. Not so much if the government 
went after some little software vendor or the like. Apple can wait it 
out, fight it out and do whatever it takes to stand their ground.


4. If Apple loses or caves and anyone can snoop your device, that just 
scatters the roaches to other places and platforms. If Apple, due to 
it's US-centric operations can't hold onto it's security then the bad 
guys will just migrate to other tools from other locales which have not 
been cracked.


A wrench can be used to both repair and maim, so should it be saddled 
with regulation and control due to a potential bad actor using it for 
ill purposes? If so, will the tool's utility be diminished or ruined 
under the burden?


CB

On 2/18/16 12:57 PM, Scott Granados wrote:

Hi Michael,

I agree with you on the first I think this topic is equally important to any 
citizens or anyone who does business or transacts with in the US.  So I agree I 
think it’s important for blind users but in the same way it’s important for 
left handed users or PC users.:)

Secondly, you ask a good question but think it through with me.  Once you 
introduce a mechanism to break through security you make an opening available 
to be exploited.  So let’s say Apple develops some magical way to crack their 
cyphers, that method now exists for the bad guys.  Once it exists you can’t put 
it back in the box.  So what Apple doesn’t want to do is compromise everyones 
security just to examine the contents of a single phone.

Does that make sense I hope I explained that well.

Good question btw.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Michael Malver <mmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

Two questions:
1. Why is this topic any more important for blind users than for any other? 
That supposition is non-sensical to me.

2. Since this topic is apparently on-topic, why couldn't Apple design some sort 
of tool whereby law enforcement could send a specific device to Apple, who 
could then take the device apart, and read/decrypt the data, much as one might 
now do through the removal of a hard rive from a laptop?
Asked another way, could something be developed which isn't part of the 
operating system, but which could helplaw enforcement perform their task?
For what it's worth, I think Tim is doing absolutely the right thing. A couple 
bad Americans shouldn't disrupt the majority of us who deserve incryption and 
who would not misuse it.
I ask the above purely as hypotheticles.


-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of E.T.
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:40 AM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Not to encourage more heavy traffic but this IS an important issue 
especially for blind users.

 From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:30 AM, Michael Malver wrote:

I have a very important comment:
This topic should be off topic for this list, which deals with how blind people 
interact with iPhones. I am not a moderator, but I hope I am right about this.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net> wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is
Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
&qu

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread E.T.

   Thanks Gabe. I thought that was the case so it remains to be seen if 
it was a 5c I heard then it makes the fingerprint issue a moot point.


From E.T.'s Keyboard...
   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 2:19 PM, Gabe Griffith wrote:

Hi,

I didn't see an answer to your question about the 5c having fingerprint ID. The 
answer is no it doesn't. I had one for a couple of years and couldn't ever use 
the fingerprint ID until I upgraded to the 6s.

Gabe


On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:19 AM, E.T.  wrote:


   I may be mistaken but I think I heard this phone is a 5c. Does that model 
support fingerprint ID? Still, if one door is closed, another can be legally 
opened. I fail to see how the missing 18 minutes can be sufficient grounds for 
trashing what is left of our privacy. Where is Daniel Webster when we need him 
the most?

 From E.T.'s Keyboard...
   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 11:10 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been hacked, not 
only could this key be abused by the government, it could be stolen by others. 
Just my take,
Karen


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread Gabe Griffith

Hi,

I didn't see an answer to your question about the 5c having fingerprint ID. The 
answer is no it doesn't. I had one for a couple of years and couldn't ever use 
the fingerprint ID until I upgraded to the 6s.

Gabe


On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:19 AM, E.T.  wrote:

>   I may be mistaken but I think I heard this phone is a 5c. Does that model 
> support fingerprint ID? Still, if one door is closed, another can be legally 
> opened. I fail to see how the missing 18 minutes can be sufficient grounds 
> for trashing what is left of our privacy. Where is Daniel Webster when we 
> need him the most?
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
>   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> Many believe that we have been visited
> in the past. What if it were true?
> 
> On 2/18/2016 11:10 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>> Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
>> fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
>> about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even 
>> a finger and just use that?
>> 
>> Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such 
>>> as the fingerprints of  those involved.
>>> A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise 
>>> to develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their 
>>> privacy compromised in this fashion.
>>> After  all consider how often the government has themselves been hacked, 
>>> not only could this key be abused by the government, it could be stolen by 
>>> others. Just my take,
>>> Karen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
 Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
 forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
 
 --
 The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
 Visionaries list.
 
 If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
 if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
 owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
 
 Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
 Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
 
 The archives for this list can be searched at:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "MacVisionaries" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Well said to be sure.  that is one reason why I am suggesting if it works 
for you visiting the news area of google.
At last count there were over 4 thousand articles referenced from  various 
sources.
Even with some of those referencing the same article, one has a fine way 
to get informed in an objective fashion.

Karen


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, E.T. wrote:


Karen,
  A good observation coming from one who is inside such a business. But its 
my observation that every individual who sees or hears the same event, even 
standing side by side, will have a different interpretation of that event. 
The media is not immune to this. But people who rely on more than one source 
will see a more complete picture though unlikely a fully complete one.


From E.T.'s Keyboard...
  ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 12:06 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:

 I have been a media professional for many years.  These days, someone
 might read a twitter post or a Facebook one and decide it is news, but i
 assure you that  the  major American media is not in the pocket of the
 government. Far too many  of them are getting the story right to base an
 entire industry on one  station  using one newsroom located  in one city.
 I am not surprised someone corrected the issue on air in California
 though.
 Kare   No, they are traditional news sources.  The KGO radio story ran for
>  more than one day with that misinformation.  It was one of the talk
>  show hosts themselves that set the news department straight on the
>  air.  WBZ I have no idea what their problem is, it’s a major CBS
>  station.  I think it just convinces me more that the media is in the
>  pocket of the government.  It’s the gun deal all over again, spread as
>  much misinformation and then act like it was an honest mistake.
> 
> 
> >  On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Karen Lewellen

> >   wrote:
> > 
> >  really?

> >  Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do their
> >  homework.
> >  A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly
> >  so does reading Tim's statement.
> >  were those blogs?
> >  Might explain the error.
> > 
> > 
> >  On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
> > 
> > >  CBS, WBZ out of Boston this morning was reporting that Apple was

> > >  being asked to break in to the individual phone only, not develop a
> > >  tool to access all phones which is in fact the case.
> > > 
> > >  Also, KGO out of San Francisco was reporting the same thing.  So no
> > >  but I’m glad to see that the sources you mention are discussing 
> > >  the

> > >  topic correctly.
> > > 
> > > >  On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Karen Lewellen

> > > >   wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  I am wondering what media you are following.

> > > >  articles in the La times, the Washington post, bloomberg, even usa
> > > >  today, are linking directly  to Mr. Cook's statement.  Further 
> > > >  many
> > > >  are sharing how the FBI could be solving this issue, taking note 
> > > >  of

> > > >  other industry companies who are concerned.  Almost everywhere I
> > > >  have read points out that the
> > > >  FBI seeks a master key, and that this is more than than about one
> > > >  phone.
> > > >  Unless you are just reading fox news that is laughs.
> > > >  Kare
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  ET very well stated.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally

> > > > >  mistaking what Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being
> > > > >  asked to hack in to the specific phone, they probably can’t. 
> > > > >  They
> > > > >  are being asked to create a tool that the government can use 
> > > > >  with
> > > > >  out limitation to circumvent any security on the iPhone. 
> > > > >  That’s

> > > > >  BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse hockey.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to

> > > > >  make an end run right around the 4th amendment.  And you also
> > > > >  correctly state once in place there’s no getting rid of it.
> > > > >  Remember, the patriot act and father land security I mean home
> > > > >  land security were also supposed to be temporary.  Good luck!
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T. 

> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the 
> > > > > >  fence
> > > > > >  and I say, once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting 
> > > > > >  him.
> > > > > >  Sure, its a sticky wicket. We want to get the bad guy but at 
> > > > > >  what

> > > > > >  cost?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  From E.T.'s Keyboard...

> > > > > >  ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> > > > > >  Many believe that we have been visited
> > > > > >  in the past. What if it were true?
> > > >

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread E.T.


Karen,
   A good observation coming from one who is inside such a business. 
But its my observation that every individual who sees or hears the same 
event, even standing side by side, will have a different interpretation 
of that event.  The media is not immune to this. But people who rely on 
more than one source will see a more complete picture though unlikely a 
fully complete one.


From E.T.'s Keyboard...
   ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 12:06 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:

I have been a media professional for many years.  These days, someone
might read a twitter post or a Facebook one and decide it is news, but i
assure you that  the  major American media is not in the pocket of the
government. Far too many  of them are getting the story right to base an
entire industry on one  station  using one newsroom located  in one city.
I am not surprised someone corrected the issue on air in California though.
Kare 
No, they are traditional news sources.  The KGO radio story ran for
more than one day with that misinformation.  It was one of the talk
show hosts themselves that set the news department straight on the
air.  WBZ I have no idea what their problem is, it’s a major CBS
station.  I think it just convinces me more that the media is in the
pocket of the government.  It’s the gun deal all over again, spread as
much misinformation and then act like it was an honest mistake.



On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Karen Lewellen
 wrote:

really?
Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do their
homework.
A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly
so does reading Tim's statement.
were those blogs?
Might explain the error.


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


CBS, WBZ out of Boston this morning was reporting that Apple was
being asked to break in to the individual phone only, not develop a
tool to access all phones which is in fact the case.

Also, KGO out of San Francisco was reporting the same thing.  So no
but I’m glad to see that the sources you mention are discussing the
topic correctly.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Karen Lewellen
 wrote:

I am wondering what media you are following.
articles in the La times, the Washington post, bloomberg, even usa
today, are linking directly  to Mr. Cook's statement.  Further many
are sharing how the FBI could be solving this issue, taking note of
other industry companies who are concerned.  Almost everywhere I
have read points out that the
FBI seeks a master key, and that this is more than than about one
phone.
Unless you are just reading fox news that is laughs.
Kare


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


ET very well stated.

The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally
mistaking what Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being
asked to hack in to the specific phone, they probably can’t.  They
are being asked to create a tool that the government can use with
out limitation to circumvent any security on the iPhone.  That’s
BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse hockey.

This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to
make an end run right around the 4th amendment.  And you also
correctly state once in place there’s no getting rid of it.
Remember, the patriot act and father land security I mean home
land security were also supposed to be temporary.  Good luck!


On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T. 
wrote:

Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence
and I say, once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him.
Sure, its a sticky wicket. We want to get the bad guy but at what
cost?

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against
being forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have
any comments?



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac
Visionaries list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this
list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate,
please contact the owners or moderators directly rather than
posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner
is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

I have been a media professional for many years.  These days, someone might 
read a twitter post or a Facebook one and decide it is news, but i 
assure you 
that  the  major American media is not in the pocket of the government. 
Far 
too many  of them are getting the story right to base an entire industry on 
one  station  using one newsroom located  in one city.

I am not surprised someone corrected the issue on air in California though.
Kare 
No, they are traditional news sources.  The KGO radio story ran for more than 
one day with that misinformation.  It was one of the talk show hosts themselves 
that set the news department straight on the air.  WBZ I have no idea what 
their problem is, it’s a major CBS station.  I think it just convinces me more 
that the media is in the pocket of the government.  It’s the gun deal all over 
again, spread as much misinformation and then act like it was an honest mistake.



On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

really?
Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do their homework.
A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly so does 
reading Tim's statement.
were those blogs?
Might explain the error.


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


CBS, WBZ out of Boston this morning was reporting that Apple was being asked to 
break in to the individual phone only, not develop a tool to access all phones 
which is in fact the case.

Also, KGO out of San Francisco was reporting the same thing.  So no but I’m 
glad to see that the sources you mention are discussing the topic correctly.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

I am wondering what media you are following.
articles in the La times, the Washington post, bloomberg, even usa today, are 
linking directly  to Mr. Cook's statement.  Further many are sharing how the 
FBI could be solving this issue, taking note of other industry companies who 
are concerned.  Almost everywhere I have read points out that the
FBI seeks a master key, and that this is more than than about one phone.
Unless you are just reading fox news that is laughs.
Kare


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


ET very well stated.

The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking what 
Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to the 
specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a tool 
that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any security on 
the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse 
hockey.

This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an end run 
right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once in place 
there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and father land 
security I mean home land security were also supposed to be temporary.  Good 
luck!


On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T.  wrote:

Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I say, 
once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a sticky wicket. 
We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread Scott Granados

Ah sorry, for folks across the pond or in other countries you might not be up 
to speed.

In the US we had a supposed terrorist attack where two people walked in to a 
center and shot up the place in the name of ISIL or dAESH or what ever we’re 
calling the boogie man today.  They supposedly had iPhones and the FBI can’t 
gain access to them and wants access.   The courts have directed Apple to 
develop a tool the will circumvent their cryptography.  This tool would be 
available of course outside the country as well so people that aren’t US 
citizens should still care.  Google Apple verses the FBI if you’d like to learn 
more.

Thanks
Scott

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Anders Holmberg  wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> Whats this all about?
> I haven’t read anything.
> But it would be great to hear what others might think.
> /A
>> On 18 Feb 2016, at 18:36, Scott Granados  wrote:
>> 
>> Very important comment, that’s pretty funny.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Michael Malver  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have a very important comment:
>>> This topic should be off topic for this list, which deals with how blind 
>>> people interact with iPhones. I am not a moderator, but I hope I am right 
>>> about this.
>>> 
 On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Scott Granados  wrote:
 
 Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
 forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
 
 -- 
 The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
 Visionaries list.
 
 If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
 if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
 owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
 
 Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
 Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
 
 The archives for this list can be searched at:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
 --- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "MacVisionaries" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>> Visionaries list.
>>> 
>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners 
>>> or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>> 
>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>> 
>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>> --- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread Anders Holmberg

Hi!
Whats this all about?
I haven’t read anything.
But it would be great to hear what others might think.
/A
> On 18 Feb 2016, at 18:36, Scott Granados  wrote:
> 
> Very important comment, that’s pretty funny.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Michael Malver  wrote:
>> 
>> I have a very important comment:
>> This topic should be off topic for this list, which deals with how blind 
>> people interact with iPhones. I am not a moderator, but I hope I am right 
>> about this.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Scott Granados  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced 
>>> to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>>> Visionaries list.
>>> 
>>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners 
>>> or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>>> 
>>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>>> 
>>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>>> --- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
>> Visionaries list.
>> 
>> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
>> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
>> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
>> 
>> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
>> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
>> 
>> The archives for this list can be searched at:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
> list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if 
> you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
> moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

2016-02-18 Thread Scott Granados

No, they are traditional news sources.  The KGO radio story ran for more than 
one day with that misinformation.  It was one of the talk show hosts themselves 
that set the news department straight on the air.  WBZ I have no idea what 
their problem is, it’s a major CBS station.  I think it just convinces me more 
that the media is in the pocket of the government.  It’s the gun deal all over 
again, spread as much misinformation and then act like it was an honest mistake.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:
> 
> really?
> Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do their homework.
> A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly so does 
> reading Tim's statement.
> were those blogs?
> Might explain the error.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
> 
>> CBS, WBZ out of Boston this morning was reporting that Apple was being asked 
>> to break in to the individual phone only, not develop a tool to access all 
>> phones which is in fact the case.
>> 
>> Also, KGO out of San Francisco was reporting the same thing.  So no but I’m 
>> glad to see that the sources you mention are discussing the topic correctly.
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Karen Lewellen  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am wondering what media you are following.
>>> articles in the La times, the Washington post, bloomberg, even usa today, 
>>> are linking directly  to Mr. Cook's statement.  Further many are sharing 
>>> how the FBI could be solving this issue, taking note of other industry 
>>> companies who are concerned.  Almost everywhere I have read points out that 
>>> the
>>> FBI seeks a master key, and that this is more than than about one phone.
>>> Unless you are just reading fox news that is laughs.
>>> Kare
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:
>>> 
 ET very well stated.

 The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking 
 what Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to 
 the specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a 
 tool that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any 
 security on the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short 
 form for horse hockey.

 This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an 
 end run right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once 
 in place there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and 
 father land security I mean home land security were also supposed to be 
 temporary.  Good luck!

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T.  wrote:
> 
> Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I 
> say, once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a 
> sticky wicket. We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard...
> ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> Many believe that we have been visited
> in the past. What if it were true?
> 
> On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:
>> Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being 
>> forced to cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?
>> 
> 
> --
> The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
> Visionaries list.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
> if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
> owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.
> 
> Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
> Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com
> 
> The archives for this list can be searched at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 The following information is important for all members of the Mac 
 Visionaries list.

 If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or 
 if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the 
 owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

 Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara 
 Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

 The archives

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search


really?
Would love to know what reporter with those outlets did not do 
their homework.
A swift review of google news sources clears up that mystery..frankly so 
does reading Tim's statement.

were those blogs?
Might explain the error.


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


CBS, WBZ out of Boston this morning was reporting that Apple was being asked to 
break in to the individual phone only, not develop a tool to access all phones 
which is in fact the case.

Also, KGO out of San Francisco was reporting the same thing.  So no but I’m 
glad to see that the sources you mention are discussing the topic correctly.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

I am wondering what media you are following.
articles in the La times, the Washington post, bloomberg, even usa today, are 
linking directly  to Mr. Cook's statement.  Further many are sharing how the 
FBI could be solving this issue, taking note of other industry companies who 
are concerned.  Almost everywhere I have read points out that the
FBI seeks a master key, and that this is more than than about one phone.
Unless you are just reading fox news that is laughs.
Kare


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


ET very well stated.

The thing that amazes me is how the Media in the US is totally mistaking what 
Apple has been asked to do.  Apple is not being asked to hack in to the 
specific phone, they probably can’t.  They are being asked to create a tool 
that the government can use with out limitation to circumvent any security on 
the iPhone.  That’s BS which for the easily offended is short form for horse 
hockey.

This is just another attempt like clipper was in the mid 90s to make an end run 
right around the 4th amendment.  And you also correctly state once in place 
there’s no getting rid of it.  Remember, the patriot act and father land 
security I mean home land security were also supposed to be temporary.  Good 
luck!


On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:36 PM, E.T.  wrote:

 Good for Tim Cook. I heard comments from both sides of the fence and I say, 
once Big Brother moves in, there is no evicting him. Sure, its a sticky wicket. 
We want to get the bad guy but at what cost?

From E.T.'s Keyboard...
 ancient.ali...@icloud.com
Many believe that we have been visited
in the past. What if it were true?

On 2/18/2016 9:27 AM, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search


great question.
The understanding i have read is that the fingerprint reader was in use.
There was a regular backup of data from the phone up till the individual 
discontinued that backup shortly before the shootings.  This is why the 
fingerprint door may be best, it is likely most recent.
I do wonder about the specific finger however.  my guess is that they 
could try all ten before risking the phone data.



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Michael Malver wrote:


Maybe he chose not to activate the fingerprint reader. Even if he did, how 
would you know which finger he chose? If you didn't get the fingers absolutely 
right the first time, you could destroy the data on the phone.

Michael


On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Scott Granados  wrote:

Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been hacked, not 
only could this key be abused by the government, it could be stolen by others. 
Just my take,
Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Actually it might depend on the person using both things.  If you have 
broken  the law and our phone is being investigated as a part of the crime 
it will  really depend on the search warrant Obtained.

A rather gray legal area these days.
Still in the Apple FBI case many security professionals say the 
fingerprint door is likely the best bet.



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Michael Malver wrote:


If someone e used my fingerprints to open my phone, and then use data against 
me with that be a form of self incrimination?


On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been hacked, not 
only could this key be abused by the government, it could be stolen by others. 
Just my take,
Karen



On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search

Many in the American press are asking that very question, especially since 
they   do have those fingerprints.
No explanation as of yet.   additionally,  Apple is getting lots of 
company  on the legal front to fight the request.

Kare


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


Karen, you raise a really really good question.  Why don’t they just use the 
fingerprint of the phone owner.  He’s dead anyway so you don’t have to worry 
about his specific rights, he’s dead.:)  Couldn’t they lift a print or even a 
finger and just use that?

Now I really smell a rat since they had the body and had a means in.


On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Karen Lewellen  wrote:

Not only is Apple 100% correct here, the FBI is not using other doors, such as 
the fingerprints of  those involved.
A master key like the one the FBI desires seeing created is simply unwise to 
develop.  Hackers have anoth leeway, and no one should have  their privacy 
compromised in this fashion.
After  all consider how often the government has themselves been hacked, not 
only could this key be abused by the government, it could be stolen by others. 
Just my take,
Karen


On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Scott Granados wrote:


Wonder if anyone else is following Tim Cook’s position against being forced to 
cripple the security on iPhones.  Anyone have any comments?

--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries 
list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn 
- you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Any comments on Apple's position against unreasonable search