Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: FBI asks to make new secret filing in Clinton email case [View all]phazed0
(745 posts)12. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.
Apple phones are easy to break. Period. That whole episode was to get carte-blanche access anytime they need using a backdoor (although, via snowden, we already know the US Gov't has full access using nefarious methods.)
Take exhibit #1 where the FBI gets a third party to hack the phone (duh!).
And here's DriveSavers doing data recovery from encrypted iPhones all day, everyday:
Once you know how microcontrollers and microchips, I2C bus, etc all work.. it's the same all over.. Apple is not special, they use the same hardware as everyone else.
As far as your ideas about encryption, well, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge now that encryption is essentially only good for non-gov't entities. Gov't has been "weakening" encryption for it's own needs so that it can be brute forced fairly easily using supercomputers (or even less-powered machines):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/can-a-government-encryption-backdoor-and-privacy-coexist
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3040206/security/attack-against-tls-shows-the-pitfalls-of-weakening-encryption.html
So, no, to me your premise is not correct at all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Because the focus might not be Hillary but rather someone who ran or had access to the server
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#15
Or like I have said before it could be that they are investigating someone who illegally were
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#47
I wasn't aware that the 'investigation' wasn't an officially known element.
Ruby the Liberal
Jun 2016
#35
Really, if you're not going to bother educating yourself then we may as well stop here...
phazed0
Jun 2016
#30
You aren't following..and of course we don't know what the FBI is saying to the judge.
Sancho
Jun 2016
#32
They found nothing, and they are not going to release more about nothing. So guilty but not charged
L. Coyote
Jun 2016
#14
Same with believing something's there when there's nada. Nothing yet, so they just haven't found it
L. Coyote
Jun 2016
#20
Secret searches, laws, warrants, investigations, trials... sounds like any other historical country?
NotHardly
Jun 2016
#27
That is a ridiculous stance to take. Have at it haas.. you are un-Democratic, it's ok.
phazed0
Jun 2016
#44
Uh huh, well welcome to the DU hopefully you will be here once the new rules go into effect.
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#45
I hear the FBI is looking at putting Clinton on Double Secret Probation n/t
Mohammed_Lee
Jun 2016
#36