@Patterico @gabrielmalor ... then it's not likely an undue burden and they'll be ordered to do so under NY Telephone Co.
-
-
@Patterico@gabrielmalor One of my big concerns, again beyond my technical know-how, is what, via remote access, the government might be ... -
@Patterico@gabrielmalor ... able to figure out the code changes implemented by Apple, if the gov't is trying to find a way around Apple. -
@chrisgeidner@Patterico The issue isn't really whether someone else can write the code. -
@chrisgeidner@Patterico It's whether Apple's proprietary access signature for the update will be replicable. (It won't.) -
@chrisgeidner@Patterico Right? FBI needs Apple bc only Apple has the valid access signature to update the firmware. -
@gabrielmalor@Patterico Then why isn't that what they're compelling? They're compelling that by implication, by compelling Apple to do ... -
@chrisgeidner@Patterico If Apple does the work, they never have to lose sole possession and control over the firmware signature. -
@chrisgeidner@Patterico Would be monstrously intrusive to say "Apple, give your firmware update access to FBI (or a contractor)." - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.