Hacker News Reader

Comment by jki275 | Hacker News Reader

That statement simply isn't true.

The government attempted to force them to write a new operating system for them that would allow them to get the data on the phone. This was never about the San Bernardino phone, everyone knew there was nothing of any use on it and everyone involved was dead. It was about getting precedent on record that they could force a company to backdoor their OS on a court order. They eventually dropped their request when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll over for them.

Your post reeks of some personal vendetta against Apple, and has no factual basis.

View on HN

If the statement isn't true, then why did Apple stop making that claim? It's because my statement is true. Apple was capable of getting the data.

It is possible for Apple to build a device that Apple wouldn't have been able to access the data on, as they claimed. That isn't what they provided to their customers.

You're using bad faith arguments to defend a multi-trillion dollar company that pushes a restrictive model of computing on its customers for its own benefit for what purpose?

Apple can't access the data on the devices. They've spent absolute fucktons of money building their infrastructure that way, and they give up hundreds of millions of dollars that Meta and Google gladly suck up by not monetizing their customers' data.

Apple provides me with the devices I want that do the things I want them to do. "restrictive model of computing" is a concept that doesn't really mean anything. I can do anything I want on my Mac. My iPhone is way more locked down, and it doesn't bother me a bit. My guess is that like most Apple haters, you don't use Apple devices and have taken up a cause against them based on things that don't have any effect on you.

> The government attempted to force them to write a new operating system

Which they are absolutely capable of, but refused to that time. People in this thread keep talking about provable trust when the software is fully under Apple’s control, which is just puzzling. It’s still a “trust me bro”. Whether you trust them due to past track record is something else. In fact, that you even need to bring up their refusal as evidence means you don’t believe they’re technically incapable of complying.

You're not understanding the issue here.

The government wanted Apple to backdoor iOS at their command.

Apple told the government to go fuck themselves.

None of that addresses whether it was technically possible or not. You've made up a theory in your head about how it was possible based on what some dumbfuck government lawyer made up to file with a court, but that doesn't make any of it true.

And again, none of this had anything to do with that phone. The government wanted to establish precedent that they could order Apple to create a backdoored iOS for them, so that they could use that to spy on people. They gave up when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll over for them and rewrite iOS so they could use it the way they wanted to.

Your beliefs about some theory about Apple claiming something about "provable trust" or whatever are really probably unfounded and don't even make any sense.

> Your beliefs about some theory about Apple claiming something about "provable trust" or whatever are really probably unfounded and don't even make any sense.

It's not something I made up, it's literally claimed by people in response to my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42667329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668767 Is this "provable trust" bullshit? Yes, we agree. Is the concept of provable trust bullshit? No, trusted computing is technically achievable, but it's not in Apple's case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com