Stay tuned for an explainer from someone about the legal protections an employee might have if the government decides to see what they have on their phones or tucked into a cloud account. The government has basically called Apple on its inability to unlock its newer phones and turned the FBI's "We can't unlock this phone" problem into Apple's "If we don't unlock this phone, we're in violation of a court order" problem. Despite Syed Farook's phone being work-issued, nobody in the IT department knew his phone passcode.Ģ. So the judge's ruling is notable for a few reasons:ġ. Only the phone’s user would be able to unlock the phone - or someone who knew the password. The Silicon Valley giant has steadfastly maintained it is unable to unlock its newer iPhones for law enforcement, even when officers obtain a warrant, because they are engineered in such a way that Apple does not hold the decryption key.
The biggest story of yesterday and why you should care today: Breaking News ran a piece yesterday reading, in total, "US magistrate judge in California directs Apple to help FBI break into cell phone of San Bernardino gunman, AP reports."Īccording to the Associated Press report, "The ruling by Sheri Pym on Tuesday requires Apple to supply highly specialized software the FBI can load onto the phone to cripple a security encryption feature that erases data after too many unsuccessful unlocking attempts."
As you may or may not know, "ICYMI" is an acronym for "In case you missed it," and the goal of this morning round-up is to feature the best stuff from the last 24 hours that you might not have seen because you were too busy doing productive work. Welcome to our new curation feature, ICYMI.
0 kommentar(er)
