Question...can anyone, any group, any organisation reverse engineer proprietary software, whether they keep it to themselves or not...If so...can you please refer me to where it says so, in US, UK or international law?
On 21/02/2016 22:19, Michael Best wrote:
I don't think reverse engineering it is a problem unless they try to distribute that info or profit from it. Plus, reverse engineering is its own analysis which provides some degree of separation (I think).
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Hornback <achornback@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:achornback@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Would the FBI be liable in the event that they reverse engineered
Apple's product in order to break it? I'm sure that's part of the
problem. Personally, I've heard that the NSA has the capabilities
to handle this issue without making a big deal out of it, but they
don't want to tip their hand and prove that they do... so, we end
up with the smoke and mirrors show asking Apple to get involved. Of course, it could simply be their way of asking Apple to
validate the NSA's process...
From looking at the court documents, it appears that the FBI is
simply wanting Apple to circumvent the "self-destruct" routine
within iOS so they can brute force the password on the device. That doesn't break or negate the encryption, it merely prevents
the device from pulling a "Mission Impossible" after they get the
code wrong the 10th time.
Now, if Farook's employer had done things properly and implemented
an appropriate MDM solution prior to deploying the phone, we
wouldn't be having this conversation since the MDM
client/widget/whatever you want to call it operates at a low
enough level to allow administration of the phone without it being
I also wouldn't be surprised to find some young, enterprising
lawyer in California to be soliciting those beneficiaries of
Farook's employer's services to file suit agains them for failure
to properly safeguard their data on those mobile devices. I
figure someone's going to be screaming about HIPAA and PII
security in order to make a few bucks...
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Michael Best
<themikebest@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:themikebest@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
What does copyright have to do with it? FBI isn't trying to
redistribute the code. Apple's NDAs and IP agreements might
apply, but I don't see what role copyright plays. (I'm asking,
not arguing. I haven't exactly following the case though, and
I already got one major detail wrong lol.)
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:45 PM, douglas rankine
see url: https://twitter.com/cfarivar/status/701430905076731906
Even if the FBI did screw up...or Farooks Employer screwed
up...or they both screwed up...It wouldn't have made a lot of
difference regarding what is at present on Farooks phone. The
back up was done on October 19th whereas the crime was
committed one and a half months later. In that time, up
until the time of the crime, the phone had NOT been backed
up...according to the affadavit from the FBI. From looking
at the affadavit, the FBI is saying that they agreed to
trying to change the password to see if they could get access
to the back up, and the phone. It didn't work, so that
makes the FBI stupid because they should have known. Does
this mean that if the FBI/Farooks employer hadn't changed the
password that there would have been an automatic backup made?
Remember, according to the FBI, it is Apple software, it is
copyright and the FBI is not allowed under US Law to breach
that copyright. Any experts out there on Apples end-to-end
encryption software, who isn't bound by Apple's copyright and
non-disclosure agreements? Perhaps they could enlighten us.
Whom do I believe? I'll reserve my judgement until the facts
come out!...:-) . Coward that I am...
Veritas aequitas liberabit vos
Veri universum vici
That 1 Archive <http://that1archive.neocities.org/>
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: SKS 1.1.5
Comment: Hostname:pgp.mit.edu <http://pgp.mit.edu>
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----