The truth of the story is probably that Mr. Comey couldn't decide whether he should laugh, or cry. . .

Seriously: what did this hapless journalist expect him to say?

Obviously, the first order of business for the FBI, undoubtedly, was(!) to extract a copy of "the relevant file" from "the iPhone in question." After which, "again, 'undoubtedly,'" the entire question would have been rendered moot.

For some reason, Apple, Inc. seems to find it necessary to press a preposterous point: that any(!) data which is "stored upon an iPhone" is so(!!) "miraculously protected" that the FBI(!!!) must beg the Supreme Court for permission(!!!!) to read a murderer's file.

Show of hands, please ... of anyone who has ever successfully 'rooted' an iPhone?

If we don't read us our rights!!

Rooting a phone is entirely different. You must already have gotten past the encryption protection to do it.

Yeah, and you are not going to persuade me that a telephone has uncrackable cryptographic protection guarding its address list. It's equally absurd to me that the phone would be able to "actually destroy" data that was stored on the thing if someone flubs his password.

I mean, what if the owner was drunk? I mean, really drunk? There's a reason why taxicabs have phone numbers like "333-3333 ..."

Well, no, nothing but one-time-pad is unbreakable so the pass-random-string would have to be unusably long.
As for destroying the data -- either there's a world-wide ban on mentioning recovery of overwritten modile data or nobody has done it yet. I tend towards the latter but I won't rule out the former.

You could have it brick itself, permanently... (engage incendiary.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...oy_a_companys/

The Pass Code is only 4 numbers.
It is my understanding that the destructive payload or "lock" seems to be tied to 10 incorrect attempts using physical access (buttons for the unhip)
and the Integrity over at Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity, want to be able to beat on it without this restriction.
If they could beat on it electronically, they'd have a chance, but since it must be physical... not-a-hope-in-Hell without Apple and Co.
signing off on a known_image with its Super Secret Decoder Ring. This new image would therefore remove any such requirement for physical access when entering the pass code.

What isn't being said, is that Apple has been rather forthcoming with the "deets" for the info requests the US Government has asked of them.

My tablet has different locking options, for awhile I had a 9x9 grid to draw a picture in to open... (got tedious.)

The first phone you just needed apple's password (alpine if I remember?) Once rooted the sky's the limit.

I know my employers have a self-destruct chip also -- so real security is there if companies like the FBI and NSA don't pay for loopholes.
Who knows, one day these FBI, CIA, NSA torture-for-hire scum may cease to exist?

Like republicans and democrats, their not all bad just suckers.

It's a fact. Whether you choose to believe it is another story.

Even a can wreck data.

Does nobody else here have an iPhone? I feel like I'm talking to myself. The iPhone has a setting for more advanced passwords. Mine is over a dozen characters and contains letters, numbers, and more. Regardless, an intentional weakness should never be ethically made.

Absolutely. Let's talk about "ethical" and see if I can make it "personal." (Hypothetically, of course.)

And, actually, there's not too much difference between that awful scenario and the present case, except for whose loved ones it is.

Encryption, you see, is not merely a benign protector of civil liberties: it can also be a weapon, even a weapon of war. If we were to establish the legal precedent that encrypted data (and/or personal devices which support encryption) was somehow privileged and sacrosanct, then every criminal and criminal organization on Planet Earth would promptly hide behind it, even more than they presently do.

Just as there is a Constitutional right (under US Law) to be "secure in your person and effects," there is also, stated in the very same sentence, a Constitutional right to "search and seizure," albeit under carefully proscribed conditions. And we, as a society, have to figure out where those boundaries should properly lie. I do not believe that the pursuit of privacy and of civil liberty, important though those concerns may be, should completely stymie our collective ability to pursue and to solve crimes. Especially heinous ones.

We have addressed these issues before. Shortly after the invention of the telephone, we created laws about "wiretapping." (We did this, even though millions of people still had "party lines.") We can do it again. But we're going to waste a lot of time if any of us decide to take a "bully pulpit" position. Intelligent compromise is needed here. The concerns expressed on both sides are legitimate. Now, where is "the middle ground?" We've got to find it. We've got to make some new laws here, and new legal principles. Then, we must make them work. Thinking-caps are needed here, not pulpits.

Don't be terrorists!
[img=http://s8.postimg.org/lepq1s0xd/shine_what_to_do_with_haters_10_638.jpg]