|
|
|
|
|
|
by martin-adams
3772 days ago
|
|
|
>> It's unclear if you're trolling, but assuming you're not, the analogy doesn't work because digital things and physical things behave in fundamentally different ways. I'm not sure I fully agree that things are different because it's physical over digital. Lets say that the way a safe manufacturer could circumvent the lock on the safe is to build a custom tool that can rapidly try every combination much faster than any currently known method. Such a tool could be reverse engineered (i.e. copied) after returning it. I agree that copying software is far easier than hardware, but it's the design of the tool that's important, not it's physical representation. The only way I would agree with the FBI's "just this one iPhone" statement is if they got Apple to crack it and they just returned the data but not the method. Which of course they wont do. |
|
|
...
> I agree that copying software is far easier than hardware, but it's the design of the tool that's important, not it's physical representation.
So you do understand that software is different. It is easily copyable, and all software is copyable.
> The only way I would agree with the FBI's "just this one iPhone" statement is if they got Apple to crack it and they just returned the data but not the method. Which of course they wont do.
I wouldn't even agree to that. Creating a signed copy of this software creates a vulnerability in iPhones worldwide that does not exist today.