Thanks baron778 for the great read! I couldn't agree more with the sentiment expressed within the article. While I have noticed a definite downgrade in the quality of Apple products over the last several years, the reason I have stayed with them is their security and privacy. Apple fought to protect it's users privacy even from the US government. I remember reading that the FBI had wanted Apple to leave them a backdoor "loophole" / exploit so that they could access iPhones/iOS Devices and that Apple promptly refused to meet their demands. An example of this can be read about in the related link I have posted above "Apple vows to resist FBI demand to crack iPhone linked to San Bernardino attacks." While I agree it might have been better for Apple to help with this case (killer's phone), I think that this: "U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym said in her order, Apple can write software that can bypass the feature. Federal prosecutors stated in a memo accompanying the order that the software would affect only the seized phone." is a very slippery slope. In my opinion, Apple was smart not to write such a type of software because more than likely it would be severely abused (by the government, and anyone else who gets access to it).
Thanks baron778 for the great read! I couldn't agree more with the sentiment expressed within the article. While I have noticed a definite downgrade in the quality of Apple products over the last several years, the reason I have stayed with them is their security and privacy. Apple fought to protect it's users privacy even from the US government. I remember reading that the FBI had wanted Apple to leave them a backdoor "loophole" / exploit so that they could access iPhones/iOS Devices and that Apple promptly refused to meet their demands. An example of this can be read about in the related link I have posted above "Apple vows to resist FBI demand to crack iPhone linked to San Bernardino attacks." While I agree it might have been better for Apple to help with this case (killer's phone), I think that this: "U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym said in her order, Apple can write software that can bypass the feature. Federal prosecutors stated in a memo accompanying the order that the software would affect only the seized phone." is a very slippery slope. In my opinion, Apple was smart not to write such a type of software because more than likely it would be severely abused (by the government, and anyone else who gets access to it).