At a campaign event in South Carolina the day before the state's GOP primary, Donald Trump urged the crowd to boycott all Apple products because of CEO Tim Cook's refusal to help law enforcement decrypt the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters in the terrorist massacre at San Bernardino, CA last December. Trump added casually, "I just thought of that". But he later repeated the call for a boycott at another rally, and on Twitter:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Boycott all Apple products until such time as Apple gives cellphone info to authorities regarding radical Islamic terrorist couple from Cal
4:38 PM - 19 Feb 2016
The Washington Post's Brian Fung noted that even while Trump was calling for the boycott, he was tweeting from an iPhone. However, in a follow-up tweet Trump noted he had both Apple and Samsung phones; he evidently switched to the latter for subsequent tweets. Others have pointed out a row of iPads used for POS for merchandise at Trump campaign events.
Related Stories
Apple Denies FBI Request to Unlock Shooter's iPhone:
Apple once again is drawing the line at breaking into a password-protected iPhone for a criminal investigation, refusing a request by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to help unlock the iPhones of a shooter responsible for an attack in Florida.
The company late Monday said it won't help the FBI crack two iPhones belonging to Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi-born Air Force cadet and suspect in a shooting that killed three people in December at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.
The decision is reminiscent of a scenario that happened during the investigation of a 2015 California shooting, and could pit federal law enforcement against Apple in court once again to argue over data privacy in the case of criminal investigations.
While Apple said it's helping in the FBI's investigation of the Pensacola shooting—refuting criticism to the contrary—the company said it won't help the FBI unlock two phones the agency said belonged to Alshamrani.
"We reject the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation," the company said in a statement emailed to Threatpost. "Our responses to their many requests since the attack have been timely, thorough and are ongoing."
[...] The FBI sent a letter to Apple's general counsel last week asking the company to help the agency crack the iPhones, as their attempts until that point to guess the "relevant passcodes" had been unsuccessful, according to the letter, which was obtained by NBC News.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:36PM
If its a government phone I dont see why it isnt set up so this cant happen in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:44PM
His department did not install the same software as most of the other state employees (MobileIron I believe). Turns out to be a poor decision in hindsight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:46PM
I expect that Apple's refusal to "play nice" with the FBI will lead to the government purposely leaking proof of Apple's witting compliance with the government on other areas, i.e. backdoors already present, access to backed up information in the cloud, etc.
All of this posturing by Apple is a lie. The people cheering them on are either idiots, or people self-confirming the outcome they want.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:54PM
This sounds like its about a government that failed at its job (dont set up phones they cant control, dont tamper with the evidence and reset the passwords) forcing someone to clean up their mess. I only spent about 10 minutes on this story, what else is there to it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:12PM
> I expect that Apple's refusal to "play nice" with the FBI will lead to the government purposely leaking proof of Apple's witting compliance
> The people cheering them on are either idiots, or people self-confirming the outcome they want.
What was that about self-confirming outcomes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:56PM
Heh. I guess we will see.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Adamsjas on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:20AM
The first 6 posts are the same guy talking to himself?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 21 2016, @07:21AM
I expect that Apple's refusal to "play nice" with the FBI will lead to the government purposely leaking proof of Apple's witting compliance with the government on other areas, i.e. backdoors already present, access to backed up information in the cloud, etc.
The government would be fools to do that. Burning a backdoor while simultaneous exposing their efforts to the public will hurt them.
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:19PM
Yea, it's not like the government to do something out of spite that ends up hurting their actual long-term objectives...
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 21 2016, @08:23PM
Yea, it's not like the government to do something out of spite that ends up hurting their actual long-term objectives...
Well, why speculate when it's both brazenly foolish to do so and a felony to boot? When this sort of thing has been done before (such as the outing of Valerie Plame [wikipedia.org]), it's been by parties which didn't actually suffer harm from the revelation itself (Gordon Libby, the culprit didn't suffer harm as a result of the outing, he suffered harm as a result of the court trial which was mitigated substantially by having his sentence commuted later by then president G. W. Bush). Here, you're proposing that US intelligence would deliberately hamstring itself (rather than hamstring some other party that they don't care about) merely to hurt a business? I don't buy that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:23PM
Have no fear, that All-American hero McAfee has offered to unlock the iPhone [bbc.co.uk] to uphold Truth, Justice and the American Way(TM).
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:55PM
Some chucklefuck reset the password (apparently at the FBI's request?)
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:59PM
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20160219/san-bernardino-county-tweets-it-reset-terrorists-icloud-password-with-fbi [sbsun.com] Forgot the link
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:22PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:14PM
> If its a government phone I dont see why it isnt set up so this cant happen in the first place.
It was! And then the idiots changed the password after the shooters were dead.
I shit you not! [go.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:25AM
If its a government phone
If what is a government phone?
I dont see why it isnt set up so this cant happen in the first place.
So what can't happen in the first place?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:06AM
The monkey's brain is squirming like a toad again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:17AM
The SUBJECT DEVICE.
The government having insufficient information regarding the SUBJECT DEVICE.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday February 21 2016, @11:37AM
There are three phones mentioned in the summary.
A "government phone", to me, suggests a device used for government purposes, not simply one now in the possession of the government.
If the AC is referring to the shooter's phone, then his comment still doesn't make much sense. It wasn't a "government phone" before the shootings so why should it be set up in any particular way for the convenience of the government?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:36PM
Stoopid monkey likes playing stoopid!
Your failure to apply context is your failure, not anyone else's.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @06:30PM
It was always a government phone. It was given to the guy by his employer: the county government.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:45PM
Mr. Trump has now come out in favor of involuntary servitude. How about outright slavery, is that the way to "make America great again"? If the government can force the wealthiest corporation ever to do its bidding, can it not trample upon the rest of us, even billionaires?
--13th Amendment
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:55PM
if republicans really cared about the constitution they would have been polling for rand paul
but then the polls are probably rigged anyway, so we're all fucked
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:52PM
Waaah, I'm a nihilist dipshit. The system is rigged. Except that Trump is leading in the polls over "the establishment". But I don't let things like facts get in the way of my annoying whining. Waah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:09AM
Last ac can't read/comprehend...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Adamsjas on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:26AM
It appears you are the last AC.
Stop arguing with yourself and learn how to log in.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:28AM
Mr. Trump has now come out in favor of involuntary servitude.
Link please? I see nothing in the current article about this.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:30AM
I don't like Trump either but compelling a company to do one thing is not slavery. If it was, regulatory agencies would be slavery, and you're not in favor of getting rid of all those, I hope?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:01AM
Compelling a company to assist in an investigation they have absolutely nothing to do with by creating something that does not currently exist is, however. The only link they have to this case is that they're the ones who manufactured the phone. They shouldn't have to create something for the government merely because of that. It is entirely on the government to solve this problem.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday February 21 2016, @03:32AM
The obvious next step is an order requiring Apple to provide the keys to enable signing code updates. Then the FBI could do it themselves.
That wouldn't require any 'servitude' from Apple, just some information. The government has long claimed the right to demand information.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @05:47AM
Its not slavery, however it is full-on fascism and removes all possibility of denying that the US is a police state.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday February 21 2016, @07:32AM
Compelling a company to assist in an investigation they have absolutely nothing to do with
This is a standard thing covered by a warrant. What makes this special is not the unusual amount of work, but that they would be creating a break-in that works for all phones, not just this particular phone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:56PM
If this is a standard thing covered by a warrant, then warrants are often unconstitutional. Also, you only quoted one part. They are not asking to seize something that exists, but asking Apple to code something that does not currently exist. Do you see the difference? The EFF has pointed out all sorts of problems with this. [eff.org]
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday February 21 2016, @10:11AM
You just said "I support X, therefore X is not slavery". Try to figure out what is wrong with that argument. Hint: you are not mentioned anywhere in the definition of slavery.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday February 22 2016, @02:45PM
No, I did not, but thanks for the post, jackass.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @12:19AM
tangomargarine> compelling a company to do one thing is not slavery.
You're right, it isn't, but I didn't imply that those are the same, only similar. Compelling someone to do something against her wishes is involuntary servitude. Owning someone is slavery. The authors of the 13th Amendment saw those things as distinct, but similar enough to mention in a single sentence. I was expressing a "slippery slope" argument, but I don't expect Mr. Trump to come out in favor of slavery. Really, I just dislike the way he ignored the essential question in the case. Perhaps it's necessitated by the choice of Twitter as the medium of communication.
khallow> Link please? I see nothing in the current article about this.
It's my interpretation of the current article.
HiThere> But I don't accept that corporations are people, so I don't see how that argument applies.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. [wikipedia.org] has been misinterpreted to grant corporations some of the same rights as people. Unless that changes, the decision in this case will be applied to individual people.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday February 21 2016, @11:07AM
13th ammemndment was meaningless the day conscription came in.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 21 2016, @08:44PM
But I don't accept that corporations are people, so I don't see how that argument applies.
Of course if you *do* accept that corporations are peope ...
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Saturday February 20 2016, @09:54PM
From TFA attributed to Trump:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gravis on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:08PM
Boycott everything Trump unconditionally. ( ´ ▽ ` )b
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:26PM
It is the owner asking for the phone to be unlocked so I really see no difference in this request and the requests of family members to have their dead relatives device or account unlocked so they can save the irreplaceable data. In both cases the legal owner of the device is asking for help, just because it was owned by the state doesn't change that fact.
It also doesn't help that one side has been slinging FUD like there is no tomorrow, the whole "It means they can unlock any phone anywhere ZOMFG!" bullshit. The feds made it clear they would have no problem with simply standing there while Apple did the unlocking themselves and just handed them the unlocked device at the end, apple refused which is why they had to go to court.
To me the big difference, which nobody seems to be even acknowledging is that the owner has rights which don't apply to someone simply borrowing something. As an example if I take the company car and rob a bank with it I can't refuse to allow cops to search the car and have it mean shit because...wait for it...its NOT MY CAR, it belongs to the owner which would be the company and they can let cops search it, take pictures of it, hell go for a joyride if it suits their fancy because its their property to do with as they will.
And that frankly is exactly what we have here, a company employee took company property and used it to commit a crime, and now the company wants the evidence of that crime for prosecution. Just because its "teh gubmint" doesn't change any of those relevant facts and the fact that people see no problem with a company...say having the passwords to their company laptops and using that access to hand it over to the cops if an employee was looking at kiddie porn or committing fraud using the laptop, so why should it matter if the company in question was the state? Like any other employer there is no expectation of privacy on company equipment because its not yours, its the companies.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:43PM
Is the government asking apple to do it, perhaps even for pay, or just trying to force them to do something? Most people get arrested themselves if they threaten to lock a bunch of apple executives in cages when they dont help get the pictures off the phone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:21AM
What are you even talking about? Are you seriously defending a government that conducts mass surveillance on the populace and will ruthlessly exploit any opportunity to suck out more data from its citizens? Don't pretend they are angels; this case is not just about a single phone, but about establishing precedent for enslaving individuals or companies to do their dirty work.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:25AM
It is the owner asking for the phone to be unlocked so I really see no difference in this request and the requests of family members to have their dead relatives device or account unlocked
So it's not the owner then.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Hairyfeet on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:54AM
Sigh...are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just trolling? Because in the USA and most other places there is this thing called "inheritance" where when you die the next closest living relative gets your property and therefor becomes the owner of said property and can do with it what they wish if you haven't specified anything in a will prior to death.
But considering its one of the most basic concepts in law and civilized society? I'm gonna assume you are a troll, as if you didn't even understand basics like how property ownership works I have to wonder if you would even be capable of functioning in a modern society.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:52AM
Sigh...are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just trolling? Because in the USA and most other places there is this thing called "inheritance" where when you die the next closest living relative gets your property and therefor becomes the owner of said property and can do with it what they wish if you haven't specified anything in a will prior to death.
IIUC, the phone is the property of San Bernardino County. Apparently it was issued to Farook when he was employed by the county.
So. What was it that you were saying?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Hairyfeet on Sunday February 21 2016, @05:26AM
You are CORRECT SIR, no try to follow this, its hard but I'm sure you can if you try really REALLY hard...the owner, the city of San Bernardino County WANT THE PHONE UNLOCKED because one of their employees committed a fricking crime with it! But of course none of that matter because "teh gubmint".
Now if you would have bothered to actually look at the post immediately preceding it? The poster was trying to argue a dead relative does not own what they inherent and I guess by thyat warped as fuck special snowflake logic then the government, the OWNERS of the property, can't have their own device unlocked because "teh gubmint" must trump 400 years of property rights.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 21 2016, @08:35AM
You are CORRECT SIR, no try to follow this, its hard but I'm sure you can if you try really REALLY hard...the owner, the city of San Bernardino County WANT THE PHONE UNLOCKED because one of their employees committed a fricking crime with it! But of course none of that matter because "teh gubmint".
Now if you would have bothered to actually look at the post immediately preceding it? The poster was trying to argue a dead relative does not own what they inherent and I guess by thyat warped as fuck special snowflake logic then the government, the OWNERS of the property, can't have their own device unlocked because "teh gubmint" must trump 400 years of property rights.
Hey, hold on a minute. First of all, "inheritance" is irrelevant in this case since the phone always belonged to the county.
I didn't see what the gp wrote, but I have no issue with private property, inheritance or in general, as you put it, "teh gubmint." I do have some concerns in this case (as with a number of other issues, but those aren't relevant here) with some of the demands of those who are supposed to be upholding the rule of law.
I posted that the phone was owned by the county because you were talking about inheritance.
Funnily enough, I also believe in the rule of law. San Bernardino County obtained a valid search warrant for the phone. As such, they should have the opportunity to execute that warrant, with or without the help of the FBI.
Apple is fighting the court order which requires them to provide/write/modify/re-jigger/whatever its code to allow law enforcement to defeat the security features of the iPhone in question. Apple has its own reasons for pushing back, but this will be settled in the courts, as it should be.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me (although I have no proof, as I explicitly stated [soylentnews.org]) if the FBI and its buddies over at NSA were hoping to use the work done by Apple, as required in the court order, to create a tool that would allow them to unlock *any* idevice, with or without a warrant. I say that since those guys haven't exactly been respecting the rule of law.
As such, I have concerns about forcing Apple to defeat their own security. My concerns, however, are moot as I have no legal standing.
I misunderstood your comment and responded somewhat snarkily. You responded in kind. All the while, we were pretty much in violent agreement, I think. Why don't we just leave it at that?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:46AM
> As an example if I take the company car and rob a bank with it I can't refuse to allow cops to search the car [...]
It's not a criminal refusing to give permission for a search. It's a manufacturer refusing to assist with a search. If Hyundai were being asked to unlock a car, the analogy would be very close. Less so if it were GM, since it unlocks cars every day at the request of the cars' owners, using its Onstar system. Except possibly for GM, a car manufacturer doesn't have a general obligation to unlock a car at the request of the owner. When someone sells something to us, they do have obligations, but those are limited. Apple says it doesn't unlock phones.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:49AM
The owner bought this phone knowing full well that apple said the do not possess any software or keys to the phone.
Now they want apple to write a universal unlocking software. And the essentially want apple to be compelled to do this at gun point because a fricking Magistrate decided that ANY task can be compelled of anybody at any time by the government. The idiot wipes his ass with the constitutions.
There are a lot of people in the government that side with Apple [fortune.com] here.
Other than to stir up Trump Hate, I don't see why the headline mentions any candidate when ALL OF THEM [theglobaldispatch.com] side with the FBI on this issue.
Every single one of them willing to sell you out to law enforcement on a whim. The terrorists are DEAD. There is no secret there that can't be tracked down with Cell Company records.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:04AM
The owner bought this phone knowing full well that apple said the do not possess any software or keys to the phone. [emphasis added]
Just to clarify, according to CNBC [cnbc.com]:
Assuming that San Bernardino County bought the phone "knowing full well" what Apple's position was, it's on them to address the issue. What's more, any self-respecting IT group should have made the phone accessible to IT staff regardless. This is implemented pretty easily too, either with tools from Apple or from numerous other vendors. That they did not is either a testament to their belief in privacy or evidence of incompetence. I won't hazard a guess.
I agree (as I've stated elsewhere [soylentnews.org]) that the Federal government is using this particular situation to create a mechanism for breaking in to all idevices, encrypted or not.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:26AM
Exactly, and I presumed in my post that everyone knew by now this was a county owned phone, and apparently one the county did not install the Management tools Apple provides: http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/it/ [apple.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:06AM
Yeah, the FBI has been really slinging the BS.
1. The chance that there is any useful data on the phone is close to zero and the FBI knows this. Why? Because this was Farook's work phone and he took the time to destroy his personal phone.
2. While the phone was in the care of the government, the associated iCloud account's password was changed. Without this change, there was a possible way to get the data by syncing with iCloud.
3. The FBI has the metadata. Hence the FBI can simply get the data from the phones that communicated with Farook's work phone.
The only reason the FBI is pursuing this is that they think that it is a case that will allow them to create a precedent and, because of outrage about the shooting, the public will by sympathetic.
At no time has Apple refused to do anything related to this phone with a claim of privacy for the user of this phone.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:40AM
It is possible he that the government intentionally changed the iCloud password to force this confrontation.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:23AM
And that frankly is exactly what we have here, a company employee took company property and used it to commit a crime, and now the company wants the evidence of that crime for prosecution.
What prosecution? Aren't the phone owners dead? Are we putting the dead on trial now?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @03:07AM
No, the phone owners are still alive:
"In a filing yesterday the FBI claimed that the owner of the phone, San Bernardino County"
http://gizmodo.com/san-bernardino-county-calls-the-fbi-liars-over-terroris-1760317923 [gizmodo.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:09PM
How about a grassroots effort to boycott Apple (and any other companies) that are known to comply with these types of government pressure?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:19PM
Any sane person already boycotts abble by virtue of never touching any of their products, what remains are a bunch of zealots that will use anything they sell regardless of how bad or overpriced it is.
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Saturday February 20 2016, @10:49PM
Suddenly you'll find yourself not owning a smartphone. Which is good, since it is a tracking device anyway.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday February 21 2016, @10:18AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday February 21 2016, @07:03PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @12:51AM
> And how regularly do you think that $5 phone gets security updates?
Presumably, every time it's thrown away and a newer one is bought--same as most phones.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:46PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by julian on Sunday February 21 2016, @04:17AM
The common Android OS is deeply hooked into Google's tracking leviathan, but Android is Free Software. Replicant is a completely free implementation of Android using only Libre/Open Source components. Of course as with most Free Software projects it's generally of lower quality than the commercially supported offerings. Can't have it all.
If you're willing to use 3-4 year old software on 3-4 year old phones and sacrifice the latest bells and whistles like 3D graphics and GPS (because who uses THOSE?) then Replicant is perfect for you! You'll still be tracked by the baseband of course because there's no way to make a cellular network that works without knowing where you are.
You might just be better off going full RMS and not owning a phone.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 21 2016, @04:46AM
You might just be better off going full RMS and not owning a phone.
Planning on not owning a smartphone at least here when the current phone dies. I really wish my first black-and-white Nokia phone from 12-ish years ago were GSM instead of CDMA. That thing was rock solid and the battery lasted for about 2–3 weeks iirc. Some of these [complex.com] look like a good next phone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday February 21 2016, @04:51AM
You might just be better off going full RMS and not owning a phone.
My smartphone and its bells and whistles are part of my job. Besides, I'm not a huge fan of throwing up my hands and saying: "Ok Gov't, you can have my smartphone I just won't use it anymore." That solves a problem, but it doesn't solve the key problem. They should not be overreaching like this.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:31PM
Why is it that the sorts of people who support this guy...mostly angry ill-informed pseudo-conservatives...never seem to have the slightest grasp of who it is that's actually on their side? Not too surprising though from folks who don't realize they're more likely to loose their jobs because of someone just like Trump than they are because of a Mexican...but I digress.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday February 20 2016, @11:49PM
How is Herr Trump going to cause people to "loose" their jobs because he's not "actually on their side"? Do our current H-1B laws and export-worker-exploitation laws help the us now?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:11AM
He and his cronies are the ones who export labor.
His clothing line is made in China, mexico and bangladesh [cnsnews.com]
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:35AM
Exactly what I was referring to. Really nice win/win making money outsourcing labor elsewhere while getting political mileage blaming them.
(Score: 1) by timbojones on Sunday February 21 2016, @10:13PM
"Elegant" maybe. "Nice," not in the slightest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:41AM
His whole career was basically screwing up lenders. So may be we all have a chance after all....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Sunday February 21 2016, @12:57AM
Reason number 99,967 that I wouldn't vote for Trump in a million years.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 21 2016, @08:46PM
But this is a reasonable and legal suggestion, unlike many of his. If he want's to boycott Apple, then that is certainly his privilege, as is it his privilege to encourage others to do so.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday February 22 2016, @01:04AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:24AM
I'd also consider the possibility that the FBI already has access to the phone, and would like Apple to convince other surveillance targets to feel safe using Apple product, while Apple would like to improve their PR image. This may be a sham.
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:28AM
I've considered that too, but I don't think the FBI has quite the coverup capabilities that the NSA does. They strike me as less competent.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @01:45PM
Without a doubt, it's incontrovertably a sham.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:11AM
.... I had a baseball bat, a needle and thread, some surgical skin glue, and Donald Trump in front of me, I could prevent that psychopath from opening his mouth! But then he'd just create a speech machine like the late Roger Ebert used toward the end of his life when he lost his voice, and utter the same bullshit! I suspect most of the "grown ups", the voters who actually are capable of critical thinking and applying it when they vote, would like to tell him to go fuck himself.
Boycott Apple products? I think it's time to buy some Apple stock. I predict there will be an uptick in demand for iPhones given Tim Cook's recent statements regarding Apple's customer's privacy. I wonder how much Apple stock The Donald owns.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @10:32AM
Why isn't the baseball bat good enough? Given the subject, I can understand the temptation of "cruel and unusual", but... come on, mate, let's stay humane.
(Score: 5, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday February 21 2016, @11:39AM
I could prevent that psychopath from opening his mouth!
Wrong orifice. He talks out of the other one.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:45PM
How can you tell which is which?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday February 21 2016, @04:47PM
One is surrounded by this weird, stained, wirey hair and...
Hmm. I'll get back to you on that one.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @09:29AM
One asshole and one asshole megacorp. No honor among assholes I suppose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @12:08AM
^- Deport this homophobic terrorist!
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:15PM
*trump*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @09:41PM
Has team Trump stopped using Apple devices?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @03:55PM
Probably not. He didn't get the big splash he expected, so it's on to the next hit job.