Touch In World Technology Information

Apple VS USA— what happened?

Unknown 2:31 AM

Should the goverment be able to open a "back door" to smartphones in the name of national security?? Consumers sound off in...Read More

Apple VS USA— what happened?

Reviewed by Unknown on 2:31 AM Rating: 5

Apple VS FBI : Battle over unlocking phone gets nastier

Unknown 11:20 AM

T he battle between the FBI and Apple Inc. over whether the tech giant should help open the locked cellphone of one of the San Berna...Read More

Apple VS FBI : Battle over unlocking phone gets nastier

Reviewed by Unknown on 11:20 AM Rating: 5

Appple Loop: New Iphoe 7 Leaks In Stereo, Nexus 6p Defeats iphone 6s Plus, Apple Fight America

Unknown 10:31 AM

Taking a look back at another week of news from Cupertino, this week's apple Loop includes Apple's backtracking over bricking i...Read More

Appple Loop: New Iphoe 7 Leaks In Stereo, Nexus 6p Defeats iphone 6s Plus, Apple Fight America

Reviewed by Unknown on 10:31 AM Rating: 5

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Apple VS USA— what happened?

<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnOWzLS4qhj6nL5khvwusLRB7HdaLOv15MwW-bc6BjlUFbjs_Xeft-yW_m6-5gHLhjITSy0vlhFP7CGGL0xZAQg0voZWQVDF9L7D8kuW4GUrxonH4N-EfBCMIeHd9m2pmC2Qre30Pyu7g/s1600/maxresdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnOWzLS4qhj6nL5khvwusLRB7HdaLOv15MwW-bc6BjlUFbjs_Xeft-yW_m6-5gHLhjITSy0vlhFP7CGGL0xZAQg0voZWQVDF9L7D8kuW4GUrxonH4N-EfBCMIeHd9m2pmC2Qre30Pyu7g/s320/maxresdefault.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
Should the goverment be able to open a "back door" to smartphones in the name of national security?? Consumers sound off in venice Beach, California.<br />
<br />
<br />
LOS ANGELES--- You know the goverment wants Apple to unlock a phone used by a terrorist in the  san Bernardino massacre and is going to estraordinary measures to get the company to respon accordingly.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Apple has loudly Refused,</span></span><br />
<br />
<h3>
 Which raise the question: What's Next And What Happened Here??</h3>
<br />
Let's start with what's next. Apple has to respond to acourt order by Friday that demands the company find a way to unlock the iphone 5C used in the massacre.<br />
<br />
On March 22nd the goverment and apple are due to appear in a Riverside court for a hearing on the issue. Riverside is about an hour east of Los Angeles.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
What Happened This Week??</h3>
<br />
-- It started Tusday, <a href="http://ittouchit.blogspot.com/2016/02/apple-vs-fbi-battle-over-unlocking.html" target="_blank">When the FBI got a court order demanding Apple</a> create software for a "back door" that would allow the government to get into the encrypted iphone. the phone is locked with a passcode, and programmed to erase data after too many unsuccessful tries. the FBI wasn't willing to risk that happing. so it turned to apple for a fix.<br />
\<br />
--- After refusing the court order , Apple CEO Tim cook published an 11000 word response on Apple'[s website, calling the request "Chilling" and  " an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand" he wrote.<br />
<br />
<br />
----  Later in the week, rivals Google, Facebook, And Twitter chimed in supporting Apple Microsoft's chief legal officer Tweeted support. Amazon has yet to comment. An exclusive poll for USA Today by Survey Monkey Showed the public siding with the government, with 51% of 1093 people polled supporting the FBI.<br />
<br />
<br />
--On Friday, the Department of Justice escalated the battle, with a filing that attempted to force Apple to comply with the FBI request.<br />
<br />
“Apple’s
 current refusal to comply with the court’s order, despite the technical
 feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for
 its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” the department
 said.<br />
<br />
Later in the day, Apple spoke to reporters,
 and said the Apple ID on the phone had been changed less than 24 hours 
after government took possession of the device. Had that not happened, a
 backup of information the government was seeking may have been 
possible. Apple also said it had been working with the government since 
the initial requests came in, recommending four different ways to 
recover the data without building the backdoor.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />

Apple VS USA— what happened?

Should the goverment be able to open a "back door" to smartphones in the name of national security?? Consumers sound off in...

Apple VS FBI : Battle over unlocking phone gets nastier

Unknown 0 Apple VS FBI, FBI and Apple 11:20 AM

<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZjoJ-dMaRwcZbHtsoseEN7DzpLgqXwr_Ir7boNYJDpP0UBEOfB0MMK3F7WqqMEbZ73Tx9E3VUVsLN4cnWJvF3-Kp9KVYWL0KxO0znROl3zqnkE114ASSgUKGTNKZ1PQ64k39tD_Vy6tQ/s1600/apple-vs-fbi-1455710242-responsive-large-0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZjoJ-dMaRwcZbHtsoseEN7DzpLgqXwr_Ir7boNYJDpP0UBEOfB0MMK3F7WqqMEbZ73Tx9E3VUVsLN4cnWJvF3-Kp9KVYWL0KxO0znROl3zqnkE114ASSgUKGTNKZ1PQ64k39tD_Vy6tQ/s400/apple-vs-fbi-1455710242-responsive-large-0.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">T</span></b>he battle between the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/fbi-ORGOV000008-topic.html" title="FBI">FBI</a>
 and Apple Inc. over whether the tech giant should help open the locked 
cellphone of one of the San Bernardino shooters took a decidedly more 
heated tone Friday.<br />
<br />
Federal prosecutors issued a <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-apple-20160220-story.html">strongly worded court filing attacking Apple</a> -- and questioning its motives. Apple executives, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-apple-fbi-call-20160219-story.html">vowed not to back down</a> and accused the government of trying to use public pressure against it.<br />

The FBI wants to hack into that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/apple-iphone-PRDCES00000002-topic.html" title="Apple iPhone">Apple iPhone 5C</a>, which was issued to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/syed-rizwan-farook-PEOCVC00410-topic.html" title="Syed Rizwan Farook">Syed Rizwan Farook</a> by his employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Health. Farook and his wife, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/tashfeen-malik-PEOCVC00411-topic.html" title="Tashfeen Malik">Tashfeen Malik</a>,
 killed 14 people and wounded 22 in the attack at the Inland Regional 
Center in Riverside on Dec. 2. Both died in a firefight with police 
hours later.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<strong>What did the government say it its filing?</strong></h3>
<h3>
<strong> </strong></h3>
Using strong language, federal prosecutors claimed:<br />
--That Apple can easily help the government unlock a terrorist’s <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/apple-iphone-PRDCES00000002-topic.html" title="Apple iPhone">iPhone</a> without undermining anyone else’s privacy.<br />
--That
 Apple is exaggerating what the court order demands. “The order does 
not, as Apple’s public statement alleges, require Apple to create or 
provide a ‘back door’ to every <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/apple-iphone-PRDCES00000002-topic.html" title="Apple iPhone">iPhone</a>,” the filing said. “It does not provide ‘hackers and criminals’ access to iPhones."<br />
<br />
<br />
 -That Apple has less-than-pure motives in fighting the order. “Apple’s 
current refusal to comply with the court order’s order, despite the 
technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its 
concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” 
prosecutors wrote.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
 <strong>What was Apple's response?</strong></h3>
<span style="font-size: small;"><strong> </strong>Senior Apple executives, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that 
Friday's government motion was redundant and aimed at applying more 
public pressure on the company so that it would give in.</span><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: small;"><strong> </strong></span></h3>
<br />
<h3>
<strong>What are the next step in the case?</strong></h3>
<span style="font-size: small;">That was laid out in a court filing, which offers a timeline on the case:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">1.
 Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has informed the government and the Court that it 
will seek relief from the Court’s February 16, 2016 Order Compelling 
Apple to Assist Agents in Search (the “Order”)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">  2.On February 18, 2016, the Court held a telephonic status conference 
in this matter and heard the positions of the government and Apple with 
respect to an appropriate briefing schedule for Apple’s application for 
relief.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">3. On February 19, 2016, the government filed a Motion to 
Compel Apple Inc. to Comply with this Court’s February 16, 2016 Order 
Compelling Assistance in Search.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">4. The Court will hear Apple’s 
application for relief and the government’s motion to compel on March 
22, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., and sets the following briefing schedule: Apple 
shall file its application for relief/opposition to the government’s 
motion by not later than February 26, 2016; Any amicus brief shall be 
filed by not later than March 3, 2016, along with an appropriate request
 seeking leave of the Court to file such brief; The government’s 
opposition to Apple’s application for relief/reply to the government’s 
motion shall be filed by not later than March 10, 2016; Apple shall file
 any reply with respect to its application for relief by not later than 
March 15, 2016.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">5. Apple shall have 35 pages for its application for 
relief/opposition to the government’s motion, and the government shall 
have 35 pages for its opposition to Apple’s application for relief/reply
 to the government’s motion. All other filings shall conform to the page
 limits set forth in the Local Rules.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">6. The Order currently 
imposes a five-day deadline by which Apple must seek relief from the 
Court. In light of the schedule set forth herein, that deadline is 
vacated; Apple shall seek relief from the Court by February 26, 2016.</span><br />

Apple VS FBI : Battle over unlocking phone gets nastier

T he battle between the FBI and Apple Inc. over whether the tech giant should help open the locked cellphone of one of the San Berna...

Appple Loop: New Iphoe 7 Leaks In Stereo, Nexus 6p Defeats iphone 6s Plus, Apple Fight America

Unknown 0 apple, FBI, iphone, iphone7, tim cook 10:31 AM

<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKx2MH_D4nh7ZbYUP48BpDxxj-kTfC4aOapxdJ6jc_w5d79O-e8JxJoRdmV7GLPUibE_Tjmj5-uIih4-WT753dQDfJjII1bAUxPKuDpFu7NPAuv7K_nLWiqqy671GLNxrl4VjB8L_0Eng/s1600/960x0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKx2MH_D4nh7ZbYUP48BpDxxj-kTfC4aOapxdJ6jc_w5d79O-e8JxJoRdmV7GLPUibE_Tjmj5-uIih4-WT753dQDfJjII1bAUxPKuDpFu7NPAuv7K_nLWiqqy671GLNxrl4VjB8L_0Eng/s400/960x0.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Taking a look back at another week of news from Cupertino, this week's apple Loop includes Apple's backtracking over bricking iphone with Error53, the Nexus 6p takes on the iphone 6s plus, what the iphone 7 will replace the headphone jack with, price cuts for thge Apple Watch, how Apple could use its Profits to change the smartphone market, Eddy Cue revealing i Cloud and Apple Music numbers, a look inside Apple's chip design team, and why is Apple buying a Fiat van from 1957?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Apple </b>Loop is here to remind you of a few of the very many discussions that have happned around Apple over the last Seven Days( and You can read the weekly digest of Android news here on Forbes)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;">Apple Takes On The FBI And The American Government</span></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;">There's no doubt that the biggest Apple story this week is the demand by the US Courts on Apple to aid the FBI in extracting the data from an iphone 5C tied into the San Bernardino shooting fromDecember 2015. Apple replied Publicly with a comprehensive and in-depth statement. Forbe's Thomas Fox- Brewster goes through the basics of the case.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/" target="_blank"><br /></a></span></span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/" target="_blank">    " Apple CEO Tim Cook has written an open letter</a> to customars warning them of a" dangerous"       request from the FBI to effetively create a backdoor in their iphones. Cook was writing in reponse to a court order asking Apple to create a tool that would allow for unlimited guesses at a user's passcode, in this case to crack into thw iphone of one of the san bernardio shooters, who killed 14 and injured 22 others in December 2015.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">This is a case that has huge political implication in the current " CryptoWar's being fought by Governments around around the world against devices with " Uncrackable" encryption. part of the case will hing around the question of Apple's ability to accommadate a backdoor that eases security restrictions to allow a brute-force attempt to be made on the device's PIN code. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Ben Thompson looks at the technical issues: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">"" Specifically, Apple is not being asked to break the encryption on the 
iPhone in question (which is impossible — more on this in a moment), but
 rather to disable the functionality that wipes the memory when multiple
 wrong passcodes are entered in a row.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">While <b>Apple</b> may have the ability to perform the requested action on the 
older iPhone 5C handset, that would set a precedent in future cases 
where devices are even more secure. A line in the sand has been drawn. 
Tim Cook is being forced to defend this hill or succumb to future 
Government requests to break into any iPhone. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> The point is that the FBI is asking Apple to crack its own safe, it 
doesn’t matter how good the locks are if you modify them to be weak 
after installing them. And once the precedent is set then the 
opportunity is there for similar requests to be made of all billion or 
so active iOS devices. Hence the importance of this fight for Apple.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">All I would add is ‘the importance of this fight for Apple… and for you.’</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"> <strong>Apple’s Error In Explaining Error 53 Is Explained</strong></span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong> </strong></span></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;">Following the issues around Error 53 and the software bricking 
iPhones where the secure hardware has been disturbed (with Apple stating
 there is no way to restore the device to a working state), a statement 
has been released to say that this approach was in error, it is possible
 for devices to be reset, and the update to iOS to do this is now 
available. Matthew Panzarino reports with Apple’s statement:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote>
 
 <span style="font-size: large;">Some customers’ devices are showing ‘Connect to iTunes’ after 
attempting an iOS update or a restore from iTunes on a Mac or PC. This 
reports as an Error 53 in iTunes and appears when a device fails a 
security test. This test was designed to check whether Touch ID works 
properly before the device leaves the factory.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
 
 <span style="font-size: large;">Today, Apple released a software update that allows customers who 
have encountered this error message to successfully restore their device
 using iTunes on a Mac or PC.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
 
 <span style="font-size: large;">We apologize for any inconvenience, this was designed to be a 
factory test and was not intended to affect customers. Customers who 
paid for an out-of-warranty replacement of their device based on this 
issue should contact AppleCare about a reimbursement.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-size: large;">Does it work? The team at iFixit picked up one a previously bricked Error 53 handsets to give it a go:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote>
 
 <span style="font-size: large;">We force restarted it, and connected to iTunes on a MacBook Pro. As 
expected, we were prompted to restore the iPhone to factory settings.</span><br />
 
 <span style="font-size: large;">We’d tried this in the past, but the restore had failed and left the
 iPhone in a recovery mode spiral of death. This time though, the 
process went off more smoothly. iTunes quickly had the iPhone sorted out
 and restored to factory settings on iOS 9.2.1. From there, we had the 
option to restore our data from a previous backup.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-size: large;">The question now should be why Apple leaned so heavily on the 
security argument as Error 53 reached the mainstream media. When Tim 
Cook has laid out Apple’s approach to security in relation to the FBI 
request with a number of definitive statements around capabilities, the 
previous definitive Error 53 statement might not have been the smartest 
move to make.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Fighting Phablets </strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-size: large;">Apple is a recent convert to the phablet category, debuting in 2014 
with the iPhone 6 Plus and updating the design with the iPhone 6S 
Plus. Samsung pretty much created the category, but the Galaxy Note 5 
has not been a critical success. Meanwhile, Google’s Nexus line of 
devices rolled out the Nexus 6P late last year as a challenger in the 
phablet category. How does Google’s champion stand up against Apple’s 
contender? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><blockquote>
 
 <div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The next month is going to be all about Samsung, but arguably the 
most interesting rivalry in the smartphone world today is between Apple 
and its increasingly vocal nemesis Google. For the first time Google has
 started promoting its Nexus range and its latest flagship, the Nexus 
6P, is a truly stunning handset. But how does it compare to the iPhone 
6S Plus, arguably the most well known and most well rounded big 
smartphone available?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Having used both devices since launch I now have my verdict. So make
 a cup of coffee and get comfortable. You’re about to read a dissection 
of the two best smartphones on the planet…</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-size: large;">Existing iOS and Android users will likely be happy to play at home 
and stay with their favoured platform, but for those on the fence, there is a clear winner.</span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong> </strong></span></h2>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>

Appple Loop: New Iphoe 7 Leaks In Stereo, Nexus 6p Defeats iphone 6s Plus, Apple Fight America

Taking a look back at another week of news from Cupertino, this week's apple Loop includes Apple's backtracking over bricking i...

Touch In World Technology Information

ADS

Apple VS USA— what happened?

Apple VS FBI : Battle over unlocking phone gets nastier

Appple Loop: New Iphoe 7 Leaks In Stereo, Nexus 6p Defeats iphone 6s Plus, Apple Fight America

Apple VS USA— what happened?

Apple VS FBI : Battle over unlocking phone gets nastier

Appple Loop: New Iphoe 7 Leaks In Stereo, Nexus 6p Defeats iphone 6s Plus, Apple Fight America

Discussion

Blog Archive

Pages

Recent

Popular

Comments

Facebook

Advertising

Labels

Flickr Widget

Contact Form

Followers

Labels

Popular Posts

Random Posts

Most Recent