John McAfee says he'll decrypt the San Bernardino iPhone for free with his team of super hackers

[Technician]

I doubt it would be very difficult to do. If it can be made, it can be unmade.
I, personally think that Apple should face charges of aiding and abetting a known terrorist group after the fact.
The odd thing is that in their privacy policy it says that they will abide by court orders and legal requests for information.

 

[Squid Surprise]

The government has no proof that anything on the phone would prevent terrorism - and it's a VERY slippery slope letting a government simply say "unlock this or else" to any cell phone...

I strongly suggest people read the open letter by Apple @ http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Lastly, the shooter is dead, his victims can't be brought back - why do we need his phone unlocked?

 

[umbala]

"[...] will be achieved primarily using social engineering and take three weeks." <-- LOL! Since social engineering is the art of extracting information from someone without them realizing they're being manipulated into divulging said information, I assume it only works on living persons. Is McAfee's team going to resurrect the dead terrorist first or am I missing something?

 

[captaincranky]

The government has no proof that anything on the phone would prevent terrorism - and it's a VERY slippery slope letting a government simply say "unlock this or else" to any cell phone...

Oddly, I seem to recall you claim to be from Canada. Unless the US had invaded Canada recently, the term "we", is somewhat inappropriate

I strongly suggest people read the open letter by Apple @ http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Sadly, I can't read, I used to work for the US Post Office.

Lastly, the shooter is dead, his victims can't be brought back - why do we need his phone unlocked?

Well, it would be interesting to find out who his friends were, and whether or not they put him up to it.

So "God save the queen", or whomever might need saving up there in the great white north. In the meantime, please let the US work out the response to crime and terrorism on its soil, on its own.

 

[captaincranky]

"[...] will be achieved primarily using social engineering and take three weeks." <-- LOL! Since social engineering is the art of extracting information from someone without them realizing they're being manipulated into divulging said information, I assume it only works on living persons. Is McAfee's team going to resurrect the dead terrorist first or am I missing something?

Are you trying to say Siri isn't alive.....? That's just rude. (or not). But seriously, if Siri is "trained" to pander to iPhone owners, then all McAfee's crew has to do, is convince her they're the original owner, suffering from amnesia. Viola, OPEN PHONE!

 

[Squid Surprise]

Oddly, I seem to recall you claim to be from Canada. Unless the US had invaded Canada recently, the term "we", is somewhat inappropriate
Sadly, I can't read, I used to work for the US Post Office.
Well, it would be interesting to find out who his friends were, and whether or not they put him up to it.

So "God save the queen", or whomever might need saving up there in the great white north. In the meantime, please let the US work out the response to crime and terrorism on its soil, on its own.

Lol, trolling on as usual crankytroll... You'll note I never said "we" in my post other than at the end as a kind of hypothetical statement...

Apple sells iPhones in Canada too, so this is relevant to not just you Americans... I don't like the precedent of ANY government being allowed to force a phone's maker to unlock/decrypt their product.

 

[captaincranky]

Lol, trolling on as usual crankytroll... You'll note I never said "we" in my post other than at the end as a kind of hypothetical statement...

Well, somebody needs to keep you honest

Apple sells iPhones in Canada too, so this is relevant to not just you Americans... I don't like the precedent of ANY government being allowed to force a phone's maker to unlock/decrypt their product.

Perhaps so. But wait until some iPhone and gun wielding terrorist/sociopath slaughters someone(s) in your country, before you decide what would be best for us in the US

.It's always the same with you, when you don't really have an answer for me, I'm trolling. How patently convenient. How unimaginative.

 

[Technician]

The government has no proof that anything on the phone would prevent terrorism - and it's a VERY slippery slope letting a government simply say "unlock this or else" to any cell phone...

I strongly suggest people read the open letter by Apple @ http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Lastly, the shooter is dead, his victims can't be brought back - why do we need his phone unlocked?

Any time a crime is committed there is an investigation. Is this news to you?

 

[thorpj]

Why hasn't his team of "prodigies" stop virus attacks in general. If I had "talents that defy human comprehension," I would put a halt to the sources of viruses. Then again, it may be like the battle with cancer. There exists a cure but if the cure is implemented, how do you make money?

You don't just stop viruses... They happen due to vulnerabilities in applications, operating systems, kernels, firmware, etc...

Mcafee can't do anything about a flaw in Windows, or in flash, or java (of which there are many).

 

[Raoul Duke]

When you say 'God Save the Queen' here, it must be in TWO languages, like this:
God Save the Queen Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Dieu protège la Reine Sa Majesté Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi.

 

[captaincranky]

When you say 'God Save the Queen' here, it must be in TWO languages, like this:
God Save the Queen Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Dieu protège la Reine Sa Majesté Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi.

Wow, that old gal Lizzie sure gets around. Besides, I thought the British and French portions of Canada were separated by the Maginot Line...........No? Then there's the whole scandal about Elton John actually being the true queen of Great Britain.

These are changing times. I think the queen needs a "rap handle", should she ever want to declare war on Quebec....."My name is Q-El-2, Imma come down on you....."

(I was going to write a few a more more lines, but I thought that was sufficiently disrespectful in and of itself. Sorry, I still have impulse control issues, even in my declining years. In fact, they may be getting worse ).

EDIT: In spite of the fact we as Americans retain less of our "allegiance to the monarchy" than most former British Colonies, I have to say how proud I was of Donald Trump taking on the pope this week. It brought back a tremendous pride in heritage with me. It was is if I was watching Henry the Eight take on his pope/nemesis, as he founded the Church of England. (y)

 

[mailpup]

When you say 'God Save the Queen' here, it must be in TWO languages, like this:
God Save the Queen Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Dieu protège la Reine Sa Majesté Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think while that is true of English speaking Canadian provinces, in Quebec it's French only. English isn't required. Now, I'm an American so I'm no authority but that was my understanding.

 

[Technician]

Why hasn't his team of "prodigies" stop virus attacks in general. If I had "talents that defy human comprehension," I would put a halt to the sources of viruses. Then again, it may be like the battle with cancer. There exists a cure but if the cure is implemented, how do you make money?

This can be done, but to be effective and eliminate the source of all viruses, the planet must first be cleansed of all organic lifeforms. Is that what you really want?

 

[Technician]

Then there's the whole scandal about Elton John actually being the true queen of Great Britain.

Nono, that's Graham Norton.

 

[captaincranky]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think while that is true of English speaking Canadian provinces, in Quebec it's French only. English isn't required. Now, I'm an American so I'm no authority but that was my understanding.

IIRC, the last homage any Frenchman paid to a queen, was implemented with a guillotine and her name was Marie Antoinette....

 

[Raoul Duke]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think while that is true of English speaking Canadian provinces, in Quebec it's French only. English isn't required. Now, I'm an American so I'm no authority but that was my understanding.

Well I'm an anglophone in the west, so anything from government must be in both official languages. I don't know about Quebec, only ever been to Montréal (notice that accent aigu..LOL)

 

[captaincranky]

.....[ ]...... Montréal (notice that accent aigu..LOL)

How do you even get a typewriter to do that............?

 

[thorpj]

Wow, that old gal Lizzie sure gets around. Besides, I thought the British and French portions of Canada were separated by the Maginot Line...........No? Then there's the whole scandal about Elton John actually being the true queen of Great Britain.

These are changing times. I think the queen needs a "rap handle", should she ever want to declare war on Quebec....."My name is Q-El-2, Imma come down on you....."

(I was going to write a few a more more lines, but I thought that was sufficiently disrespectful in and of itself. Sorry, I still have impulse control issues, even in my declining years. In fact, they may be getting worse ).

EDIT: In spite of the fact we as Americans retain less of our "allegiance to the monarchy" than most former British Colonies, I have to say how proud I was of Donald Trump taking on the pope this week. It brought back a tremendous pride in heritage with me. It was is if I was watching Henry the Eight take on his pope/nemesis, as he founded the Church of England. (y)

The first part. Alright, queen joke, whatever.

Second part. Please tell me you're joking. If you find pride in your American heritage due to things Donald Thump does, I suggest you seek immediate mental counselling.

 

[captaincranky]

....[ ]...Second part. Please tell me you're joking. If you find pride in your American heritage due to things Donald Thump does, I suggest you seek immediate mental counselling.

Been there, doing that!(y)

On a lighter note, Donald Trump and the pope of today, now share a slight commonality with Henry VIII of England and his, (soon to be former), religious leader, Pope Clement VII.

Clement wouldn't approve Henry's divorce from Catherine and hence the Church of England was born. Now, by all accounts Henry had a truly evil side, of which many of his deeds bespoke volumes. OTOH, people who worship happily in the Anglican church of today, owe Henry no small debt.

After western Rome fell in 476 AD, Europe was plunged into the dark ages. But, the Roman Catholic Church (*), still wanted to control the politics of Europe. Without the power of the Roman Legions, what was left to do was maintain control via fear of God's punishment. Henry maintained he could be a "good christian", without the burden of Rome dictating how it should be done. The Holy Roman Catholic Churdch, (IMHO), has not gotten over itself, from Henry's time, (and before), until now.

Fast forward to today. The same paradigm has manifested itself between the current pope, and Mr. Trump.

So, I actually do think Donald Trump did a good thing by telling the current pope to "screw off".

I's a basal and heinous hypocrisy, for an individual, (the pope), who lives in a tiny square "country" with massive walls around it, to say we aren't entitled to protect our country by any means necessary.....including a wall.

If you want to talk further about psychiatry, you might show me your credentials. (I'm still game though, even if you don't have any).

 

[thorpj]

Been there, doing that!(y)

On a lighter note, Donald Trump and the pope of today, now share a slight commonality with Henry VIII of England and his, (soon to be former), religious leader, Pope Clement VII.

Clement wouldn't approve Henry's divorce from Catherine and hence the Church of England was born. Now, by all accounts Henry had a truly evil side, of which many of his deeds bespoke volumes. OTOH, people who worship happily in the Anglican church of today, owe Henry no small debt.

After western Rome fell in 476 AD, Europe was plunged into the dark ages. But, the Roman Catholic Church (*), still wanted to control the politics of Europe. Without the power of the Roman Legions, what was left to do was maintain control via fear of God's punishment. Henry maintained he could be a "good christian", without the burden of Rome dictating how it should be done. The Holy Roman Catholic Churdch, (IMHO), has not gotten over itself, from Henry's time, (and before), until now.

Fast forward to today. The same paradigm has manifested itself between the current pope, and Mr. Trump.

So, I actually do think Donald Trump did a good thing by telling the current pope to "screw off".

I's a basal and heinous hypocrisy, for an individual, (the pope), who lives in a tiny square "country" with massive walls around it, to say we aren't entitled to protect our country by any means necessary.....including a wall.

If you want to talk further about psychiatry, you might show me your credentials. (I'm still game though, even if you don't have any).

That's a nice bit of history, but I'm not seeing the parallels. Unless Trump is going to go and create Thumpism.

I don't agree with the whole idea of Vatican City and the Pope (who is more of a celebrity and politician than anything). So Trump may have had a point, but it's negated by the fact that he said it.

As for his "wall" idea, the idea is ludicrous, both in cost, and the fact that he's not doing it purely to prevent illegal border crossings. It's built more on racist thoughts, and wanting to be controversial to further his campaign.

 

[captaincranky]

That's a nice bit of history, but I'm not seeing the parallels. Unless Trump is going to go and create Thumpism.

He doesn't have to, these are different times. People are turning away from Catholicism in droves anyway. Accordingly, there is a great similarity in the ideological premise, but without any tangible need to form "Trumpism" to fill the vacuum. (Better tread lightly here, or you'll be getting a lecture on the Reformation).

I don't agree with the whole idea of Vatican City and the Pope (who is more of a celebrity and politician than anything). So Trump may have had a point, but it's negated by the fact that he said it.

Well, if the pope is a "celebrity and a politician", he should likely have been keeping his mouth shut, as he was coming from a country which is damned near 100% Catholic, into a more affluent society with protestant roots. What's next? Will he try calling Spain to send some "Conquistadors" to blow up said wall, should Trump build it?

The part of your position I emboldened, is patently stupid.

As for his "wall" idea, the idea is ludicrous, both in cost, and the fact that he's not doing it purely to prevent illegal border crossings. It's built more on racist thoughts, and wanting to be controversial to further his campaign.

Are you done trying to psychoanalyze me, and moving on to a bigger fish? Don't care a hoot, just curious.

Since you're into analyzing Trump's motives, let me say for everything any man may undertake doing in his lifetime, there is always a self serving ulterior motive. That's Social counseling 101, as well as Freud 101.

 

[thorpj]

He doesn't have to, these are different. People are turning away from Catholicism in droves anyway. Accordingly, there is a great similarity in the ideological premise, but without any tangible need to form "Trumpism" to fill the vacuum. (Better tread lightly here, or you'll be getting a lecture on the Reformation).

I see that you're looking at this from the perspective that a person in a position of power (who by the way, got there purely because he's rich) is at odds with the Church. I'm looking at it differently, but that's expected. We all see things differently.

Well, if the pope is a "celebrity and a politician", he should likely have been keeping his mouth shut, as he was coming from a country which is damned near 100% Catholic, into a more affluent society with protestant roots. What's next? Will he try calling Spain to send some "Conquistadors" to blow up said wall, should Trump build it?

The part of your position I emboldened, is patently stupid.

I see now that you don't seem to care so much about what's being said, rather that someone is going against the Catholic church. All the while you're bringing up the wall, as if that idea of his will ever actually be anything more than the rambling of an ignoramus who thinks he can win the presidential election.

as for "So trump may have had a point, but it's negated by the fact that he said it". Once again, you don't seem to be looking at this from a different perspective, but the fact remains that sensible people have enough sense to ignore anything Trump says. If he makes a good point about the Pope being more of a political figure than a Religious leader, it's undermined by the fact that he said it. Ideas don't make waves unless the people suggesting them are taken seriously by a large enough number of people.

Patently stupid, I think not.

Are you done trying to psychoanalyze me, and moving on to a bigger fish? Don't care a hoot, just curious.

How in hell was that Psychoanalysis? Let me just quote that again so you can reread it:

"As for his "wall" idea, the idea is ludicrous, both in cost, and the fact that he's not doing it purely to prevent illegal border crossings. It's built more on racist thoughts, and wanting to be controversial to further his campaign."

That doesn't reflect on you in any way. That's about Trump, his wall suggestion, and the relation to his campaign, and the racism he commonly employs (which may or may not be part of his election strat, but either way is still unacceptable).

 

[Technician]

How do you even get a typewriter to do that............?

typewriter? Does anyone even own a typewriter anymore? ░░▒▒▓▓ ҉ ҉ʥʩϟϡϪϯѮѬѨ۞

 

[Technician]

Since you're into analyzing Trump's motives, let me say for everything any man may undertake doing in his lifetime, there is always a self serving ulterior motive. That's Social counseling 101, as well as Freud 101.

However, the wise man can see that doing things that better the society will benefit him as well. Sometimes you bring yourself up by bringing those around you up.

 

[captaincranky]

I see that you're looking at this from the perspective that a person in a position of power (who by the way, got there purely because he's rich) is at odds with the Church. I'm looking at it differently, but that's expected. We all see things differently.

And you resent Trump's richness, but pay no need t5o the idea he may be rich because he's smart, (and yes, possibly ruthless), rather than having to have been born to the "divine rights of a king".

I see now that you don't seem to care so much about what's being said, rather that someone is going against the Catholic church. All the while you're bringing up the wall, as if that idea of his will ever actually be anything more than the rambling of an ignoramus who thinks he can win the presidential election.

I see you don't care about content, your actions and commentary are being fueled out of hatred for Trump.

Trump lacks political correctness. I view that as a very good thing. I'm not predicting the future, endorsing anything else about him whatever. He speaks his mind, and on the subject of immigration, I agree with him. My neighborhood has a Muslim church, which is a sham. It's basically a "marriage factory", being used to validate a massive influx of African immigrants.

as for "So trump may have had a point, but it's negated by the fact that he said it". Once again, you don't seem to be looking at this from a different perspective, but the fact remains that sensible people have enough sense to ignore anything Trump says. If he makes a good point about the Pope being more of a political figure than a Religious leader, it's undermined by the fact that he said it. Ideas don't make waves unless the people suggesting them are taken seriously by a large enough number of people.

Patently stupid, I think not.

"Spare me your political rhetoric as you would have Donald Trump spare you his" How do you like my take on"the golden rule"?

How in hell was that Psychoanalysis? Let me just quote that again so you can reread it:
It's built more on racist thoughts, and wanting to be controversial to further his campaign."

How about if we call it, "your take on something gleaned from amateur mind reading". Is that better? (Notice the word "thoughts". That's where I came up with, "mind reading").

That doesn't reflect on you in any way. That's about Trump, his wall suggestion, and the relation to his campaign, and the racism he commonly employs (which may or may not be part of his election strat, but either way is still unacceptable).

I don't think this is about me, it only started out that way. IIRC, you were denigrating my mention of Trump. So, go back and read your first post, "I need mental health care". < You did say that about me, did you not?

My stance is this, Trump may or may not be a loathsome individual. I agree with the concept the pope should be reminded of his place form time to time. A place which doesn't involve politics. In fact, the US has laws against mixing "church and state". Trump reminded the pope of that. I'm arguing on that point alone, you seem to be taking an unnecessarily longer view of Trump as a whole, instead of the instant event.