297 karma · joined October 8, 2015
This quote is meant to make you think about the differences between stealing and copying ideas. It isn't literal. It doesn't even make sense literally. Stealing means you make it yours. It is no longer theirs. How do you do that with an idea? You make it so much better that people forget about the previous idea you took.
Well that is one way of looking at it. Probably the appropriate way if you're teaching, but if you want to be critical then it reeks of poor design for a particular service to get special treatment by a fundamental part of the internet. It isn't that MX records aren't needed. They just shouldn't only be useful for email.
You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest.
I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgXjY3cWIAAVfCM.jpg:large
Unfortunately we can't run experiments on this question. Every city is unique, and people tend to think very special.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pate...
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/04/apple-ordered-to-pay-625m-t...
Just as easy? Maybe if you ignore the effort to create it and secure it. I really can't believe writing secure software is being trivialized in the comments here.
You ever been responsible for writing secure software? It isn't easy. Locking it down to a single device is in principle possible. No one wants to be responsible for really doing it though if they can avoid it. Especially not when it is obvious this is not a one time thing. Not at all. You think every device manufacturer can do it without error too? There will be a lot of secret cracking tools if this gets started.
If you think this request doesn't represent significant work then I question your ability to estimate such things. Just making a version of iOS that runs without being written to disk and is never written to disk, as specifically requested, would be a significant task. Being sufficiently satisfied that your code restricting it to a single device is correct and not exploitable is not something I would care to be responsible for ever. I can't believe people keep trivializing it. Defense in depth is generally considered necessary. Removing all the locks but Apple's signing key and calling that just as secure is foolish.
The master key analogy is sound if it is referring to the technique rather than the specific software. Does anyone believe this will only ever be done once, or that it will always be done correctly every time, including every other manufacturer? Surely we can agree there is some risk here.
They said no and explained what they did instead of unlocking. Seems so obvious that you must want to argue about the definition of unlock? Really?
I do not know how Apple could more clearly state that they could make this tool. How could you come away with an inaccurate impression?