From: ultred ragnusen <>
Subject: Re: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence
Full headers:
From: ultred ragnusen <>
Subject: Re: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 08:57:46 -0800
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <1u3bhkuta2kbr$>
References: <O3ulC.173256$mJ1.28255@fx13.fr7> <> <280220181127370843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <> <280220181333394546%nospam@nospam.invalid> <18rprvf1e3kqf.ewl8o6i04y7n$> <>
NNTP-Posting-Host: t50vM/wG/8hxNQaM2XV/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Print Article
Forward Article
Barry Margolin<> wrote:

> Security isn't binary, it's a continuum. No one is completely safe, but 
> if there's less information on your phone, the danger from the 
> government cracking it is lower. And if the phone has better encryption, 
> then you're more safe.

You bring up a logical but potentially fallacious argument. 

It's sort of like saying pregnancy isn't binary, or that death isn't
binary, since there are stages to both.

More to the point, it's sort of like saying that a chain isn't only as
strong as its weakest link, where anyone who wants to break the chain will
simply attack the weakest link.

Hence, here's a philosophical question for you to ponder, given your
statement that security isn't binary.

Q: What is the relative immunity of successful penetration by an adversary
who is attacking two mobile phones, where both mobile phones have the exact
same weakest link?

Is that a binary answer, or not?