From: Richard L. Hamilton <>
Subject: Re: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence
Full headers:
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1
Organization: Timetravellers Anonymous
References: <O3ulC.173256$mJ1.28255@fx13.fr7>
From: (Richard L. Hamilton)
Subject: Re: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <2oDnC.94943$BX2.10678@fx22.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 21:05:02 UTC
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 21:05:02 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 1989
X-Received-Body-CRC: 976590188
X-Original-Bytes: 1927
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>,
	ultred ragnusen<> writes:
> Barry Margolin<> wrote:
>>>> Yet another good reason to use a dumb flip phone.
>>> definitely not. those are *far* easier to crack. they aren't even
>>> encrypted.
>> But you probably don't have much incriminating data on it in the first 
>> place.
> I agree with the sentiment to not /put/ incriminating data on a phone,
> where a dumb phone will naturally contain far less automatically generating
> data in the first place.
> But I bring up the sentiment that anyone who thinks /any/ phone is /safe/
> is a fool, because, for a criminal anyway, the biggest incrimination is
> simply the ping to the cellular tower that makes a cell phone work as a
> cell phone.
> Those who /feel/ safer with brand X phones versus brand Y phones because
> the marketing of brand X is better than brand Y, I posit, are fools,
> because the weakest set of links of all cell phones are the same.

The weakest part of any device is the wetware - the person operating it.