From: David_B <>
Subject: Re: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model InExistence
Full headers:
Subject: Re: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In
References: <O3ulC.173256$mJ1.28255@fx13.fr7>
<> <280220181127370843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <2oDnC.94943$BX2.10678@fx22.iad>
From: David_B <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2oDnC.94943$BX2.10678@fx22.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <rhQnC.94930$xS2.61953@fx03.fr7>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:45:27 UTC
Organization: blocknews -
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:45:26 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2320
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1556778116
Print Article
Forward Article
On 06/03/2018 21:05, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> 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.


Listen here:

Enjoy!  :-)