Tag Archives: iphone

Apple Response

Apple Responds to Judge’s Request to Access San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone


A
US magistrate judge has directed Apple to help unlock a phone belonging to one of the killers responsible for the San Bernardino shooting in the hopes of examining its contents and learning more about the incident. Specifically, the FBI wants Apple to create a new version of the iPhone OS— to be used only with this case — that would provide a backdoor to accessing locked iPhones. 

In response, Apple released a letter on Tuesday evening to publicly address this request. In short, the tech giant has decided to oppose the ruling, noting that this type of security infringement goes against the strong and trusted encryption standards they have built over the years.

Following the tragic shooting that occurred last December in San Bernardino, California, the locked iPhone that belonged to the shooters was uncovered by authorities, ultimately prompting this resonating discussion about the boundaries of data security.

“Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data,” the letter detailed. “In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

This type of proposed OS would allow anyone to attempt an unlimited number of passcodes to get into a locked phone without erasing all the data contained within the device.

While the discussion on the limits of cyber security continues, we continue to make your online protection a priority here at UsenetServer. By using our VPN product, you’re taking back control of your own online security, ensuring your data remains 100% protected and anonymous at all times. If you haven’t already, get started with our VPN today to see how you can keep your important data under lock and key, no matter what.  

What are your thoughts on Apple’s response to this ruling? Let us know in the comments below!