[donnation]

Excuse you. I never mentioned Priv in my post. I was talking about the long history of BlackBerry being the king when it comes to the privacy of communication devices including BBOS and BB10 phones. I can see you wanna pick a fight, but you need to have several seats instead. #ByeFelicia

Posted via CB10

Sorry, I thought the Priv was a Blackberry phone. And please tell me how BB10 has shown to be any more private than any other OS out there besides Blackberry telling you it is. Quick hint, if it isn't connected to BES it isn't private or secure at all, so read up before you make nonsense comments. Your hashtag shows your maturity level so we are done here. Have a great day!

[Alain_A]

Benifitial. Screw Apple. BlackBerry for the win! I hope this snowball into something bigger and then force people to rethink their privacy and reevaluate the brand of phones they choose. Maybe people will remember that BlackBerry is still the king when it comes to privacy on a mobile device.

Posted via CB10

when Thor presented the OS 10, he said that it was like any other phones out there. Not more secure

[sorinv]

when Thor presented the OS 10, he said that it was like any other phones out there. Not more secure

I have not seen the Heins quote, but certainly Chen stated that BB10 wads the most secure and private.
Do you think that BlackBerry can decrypt a bb10 phone that is not on BES?
Is there any proof of that?
I know they can do it if they can transfer files by sftp out of my device with ghost commander.

[Alain_A]

I have not seen the Heins quote, but certainly Chen stated that BB10 wads the most secure and private.
Do you think that BlackBerry can decrypt a bb10 phone that is not on BES?
Is there any proof of that?
I know they can do it if they can transfer files by sftp out of my device with ghost commander.

At the launch of BB 10 OS. Thor said that the OS 10 was not on BIS server. so make it more vulnerable. maybe he was referring to the hack side of it

[Branta]

Who would be saying this? The CEO who is a US Citizen, lives in the US, and is a director of two major US companies?

Nationality and even the identity of the human doesn't matter unless the order is directed to (him) personally - in which case the likely response is "sorry, this is beyond my personal ability". The order would be served on the corporate body, which is primarily a Canadian outfit with a US rump office to facilitate Wall Street listing and a now collapsed US marketing effort.Contrary to popular belief by d**f*** americans the jurisdiction of US courts generally stops at the US border.

Being realistic about it, Chen would probably welcome an action like this against BlackBerry to open the opportunity to wind up the business and claim it was forced by USA.

[anon(9733642)]

There are a few issues here. One is privacy and two is the right against self incrimination. You see if the iPhone user was using the "Finger Print Scanner" the phone would have been unlocked a long time ago. Phones are seized daily for various crimes. If you use a "Finger Print" for security, and are arrested, once you are fingerprinted by Law Enforcement you can be forced to unlock your device. However, if you don't have "TouchID" enabled they cannot force you to give up your password. The courts have ruled on this time and time again ever since TouchID has been introduced by Apple and similar security on other devices. I'm not sharing an opinion here, just the facts. The accuser here is protected because their method of security was a numeric and/or alphanumeric passcode. Moreover, Apple will not fold under Gov't pressure. Apple can single handedly take down the US Stock Market. It's the same reason Gates isn't taken down for 100+ anti-trust violations the Gov't watches and does nothing about. Notice how the Gov't is asking for creation of backdoor. Its the Gov't, if they could...they'd just mandate and take it, but they have to "ASK" cause they know the potential repercussions of trying to force Apple to do anything.

[mrlahjr]

I can see apple unlocking this phone on their own and then turning it over. The phone is now the property of the FBI not the original owner. If the original owner was alive then no. No access for the FBI.
No back door access, PEROID. There are people all over the world using iPhone. I'm sure they don't want some government of a foreign country snooping around in their phone. Let apple unlock the phones on a case by case basis. Nothing else.



TMO  Z10,STL100-3/10.3.2.2789

[robsteve]

I can see apple unlocking this phone on their own and then turning it over. The phone is now the property of the FBI not the original owner. If the original owner was alive then no. No access for the FBI.

The original owner is alive, the county or municipal government owned the phone, but had not exercised, proper control over it. My premise is this incident may force more industries other than regulated industries to use a mobile device management strategy, such as offered by BlackBerry.

What if there is information on that phone to prevent another crime, but it is not unlocked before the crime? If it is later unlocked and found there was information that might have prevented a crime that occurred while Apple and the FBI are arguing over unlocking it, I could see the victim's ( of the later crime) families suing not only Apple, but the employer that owned the phone and wasn't concerned enough to have the phones they issue to employees manged.

[Alain_A]

The original owner is alive, the county or municipal government owned the phone, but had not exercised, proper control over it. My premise is this incident may force more industries other than regulated industries to use a mobile device management strategy, such as offered by BlackBerry.

What if there is information on that phone to prevent another crime, but it is not unlocked before the crime? If it is later unlocked and found there was information that might have prevented a crime that occurred while Apple and the FBI are arguing over unlocking it, I could see the victim's ( of the later crime) families suing not only Apple, but the employer that owned the phone and wasn't concerned enough to have the phones they issue to employees manged.

I do not believe the terrorist used the company phone for that...How come terrorist have destroyed any other personal computing devices but this one...

[Elephant_Canyon]

What if there is information on that phone to prevent another crime, but it is not unlocked before the crime? If it is later unlocked and found there was information that might have prevented a crime that occurred while Apple and the FBI are arguing over unlocking it, I could see the victim's ( of the later crime) families suing not only Apple, but the employer that owned the phone and wasn't concerned enough to have the phones they issue to employees manged.

They can try to sue Apple all they want, but they're not going to get very far. There is absolutely no statute under which Apple can be held liable for the actions of a terrorist in this matter.