Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Was reading an article on the upcoming statements being made on this topic before Congress and the House Judiciary Committee. On reading the statements to be used, for those a bit more technical minded (or wanting to be) the statement by Susan Landau is rather interesting (http://judiciary.house.gov/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=B3AF6E9E-B599-4216-B2F9-1AEE6A1D90CD).
Makes for a good read and goes into some layman relavent detail.
Good stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tentales
Was reading an article on the upcoming statements being made on this topic before Congress and the House Judiciary Committee. On reading the statements to be used, for those a bit more technical minded (or wanting to be) the statement by Susan Landau is rather interesting (http://judiciary.house.gov/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=B3AF6E9E-B599-4216-B2F9-1AEE6A1D90CD).
Makes for a good read and goes into some layman relavent detail.
Good stuff.

Thank you!
What an excellent read and explanation. Took me about 20mins to read through it all.
Not too technical and it strikes a good balance between empirical evidence and logic, while outlining alternative measures and explaining existing forensics that do not involve forcing Apple to create a backdoor.

Very compelling arguments in favour of Apple. I can't see how Congress could possibly vote against that, but if they do... SHTF.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.