Back in the days of the PalmV I was aghast at the terrible "technique" they used to store the user password to unlock the device. I was young and very stupid, but I pushed through proper, for that time, handling of the password.
With a court order, LE asked to unlock a device, and I was able to do it, did it and they sent me a letter of thanks which I still might have somewhere. I remember being happy to help, it was a drug case, drugs are bad mmmmkay.
In thinking about it I'm embarrassed at my younger self, but also cognizant that anyone familiar with the art could break it. It was a terrible, reversible scheme. After I pushed through the change to store the password I was confident that it could not be reversed and that it was "safe" and that I could no longer break it.
If they had suggested removing the other safeguards e.g. allowing any number of tries, etc. That would be this Apple situation and I really hope my younger self would have had the sense to plead "ignorance," refuse or whatever because my principles have not changed that much, and I am 100% on Apple's side on this issue.
With a court order, LE asked to unlock a device, and I was able to do it, did it and they sent me a letter of thanks which I still might have somewhere. I remember being happy to help, it was a drug case, drugs are bad mmmmkay.
In thinking about it I'm embarrassed at my younger self, but also cognizant that anyone familiar with the art could break it. It was a terrible, reversible scheme. After I pushed through the change to store the password I was confident that it could not be reversed and that it was "safe" and that I could no longer break it.
If they had suggested removing the other safeguards e.g. allowing any number of tries, etc. That would be this Apple situation and I really hope my younger self would have had the sense to plead "ignorance," refuse or whatever because my principles have not changed that much, and I am 100% on Apple's side on this issue.