In fact, in my experience, the majority is wrong quite a lot.
Fortunately, this is not a popularity contest. The question is whether the government can compel a company to rewrite its products to make it easy for the government to snoop on its customers. If they can, it's only a small jump to forcing companies to include a backdoor in their products in the first place.
Actually, ignoring the unique hardware key associated with the Secure Enclave (because it can't be read by anything except the Secure Enclave), each iPhone does have several other unique identifiers that can be used to lock OS firmware to the device, such as the serial number, the cellular radio IMEI, and the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC. As already pointed out, Apple could hard-encode those values in the firmware update and sign that. The resulting binary could not be used with any device where those identifiers did not match. Bad actors could not just change the numbers to match a random victim's phone, because the Apple signature would not match the binary. This is discussed at http://arstechnica.com/apple/2....
It is true that even having the source code for firmware creates a risk, but that risk cannot be turned into an exploit without Apple's secret key. And of course if someone gets Apple's secret key, all iOS devices are in trouble.
I think the real issue we should be talking about is whether the government can force companies to redesign their products to help the government spy on their customers. If it can do this, then why can't the government similarly require that circumvention mechanisms be built into devices in the first place to make snooping easy?
One of my favorite wiki feebles is when they told Philip Roth he’s not “credible source” on book he wrote
Absolutely correct! People cannot be sources for Wikipedia. Previously published material is the only allowed source for Wikipedia. And you can't just write a web page yourself and use that for your source. Now if Philip Roth wrote an article about his life and published it in a reliable periodical, that article could be used as a source, just as if I wrote an article about Philip Roth and had it published that article could be used as a source, too.
...and then you just gave up. I totally see how it was that other guy's problem.
I've had similar experiences, but I don't give up. If you let asshats walk all over you without putting up a fight, expect asshats to walk all over you. Wikipedia has all sorts of policies for how to deal with this sort of conflict. And I'm sure that in most conflicts both parties think they are in the right. So whomever loses comes here and complains about how bad Wikipedia is because their "good" edit was reverted, so now they refuse to try to edit articles any more.
WARNING: This takes forever.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
I think we should be exposing middle and high school students to some coding. Every student who graduates high school should have the experience of writing a piece of code to perform some simple task and using it in some useful way.
I also think every student should have the experience of playing a simple song on some sort of instrument. It's not about turning everyone into a pianist, but to give everyone the experience of what it is like to play music.
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do? -- Raoul Duke