BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Subject: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: me at mattgillen.net (Matthew Gillen)
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 22:43:35 -0400
- In-reply-to: <5702D47C.3010104@gmail.com>
- References: <chxy48tkulo.fsf@iceland.freeshell.org> <5702D47C.3010104@gmail.com>
On 4/4/2016 4:54 PM, Rich Pieri wrote: > Every or nearly every version of iOS, including the version on Farook's > employer's iPhone, has vulnerabilities that can be exploited in order to > run unsigned versions of the operating system. GPL Part 3 prohibits > using laws like WIPO as protection which means the dissemination of > exploits cannot be prevented or suppressed by those laws. In this case > the FBI would legally have the information necessary to circumvent the > DRM and thus still would not need Apple to sign their custom GovtOS in > order to avoid wiping the device. Would they? Most (all?) of those exploits involve you installing an app that takes advantage of a bug in the OS to jailbreak the system, or visiting a web site with a vulnerable browser, etc. What all these have in common is that you have to already have a phone where you've defeated the screenlock. Every thing I've seen about hacking an iPhone screenlock involves using Siri, which I imagine you can turn off completely (I don't participate in iCulture, so I am presuming). > I have to admit: it's been entertaining watching you GPL adherents try > to punch holes in your own favorite software license in order to prevent > the FBI from hypothetically doing what it was carefully crafted to > explicitly permit. I can't really say that it's been entertaining watching you parade your opinions around as facts (e.g. what constitutes 'interference'), but to each his own. What /is/ amusing is that your bait to start this whole thing was misinformed to begin with. The DCMA already specifically exempts law enforcement (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 ; Section 1201(e)): > (e)Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities.? > This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, > protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an > officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a > political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a > contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision > of a State. So GPLv3 would have zero affect on what the FBI is allowed to do, since they clearly already had a warrant to search that phone. Matt
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- References:
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: smallm at sdf.org (Mike Small)
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Index(es):