
FBI admits that no useful information found on San Bernadino iPhone - chris_wot
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/san-bernadino-iphone-data/index.html
======
chris_wot
Yes, I'm well aware that my post doesn't reflect the headline, because
basically the FBI are spinning like crazy here!

Here is their evidence:

"The phone didn't contain evidence of contacts with other ISIS supporters or
the use of encrypted communications during the period the FBI was concerned
about."

~~~
dang
> _I 'm well aware that my post doesn't reflect the headline_

If a headline is misleading, you're correct to change it (this is in the HN
guidelines), but you need to change it to one that's accurate and neutral.
Yours certainly is not neutral, and it doesn't seem to be accurate either
(since the absence of something can obviously still be 'useful information').
So what you've done here is out of line.

Submitting a story doesn't give you license to spin it.

~~~
chris_wot
Lots of folks disagree with you. How can the absence of anything in this case
be at all useful? Not obvious to me I'm afraid.

I don't feel I was out of line at all.

~~~
dang
Violations of HN's rules aren't affected by what "lots of people" agree with
(lots of people agree with every such violation) nor by how you feel. You
broke the rules by replacing what you saw as political spin in the original
headline with an opposing political spin that you happened to prefer. That's
so obviously against the rules that if you do it again, we'll take away your
right to submit stories here.

Instead, either use the original title or (if it is misleading or linkbait)
replace it with one that is accurate and neutral. That means as spin-free as
you can make it, preferably using representative language from the article
itself. It's pretty easy in most cases if you try. Doing this is a valuable
service to the community: it presents the story in a way that allows people to
receive it as information, not agitation.

~~~
chris_wot
No need to threaten me.

Fair comment on neutrality, but your comments on accuracy is what lots of
people disagree with. No less than Mike Godwin has commented on that anomaly,
off HN. I'll be more careful on neutrality in future.

What would you have used as the title?

 _Edit:_ love to know the reasoning of the person following this thread. If
you could step out of the shadows and comment, I'd appreciate it.

~~~
chris_wot
Hmmm... I've reflected on my reaction as I was clearly feeling upset about
dang's comment.

I have to come to the awkward conclusion that I reacted badly here because I
was fairly called on something that broke the rules. I reasoned my way out of
my responsibility to be more neutral and in the back of my mind I must have
realised what I was doing wasn't the right thing to do. The fact that I felt
the need to justify the title choice tends to confirm this :-(

Therefore, I owe dang and I guess ycombinator an apology: first for that last
comment where I mischaracterised dang as being threatening, and secondly for
the title of this post which was needlessly partisan.

I guess I react badly sometimes to being rebuked. However, that's my issue as
in this case the rebuke was fair. I think in this matter my emotions got the
better of me and I was in denial - I guess the only good thing about it is
that I can recognise the emotion, try to take a step back from myself and then
after I realise it's caused by my own behaviour I need to make amends (i.e. I
feel sheepish).

So once again, apologies to dang and the wider HN community. I'll try much
harder to listen to criticism and I'll ensure this sort of submission doesn't
happen again.

~~~
dang
Being rebuked is never fun, and the correction is all we care about, so
thanks.

------
orionblastar
It was his work phone they found, he destroyed his personal phone. Any intel
would have been on his personal phone. If he used his work phone for terrorist
communication he'd destroy it as well.

~~~
mirimir
People do make mistakes. But yes, this is the obvious expectation.

Still, the FBI wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't review the evidence. I'm
not, however, claiming that Apple should have done what the FBI wanted. I'm
just saying that the FBI should have wanted it.

~~~
orionblastar
The FBI wants access to any smart phone. Even if Apple did what the FBI wanted
they would have made a way to bypass any iPhone and it could be used without a
warrant on anyone's iPhone.

It is like opening Pandora's box and anyone with access to that code/iOS could
access anyone's iPhone.

~~~
mirimir
I agree with you about the risks of the FBI's request.

I'm just saying that the FBI would have been remiss to ignore the phone.

~~~
orionblastar
Sure they have to check everything just in case it has any evidence on it.

In this case the work phone didn't have any evidence on it, and breaking into
the phone cause an ethical debate over the right to privacy and encryption.

It is important to know that the FBI has tools made by hackers to break into
an iPhone, and Apple stood by their corporate ethics to not create any OS or
tools to break into an iPhone. I think this is because Apple cares about their
customers and their right to privacy.

~~~
mirimir
Does seem so. I'm impressed, frankly. They've granted much more slack to iOS
users than Google does to Android users. Unless I'm missing something. iOS
devices are _almost_ yours. Not as much so as a *BSD or Linux box, but better
than Android. There is the Apple Store dictatorship. And the black-box radio.
But hey.

