I was not trying to suggest that, I was trying to convey that once a spy agency has remote access (sanctioned or otherwise) we can see by this example how it is proliferated and abused.
yeah, but the Australian Government is busy passing laws to require companies like Apple to do something pretty much exactly like this.
(And in my mind at least, those laws are without doubt part of a coordinated five eyes security/law-enforcement campaign to push those kinds of laws through everywhere: "Look, it works in Australia!" the Canadians/UK/NZ/US will say...)
Yeah. Right now, nobody (credible) is accusing Apple of enabling this kind of exploit.
If Apple are still selling hardware in Australia in 12 months time, the suspicion will _have_ to be that they have enabled something similar enough to this to be considered untrustworthy... (And not just Apple, any manufacturer or software company doing business in Australia...)
You were by simply stating it. It's the same type of saying-but-not-saying lines that the media uses like "if this allegation proves to be true" or similar such phrases. The fact that you state it suggests to the reader that people think it. If it was an honest mistake in wording on your part that's one thing, but you should probably avoid using such phrasing.
Look at all the people responding to the post you responded to saying that Apple did it. There's no reason to give a forum for such ideas.
No, they were not. They said "whether or not..". That does not imply Apple did anything.
In this case, it doesn't matter whether or not Apple even had a hand in it. The issue is that security exploits are security exploits, regardless if intentionally designed or not.
