Interpreting the Text

Regarding this article from Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-now-says-may-crack-iphone-without-apples-help/
 
  The name of the article is ‘The FBI Now Says It May Crack That iPhone Without Apple’s Help’, the title itself doesn’t incite confidence. It’s more like a statement to uncertainty. Wired is a modern popular tech publisher, and the article is quite recent. So anyone keeping up with the breaking news might interpret this article as a slump in events.  A lot of things ‘might’ happen, or nothing ‘might’ happen.
A federal court hearing was scheduled for Today (March 22, 2016), so the meaning of this article (published yesterday) is just to set the stage for a full spectrum of possible outcomes.  The first paragraph suggests that the FBI ‘may be backing down’, using ambiguous wording again to postulate future events. A Justice Department’s lawyer made a comment, saying that “an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone.. [and] If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple”. A continuance was filed, cancelling the hearing, and allowing the method to be explored.
A reader might interpret this news as a strong indicator that the incident might soon be over. The article make its own interpretation of the events, saying that “the government’s move is already being interpreted as a decision to retreat from using the San Bernardino iPhone as the test case for whether tech companies can in fact be forced to help crack their own security measures.” Which was the original concern for the public, and the preferred route for all parties. I wouldn’t be surprised if an Apple insider was the source who suggested the method, just to prevent a legal precedent from being made on the subject (and to protect everyone’s future phone security).
A narrative analysis of events suggests that the FBI has made no progress on the case because of the lack of tech-ability to hack the iphone themselves, and have taken their issues all the way to the federal court for help. The competence of the FBI was previously in question; they’ve failed in so many ways to prove they can handle the terrorist investigation. These events have created meaning to how the public views the Federal Investigators. Now we all know their limits.
The article goes on to suggest that the public and other tech giants support Apple, and do not want to weaken Americans digital security with predictable Law-accessible encryptions. The citizens ideology is generally that the Government wants to keep the masses happy.  Elected officials rely on the public’s approval, and striping away things that ensure citizens privacy doesn’t bode well. The article takes a turn, and points out instances of conflict between Law and tech Encryptions, and suggests that Encrypted applications may be Law enforcements next target. Resembling a myth of good vs evil. The big bad Government wants unfettered access to all things, and the lowly citizens are resisting.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s