Done

Difficulty score 14. No green.

Done. ng, ng.

Phil: I understand the problem, if you enter 6 wrong passwords the phone wipes its memory. I suggested they could remove the media and use another computer to read it, problem solved. But it may not be possible to remove the media because the processor and memory might all be on one chip (SOC).

Still, I think the iPhone developers could probably break into the phone with little trouble and without compromising security for everyone else with an iPhone. But it has been over 20 years since I worked on a development team for a network bridge which is only remotely like developing the iPhone.

Based on a quick internet search, it appears that the iPhone SOC does not include mass storage so in theory the mass storage system could be physically removed from the phone and installed in another computer system. This would allow the data to be read without having to break the login security.

Done

Removing the mass storage system from an iPhone would probably involve desoldering one or more chips, and that process could destroy or corrupt the data stored in the chips.

I believe the iPhone automatically updates its software even when the phone is locked, so a simple change to the login software could be applied to the terrorist's phone to permanently unlock it for law enforcement.

The only catch is if that version of iPhone software got into the wrong hands, nobody's iPhone would be secure.

go

Tuco: Glass-Steagall was a bad idea from the beginning and Glass even said so after he saw it in action. A better idea would be to get rid of the Community Reinvestment Act, FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac).

CRA was passed in 1977. It defined discriminatory lending practice as any time you reject a higher proportion of a minority than the average mortgage rejection rate.

ding

Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and Republicans held the White House for the next 12 years. Not until Clinton took office did the justice department under Janet Reno start threatening to enforce the discriminatory lending practices provisions of CRA.

So bank started making bad loans.

But in addition to the stick wielded by the justice department, there was a carrot. Actually 2 carrots, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These 2 institutions, created by the government, were only to happy to buy up the bad loans. In fact it was written in their charters that they had to.

Then in 1999 Glass-Steagall was repealed and the bank began issuing mortgage backed securities. These were bundles of mortgages and made it easy to hide the fact that many of the mortgages were bad. These securities were mostly bought by other banks.

Finally in 2008 the roof caved in and the housing bubble broke.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banks holding mortgage backed securities were left holding the bag.

Well, actually they weren't because we bailed them out. And it was predictable. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy bad loans, the rest of the banks knew that Congress would have to bail them out.

And if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got bailed out, why not the rest of the banks?

Yes, the repeal of Glass-Steagall made the situation worse, but the root cause was to be found elsewhere.

CRA is really horrible law. It makes it illegal to reject a higher proportion of minority loan applicants than white loan applicants. But if, as it often turns out, a higher proportion of minority loan applicants are bad credit risks then banks are either going to write some bad loans, or risk being sued for discriminatory lending practices. And that is exactly what happened, many banks began writing bad loans to avoid prosecution.

Start

pause

back on

ding

If the banks and Freddie and Fannie made bad loans to avoid prosecution which I believe is a canard to blame the victims. Why did they collude with the rating agencies to rate their bundled loan securitys AAA when they knew they weren't?

The system is rigged. As Bernie says.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-\nwall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-l\nast-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/

remove the \n

So, peeps, the root cause of the last recession was poor people. How dare they ask for credit? I think all poor people should be deported. Let them live in poor countries with the rest of their ilk.

drwho's analysis has been debunked. See, e.g., http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/15/2\n475531/no-lending-to-poor-people-did-not-caus\ne-the-financial-crisis/

remove the \n s.

It's funny reading the difference between someone who knows and someone who has been told what to "know". It's easy to link to a liberal site with massive amounts of bias, that doesn't mean they're accurate. Who can explain exactly why the crisis happened, and you can C&P a link. point Who.

go

done, ng

Diane: yes poor people should be denied loans they cannot afford. That was what was not happening.

I don't deny that there was predatory lending, but unscrupulous lenders can be kept in check when there are bad consequences for bad behavior. The bail-out of the banks removed the bad consequences, and as I pointed out, the bail-out was predictable.

So unscrupulous bankers were emboldened to behave badly because government policy virtually guaranteed them a bail-out.

If you want a dose of truth, PCR. Paul Craig Roberts, former assoc Sect of the US Treasury. I also like visiting Zero Hedge for the straight internat'l skinny but most of the posters there became mired in listening to themselves bloviating ad nauseam about what's wrong with the system and other poster's opinions instead of talking respectfully with each other about real solutions, not to each other, sort of whats happening here. Everyone in his or her own mind is "right" when looking at things from their own perspective. I'm not saying I'm any different. What I want to know is how do we get back to the garden? I'm a little worried someone has already worked out a solution and has begun putting it into action, and its not pretty. Agenda 21, reducing the population by 7 billion, coupled with taking back and re-wilding open land, using genetic engineering to sterilize selected groups, there's a lot of covert shite going on and its no longer theory.

B.T.W. loaning money to a poor person is not automatically a bad loan. Its a bad loan when you loan more money to a person than they can reasonably be expected to pay back.

Finally, after you read Diane's link, try this:

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/july\naugust-2009/did-deregulation-cause-financial-\ncrisis

See for yourself if the arguments have been debunked.

ng,ng

Cato? Please. How about a link to a site that doesn't have a vested interest? (For those who may not be aware, Cato is an arm of the Koch Brothers.)

drwho: I can agree that loans should not be made to those who cannot afford to pay back, and that loans in excess of the collateral value of the items aren't a good idea. Poor people are NOT responsible.

Diane, just to set the record straight I never blamed the poor people. You put those words in my mouth. I'm blaming too much government regulation.

Cato? Yes. The logical fallacy of poisoning the well does not negate the arguments they make.

Koch brothers...and next you will mention Blackwater or Halliburton.

B.T.W I met Eric Prince. I sat next to him at the bar in a Green Mill restaurant and struck up a conversation. He is a thoroughly decent human being.

Oops, that was Erik Prince I met, founder of Blackwater.

I was wrong. Repeal of Glass-Steagall did not allow commercial banks to unload their sub-prime mortgages in mortgage backed securities, they could and did do that under Glass-Steagall. So repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the financial troubles of 2008!

done

is there anyone to mute the chat?

These past 7 days have been nothing but nauseating senseless drivel...

about BS.

can I just NOT have the chat window?

Does all of the this ridiculous waste of valuable pixels on a worthless discussion about nothing that matters have to be on the screen?

Curious.

if you click "my friends" it will take the chat away

Thank you!

for some reason, after 10 or so years, all of a sudden people brought the discussions in their real life which no one cared to hear, in here where no one still cares to hear, but unlike their real life, there is no way to turn them off or tune them out...they keep driveling...

appreciate the heads up. TCE

yw

Oh, man, TCE, whaddya have to go and tell him for?

go

done

I would have called it a Medium. Several good virtuals. 16.