Welcome to Our WirelessAdvisor Community!

You are viewing our forums as a GUEST. Please join us so you can post and view all the pictures.
Registration is easy, fast and FREE!

Tim Cook Refuses To Comply With Fed Court Order

Discussion in 'The Roaming Zone' started by palandri, Feb 17, 2016.

  1. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    SAN FRANCISCO — Apple said on Wednesday that it would oppose and challenge a federal court order to help the F.B.I. unlock an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0

    I am trying to figure this out and a couple of things could be happening.

    Tim Cook is trying to look like a martyr for privacy rights, but it's a battle he won't win. If he doesn't comply with the federal court order, he could be thrown in jail for contempt of court.

    and/or


    The FBI already knows how to hack the phone and wanted this reaction from Tim Cook, so attackers will continue to use or increase their use of his phone since they know how to hack it.

    Tim Cook also needs to realize that an intelligent service could covertly offer one of his employees a couple of million dollars to add a hidden script to the OS so there is a backdoor.
     
    KevinJames and charlyee like this.
  2. KevinJames

    KevinJames WA's 1st retired mod
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    4,044
    Likes Received:
    739
    Location:
    Central Valley NorCA
    My Phone:
    Samsung S7-Edge
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T & Verizon
    @palandri: Yeah, I have got to agree that there are probably things happening behind the scenes that we don't see, both with Apple and the FBI. If Tim is trying to be, as you put it, some sort of martyr, he also needs to realize that the victims of this crime will probably hate Apple for "aiding and abetting."

    I could see if there were some "doubt" of possible innocence on the perpetrators of this crime. Or, I could see if there was some doubt about the FBI's claims. But in this case, it seems Tim truly is obstructing justice.
     
    palandri likes this.
  3. dmapr

    dmapr Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,398
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    My Phone:
    Pixel XL
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon Wireless; MTS
    I'm sure Tim Cook isn't trying to be a martyr and there must be lawyers at work trying to determine whether the order to unlock is legal or not. I don't see him openly breaking the law if the order isn't in the gray area.
     
    palandri likes this.
  4. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    It's pretty odd to say the least. I am sure the Feds got a lot of information from the wireless carrier, since they keep records. Snowden makes it sound like the intelligent agencies could hack anything and does.

    The phone was actually owned by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search. You would think it would be enough if the owner of the phone gave their consent to search.

    I could actually see some countries that aren't hip to privacy rights actually banning the phone.
     
  5. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    I would think so. Given the evidence, I can't see any grey areas in the request, then again I am not a lawyer.
     
  6. dmapr

    dmapr Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,398
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    My Phone:
    Pixel XL
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon Wireless; MTS
    Neither am I (nor Tim Cook AFAIK) but I'm sure he's got an army of them at his disposal :)
     
    palandri likes this.
  7. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    This is what I learned from a NPR newscast his morning. Two things are in play here.

    1. Apple cannot ( with the level of encryption and security, fairly recent, since Snowden days), give assess to this particular iPhone. It just cannot be done.

    2. The judicial actions are asking Apple to "create " a back door for future access to new incidents.

    The fear is that, once a 'back door' is created(again), the governments have access for all individuals and all governments do ( foreign).

    At issue for Apple ( and Google, ATT, etc)) is they got burned by both some of the public and some US legislative action, for giving access under the Patriot Act. And via Snowden, the US got burned too.

    I think Apple is wanting a firm US stance, and responsibility for asking for this 'back door', implying public consent to the consequences to public privacy.

    It also has an implication for US products overseas, for all products, and trust.

    Finally, Apple is saying to the government, ' if you did a better job of monitoring action of these individuals first, via tracking visa, travel and passports, AND gun, ammunition sales ', that tragedy could have prevented.

    I believe that is the legal arguments. Personally, I'm on the fence. I don't know what the right balance is.

    But I am certain that the argument is nothing that can be done today to unlock that particular iPhone in question. That ship has sailed. The legal arguments is being made for future access and that has invasion of privacy consequences, all of which we went through with the Snowden revelations.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    palandri likes this.
  8. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    I can understand Apple not wanting to make a backdoor.

    I don't believe that cracking this one phone puts all the other new phones at risk.

    I also find it hard to believe that our intelligent agency can't take the phone apart chip by chip to bypass the security and get into the memory.

    Depending on the outcome of all this, it could affect the sale of their phones in other countries. They could be banned.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
     
  9. charlyee

    charlyee Ultimate Insanity
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    9,892
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    135
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    My Phone:
    iPhone X
    Wireless Provider(s):
    at&t/Airtel/Turkcell
    The information appears to be rather confusing. According to CNN, being able to unlock this particular 5c is what the government wants. That's what the first paragraph starts with.

    However later in the article it talks about a permanent method to a "backdoor".

    I am on the fence on this as well.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/index.html


    Sent from my iPhone.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    palandri likes this.
  10. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    @palandri it began with iOS 8

    ""For devices running iOS 8 or higher, Apple would not have the technical ability to do what the government requests — take possession of a password protected device from the government and extract unencrypted user data from that device for the government," Apple said in its letter, which was obtained by The Wall Street Journal. "Among the security features in iOS 8 is a feature that prevents anyone without the device’s passcode from accessing the device’s encrypted data. This includes Apple."

    Apple said it does have the "technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data" from iPhones running iOS 7, but its compliance with government requests could "threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand."

    http://www.techinsider.io/apple-cant-give-governments-your-data-2015-10


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    palandri likes this.
  11. dmapr

    dmapr Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,398
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    My Phone:
    Pixel XL
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon Wireless; MTS
    They can probably get to the encrypted data, but they probably won't be able to crack it for a number of years. AES-256 (which is what I believe iOS 8 uses) can't be brute-forced using today's computing power in a reasonable timeframe.
     
    palandri likes this.
  12. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    The Times has a good article today.

    Unfortunately the FBI is taking a popular company and a horrible event to gain access and gain a precedent bypassing congressional action.

    Once set, China would ask the same, and from Google too.

    Does it seem to anyone else that his employer should have insisted on the password, if they owned the phone???

    "In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result.

    That set up a confrontation with police and prosecutors, who want the companies to build, in essence, a master key that can be used to get around the encryption. The technology companies say that creating such a key would have disastrous consequences for privacy.

    “The F.B.I. may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a back door,” Mr. Cook wrote. “And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

    As Apple noted, the F.B.I., instead of asking Congress to pass legislation resolving the encryption fight, has proposed what appears to be a novel reading of the All Writs Act of 1789."


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    palandri likes this.
  13. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
  14. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    We'll see what happens. I've heard this will go all the way up to the Supreme court. I can see China and a bunch of other countries banning the sale of the phone
     
  15. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    Why? China has been asking Apple for a backdoor entry the last couple of years. They would enjoy this access. If I understand this, Google is affected too.


    If Apple wins, then it is a status quo.

    IMHO, this is a ploy by the government to pressure a liberal, people friendly company, using a scary recent terrorist act.

    I doubt there is little useful information on the phone, since it seemed as a lone act.

    In reality, the FBI is trying to set a precedent for a backdoor via the courts, knowing that our congressman and senate lack the gumption and will to place their names on legislation.

    I think Apple has stated that if the US Congress passes a law for requiring this, they would comply. But they would object to complying to a backdoor, giving up protected privacy, without lawmakers taking responsibility.

    I'm still on the fence, since I support the fight on terrorism. And wonder why a state agency would allow a state owned phone to be locked.

    Also, this battle seems to center on the ' 10 tries and erase the phone ' issue. That is an OPTION on the iOS. Not a requirement.

    The media is misreporting this.





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    palandri likes this.
  16. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    We are just talking about software here. I think they could force the phone to update automatically and eliminate the 10 tries. One way or another, I am certain the government will hack that phone.

    I was looking on Twitter tonight and it seems to be about 50-50, half supporting Apple and half supporting the government. People are hash tagging boycott Apple products.
     
    charlyee likes this.
  17. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    @palandri You have to remember that this affects Google Android phones too. And Google, Microsoft are in lock step with Apple on this.

    But you're right: the government is using the blackmail of public opinion/ sales to force Apple to act.

    But, I think, the ' just this phone' idea is a red herring that the public is being misled about.

    The Auto Erase is optional ( the same with Android?). What is being asked from Apple: code a way to remotely update a locked phone's OS to remove or change that switch to off. Then a brute force method to run through password combinations is allowed.

    Creating a way to remote update iOS is currently not allowed, for an locked device. The iOS software may be downloaded, but only the user allows installation. Allowing that would make every iPhone liable for theft, the password discovered, and the fingerprint ID changed. BIG DEAL!!!

    Creating that hack— and real hackers will find it. And the government (ours and others) will want it too.

    I sympathize with both the FBI and Apple. I've experienced the affects of mass murder in a town.

    Upsetting to me is that our congress is unwilling to 'unlock' the power of NRA lobbying — we cannot monitor the unusual large purchase of ammunition by an individual; track the sales of guns, or even allow the CDC to research causes of gun violence! (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence) The NRA controls congress.

    All of which could have prevented this occurrence in CA. So would, perhaps, proactively having a back door into phones, something the NSA had before Snowdon. And something that Congress was upset with the NSA having. So now the FBI wants it. Director Comely has made that very clear in statements last year. So it is trying to get companies to volunteer that methodology as opposed to congress placing their political careers on the line to reduce gun violence.

    My rant.

    PS: I read that Apple has given access to the iPhone iCloud backup. But the user turned off back ups for the most recent 1 1/2 months. That seems to support Apple's contention that it is about the device, not the info.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    #17 viewfly, Feb 18, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
    charlyee and palandri like this.
  18. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    The image I am getting from this is it would have been so much easier for Tim Cook to quietly/covertly compile with the FBI to the best of his ability on this one phone, but rather he decided to be a 21st century Paul Revere and instead of crying the British are coming, he's hopping on his horse and crying the government is coming.

    Then again, it could all be a ploy by the Government to get more people to use his phone thinking it's safe, but in reality they have already discovered an easy way to hack his phones.
     
  19. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    Espousing paranoia in the second paragraph, but not having paranoia that the first paragraph would not be limited to 'this one phone' seems inconsistent to me.

    The best security is to have no recoverable key. One just accepts the risk that all data is lost if the key is lost. That is the model that Apple and Google currently use, for people that use passwords.

    I guess if it was a iPhone 6, they could take a severed finger and unlock it. :)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    palandri likes this.
  20. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    A couple of things.

    I've read some of the wildest tweets on twitter like, Why is Tim Cook trying to protect the privacy rights of a terrorist cadaver, but I realize the issue is bigger than that.

    When I went to college in the last 70's, I was on the federal work study program and worked in the government depository of the library. There were a lot of congressional hearing on U.S. involvement in the overthrowing of the Chilean government. I started reading them all as they came in, and I'll tell you, it read like a script from a mission impossible episode. Even President Ford admitting he had to lie due to it being an issue of national security. I was amazed.
     
    charlyee likes this.
  21. dmapr

    dmapr Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,398
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    My Phone:
    Pixel XL
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon Wireless; MTS
    My $.02: fight against terrorism is good. Backdoor is bad. Once a backdoor is created there's no guarantee the scheme won't be broken into. I assume the effort to protect it will be stronger than the one that protected the master key for Blu-Ray playback, but so will be the effort to break it. IMHO the cracking of the backdoor is not the question of if, but when.
     
    charlyee and palandri like this.
  22. charlyee

    charlyee Ultimate Insanity
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    9,892
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    135
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    My Phone:
    iPhone X
    Wireless Provider(s):
    at&t/Airtel/Turkcell
    Or the 5s instead of a 5C :)

    Replying to an earlier post - if it is a company issued device, we only required that it be password protected. They don't ask for the password itself, although there maybe software built into it that allows them to know it. That was the BB days, now we can use our own device either BB or iOS and we have to run a script that is emailed to us before getting access, that script contains a randomly generated password.

    That's my 2 cents reply to your musings of why did the employer not know the password.


    Sent from my iPhone.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    palandri likes this.
  23. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    Yeah, I think that is true. Although in my corporate days ( with any phone and my iPhone ), we were required to use passwords, that they didn't know, but corporate had the ability to erase the phone remotely. Probably they could access as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  24. charlyee

    charlyee Ultimate Insanity
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    9,892
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    135
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    My Phone:
    iPhone X
    Wireless Provider(s):
    at&t/Airtel/Turkcell
    Yes, I forgot that part. The company reserves the right to erase the phone remotely. Actually at my previous company, someone sued the company because all their grandchildren's pictures had been erased and supposedly he had not reported it stolen or misplaced.


    Sent from my iPhone.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    viewfly likes this.
  25. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    I just turned on my 'erase after 10 tries option'

    There is some legal quagmire over a whether a person can be required to unlock their own phone for police. 5 th amendment issues.

    Courts settle in both directions


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  26. palandri

    palandri Former Palm Guy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    811
    Location:
    Chicago
    My Phone:
    Pixel 3
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Project Fi
    Every once and a while, I'll get a phone to use from a contractor. Everyone I know in the field never uses the contractors phone for personal use. We'll all carry two phones when that happens. Then about half the guys will turn the phone off at the end of their work shift. There's a stipulation in our contract that if they want us to be on call after our work shift they have to pay us.
     
  27. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    We were allowed to use our personal phones and access company mail, etc.

    But it required a layer to allow remote swiping.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  28. charlyee

    charlyee Ultimate Insanity
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    9,892
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    135
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    My Phone:
    iPhone X
    Wireless Provider(s):
    at&t/Airtel/Turkcell
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    viewfly likes this.
  29. viewfly

    viewfly Mobile RF Advisor
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,999
    Likes Received:
    848
    My Phone:
    iPhone XS Space Grey
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T; Tmobile SIM only
    I read that a republican senator from North Carolina wants to write legislation to punish companies like Apple from complying with court orders.

    Isn't there a punishment already in place for not complying?

    I'm still in the fence. But stuff like this makes my blood boil. Our legislators spend more political capital protecting the privacy rights of gun owners than the privacy rights of phone users.

    Phones don't kill people either.

    If congress wishes to allow the invasion of privacy of people they should place their political stamp on it, and include the full collection of gun owner stats and purchases too. And not expect companies to remove their political risks in a lopsided manner.

    I suppose one day when technology allows hooking up our brains to be read we will have to give that right up too?

    Anyways this article was interesting today

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/a-yearlong-road-to-a-standoff-with-the-fbi.html


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    palandri and charlyee like this.
  30. JWA

    JWA New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    38
    I agree with Apple's response 100%. I'm mostly surprised by how little the public seems to understand about what the FBI/judge has asked for. I see a lot of incomplete understanding from people/groups that I would have assumed understood the various angles.

    There are number of facets to this.

    One of Apple's benefits is that they don't mine and sell your data for advertising or other uses, and they have gone so far as to build in default encryption that auto-generates a key that even they can't get into. This is a major philosophical difference compared to the other "free" services from the rest of the big tech companies, where your data is their product. The old adage in the tech world goes that "if you aren't paying for the product, you ARE the product. After the NSA details became public, you'd think that the general public would applaud truly private systems.

    The court order was not that Apple gets the data from this one phone, it was that Apple builds a workaround tool, which is only theoretically possible on this older device and which would work for all older iOS devices, and gives it to the FBI. That's hugely overreaching. As a business owner, I also note that there's no intent to compensate them for the time and resources that it would take to do this.

    The way Apple worded their response, they are particularly rejecting the use of the ancient "All Writs" law, a 150 year old precedent that held that the courts can make up the rules on the fly if no specific law covers something. This is a shocking breach of the system of checks and balances that we have all agreed to. Apple clearly would prefer defined rules of engagement, and I think that they hope that this will force the issue and that the details will be hashed out more publicly than the FISA courts where the company is barred from acknowledging that the laws or any requests and data sharing even exist.

    As to the fact that the phone was owned by the employer, a public county department no less, I'm not sure how that matters. They should have had a requirement that if the phone was stolen/lost/gotten by anyone other than the intended user that it would protect any of their sensitive data from exposure. It clearly is. However, I don't think that we want employers to require you to use one of their devices and in exchange grant them access to all of your private data.

    Definitely an interesting case, and it will be interesting to see where it goes. From the general reaction having shown that the public by and large expects that they have no true privacy, it could end up in an unfortunate place where that becomes true. I'd prefer that the public fought to see more systems like this put in place, making true control of your data the standard.
     
    palandri, charlyee and viewfly like this.

Share This Page

Copyright 1997-2018 Wireless Advisor™, LLC. All rights reserved. All registered and unregistered trademarks are the property of their respective holders.
WirelessAdvisor.com is not associated by ownership or membership with any cellular, PCS or wireless service provider companies and is not meant to be an endorsement of any company or service. Some links on these pages may be paid advertising or paid affiliate programs.

Positive SSL
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice