3 ms·
They're effectively asking for a backdoor, plain and simple. I'd be highly surprised if Apple complied with this court order. Even if they removed said feature
by yarou 11y ago
They're effectively asking for a backdoor, plain and simple. I'd be highly surprised if Apple complied with this court order.
Even if they removed said feature, the only way to decrypt the FS would be if and only if the owner had a weak strength passcode.
Can somebody explain to me how this warrant is not a direct violation of this individual's 4th amendment rights?
This seems like yet another case where the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are selectively applied based on your skin color.
- jack9 11y ago> Can somebody explain to me how this warrant is not a direct violation of this individual's 4th amendment rights? The person is dead and it's reasonable and the 4th isn't even applicable (depending on the interpretation of "make a backdoor in a product" as opposed to "we're looking at someone's data they own on a device they own"). Even the very liberal interpretation of the 4th doesn't apply here, when the right violation would be the act of accessing the data, not just asking to have a way to look at it. Techdirt is full of fiction by design, so I'm not surprised by the confusion.