4 ms·

> There is an authentic need to get at the data on that phone What is the authentic need? The shooters are dead. Do we have reason to believe that there is evi

by jbapple 11y ago

> There is an authentic need to get at the data on that phone What is the authentic need? The shooters are dead. Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?

tptacek 11y ago
Sure, of course that's a legitimate concern: they may have talked to other people planning attacks.
- jbapple 11y ago
  > they may have talked to other people planning attacks. I'm not particularly concerned with crimes that we believe "may have" occurred. Of course, they may have. Anything may have happened -- I'm asking for more than just correlation that criminals know criminals. Do we have any evidence, or even any hints or clues, that the phone contains evidence that would help solve or prevent any crimes?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here. The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks. They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened.
    - jbapple 11y ago
      > They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened. Right, but we don't go searching everyone's papers just in case they are conspirators. If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right? Is there any evidence, any at all, that the shooters collaborated with anyone? > The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks. I'm not questioning the "legitimate concern", but I don't think "legitimate concern" should be sufficient to get a warrant.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Well, it is.
        jbapple 11y ago
        > Well, it is. I didn't say it isn't; I said it shouldn't be.
      - ars 11y ago
        > If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right? Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. This wasn't some random emotional attack like a bar fight. Stop setting up nonsensical strawmen for your arguments, argue the hard cases not the easy ones. If your argument/objection can survive the hard cases then you have something, arguing the easy cases is meaningless.
        jbapple 11y ago
        > Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. What, in your opinion, are the limits of that investigation. So 1. Alice announces she's looking to attack someone. 2. She attacks Bob. 3. She dies. I gather that, in your opinion, we can search her possessions. Let's say she has a living mother and a best friend who died a week before the attack. Can we search her mother's things? How about her best friend's?
        ars 11y ago
        Humans are not computers with fixed rules. You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that. I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.
BWStearns 11y ago
If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? To be clear, I don't think the order to Apple is necessarily altogether a good idea or is even going to produce the desired results, but your complaint seems to be with the fact that this data is being pursued at all. Edit to reply: > Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos? The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0]. Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased? > Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? I'm pretty sure neither "high likelihood" nor "authentic need" were being used as a term of art here, but I would bet that any judge would view the commission of murder declaredly for an organized militant group to be probable cause that there is information pertaining to more criminal activity by that group on these two's phones and in their communications. Do you really view this as a government overreach or are you just trolling? Under what circumstances, if any, would you see as justified a search of someone's email? phone? house? So far you've equivocated between living in a bad neighborhood and committing murder-suicide. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-...
- jbapple 11y ago
  > reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? > If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos?
  - 11y ago
stevetrewick 11y ago
>evidence 14 dead people and a stack of unused guns and bombs.
- tremon 11y ago
  two dead attackers, stack confiscated. case closed.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Exactly how do you know that the case is now "closed"? It sounds like you're just making an assumption. The state is too, but the cost of their assumption --- that there is valuable data to gather from the phone --- is very low, and the cost of your assumption, if you're wrong, is immense.
    - tremon 11y ago
      Please do keep up with the context :) I didn't feel the need to elaborate because my parent thought one word was sufficient, but let me state the full context to my thought process: > > > Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone? > > 14 dead people and a stack of unused guns and bombs. > two dead attackers, stack confiscated. case closed. If the "evidence" for future crimes is merely some dead criminals and the ammunition they didn't get to use, there is no probable cause for further investigation. Hence, the case should be closed.
      - tremon 11y ago
        Nice. Next time I'll refrain from explaining myself.

by jbapple 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

Sure, of course that's a legitimate concern: they may have talked to other people planning attacks.

jbapple 11y ago
> they may have talked to other people planning attacks. I'm not particularly concerned with crimes that we believe "may have" occurred. Of course, they may have. Anything may have happened -- I'm asking for more than just correlation that criminals know criminals. Do we have any evidence, or even any hints or clues, that the phone contains evidence that would help solve or prevent any crimes?
- tptacek 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here. The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks. They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened.
  - jbapple 11y ago
    > They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened. Right, but we don't go searching everyone's papers just in case they are conspirators. If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right? Is there any evidence, any at all, that the shooters collaborated with anyone? > The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks. I'm not questioning the "legitimate concern", but I don't think "legitimate concern" should be sufficient to get a warrant.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Well, it is.
      - jbapple 11y ago
        > Well, it is. I didn't say it isn't; I said it shouldn't be.
    - ars 11y ago
      > If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right? Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. This wasn't some random emotional attack like a bar fight. Stop setting up nonsensical strawmen for your arguments, argue the hard cases not the easy ones. If your argument/objection can survive the hard cases then you have something, arguing the easy cases is meaningless.
      - jbapple 11y ago
        > Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved. What, in your opinion, are the limits of that investigation. So 1. Alice announces she's looking to attack someone. 2. She attacks Bob. 3. She dies. I gather that, in your opinion, we can search her possessions. Let's say she has a living mother and a best friend who died a week before the attack. Can we search her mother's things? How about her best friend's?
        ars 11y ago
        Humans are not computers with fixed rules. You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that. I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.

BWStearns 11y ago

If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? To be clear, I don't think the order to Apple is necessarily altogether a good idea or is even going to produce the desired results, but your complaint seems to be with the fact that this data is being pursued at all. Edit to reply: > Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos? The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0]. Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased? > Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? I'm pretty sure neither "high likelihood" nor "authentic need" were being used as a term of art here, but I would bet that any judge would view the commission of murder declaredly for an organized militant group to be probable cause that there is information pertaining to more criminal activity by that group on these two's phones and in their communications. Do you really view this as a government overreach or are you just trolling? Under what circumstances, if any, would you see as justified a search of someone's email? phone? house? So far you've equivocated between living in a bad neighborhood and committing murder-suicide. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-...

jbapple 11y ago
> reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? > If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos?
- 11y ago

stevetrewick 11y ago

>evidence 14 dead people and a stack of unused guns and bombs.

tremon 11y ago
two dead attackers, stack confiscated. case closed.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Exactly how do you know that the case is now "closed"? It sounds like you're just making an assumption. The state is too, but the cost of their assumption --- that there is valuable data to gather from the phone --- is very low, and the cost of your assumption, if you're wrong, is immense.
  - tremon 11y ago
    Please do keep up with the context :) I didn't feel the need to elaborate because my parent thought one word was sufficient, but let me state the full context to my thought process: > > > Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone? > > 14 dead people and a stack of unused guns and bombs. > two dead attackers, stack confiscated. case closed. If the "evidence" for future crimes is merely some dead criminals and the ammunition they didn't get to use, there is no probable cause for further investigation. Hence, the case should be closed.
    - tremon 11y ago
      Nice. Next time I'll refrain from explaining myself.