3 ms·
This is precisely why I think the San Bernardino case is ideal for the FBI to establish this precedent. If they actually wanted access to the device they could
by nindalf 11y ago
This is precisely why I think the San Bernardino case is ideal for the FBI to establish this precedent. If they actually wanted access to the device they could have served Apple a National Security Letter and had it done on the sly. But they're taking the public route on this one because of how bad Apple would look if they refused to unlock the phone of a known terrorist. That's probably why Apple had to go out of their way in the letter to say that they don't want to aid or abet terrorists in any way (something that's fairly obvious to us).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nl 11y agothey could have served Apple a National Security Letter and had it done on the sly NSL's don't work like that. A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States federal government to gather information for national security purposes... By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.[1] Apple would challenge a NSL on three grounds: 1) The subject of this investigation in this is dead. The secrecy requirements are unrequired. 2) What the FBI wants here is not information, it is to force Apple to do work. That's why they've had to try the Writs act - it's a pretty unprecedented thing to try 3) The information requested is not "non-content" I'd say Apple would have a good case on any of these grounds, and the FBI knows it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter