5 ms·

> The FBI's stated position, "These people did a terrible thing and we have to investigate it" is pure PR How is this not a fact?

rosser 11y ago
There's nothing to investigate. Everyone except the conspiracy theorists have stipulated that these two committed the attack, and they're dead so prosecution is moot. Referring again to my point up-thread about the shooters' op-sec, there wouldn't be any useful intel on their (once again!) work phone, anyway. "Investigation" is a red-herring to disguise their actual motive.
- mc32 11y ago
  There are companies and agencies and other entities which allow employees to use their work-issued phones for personal use [some require re-imbursement]. And even if they explicitly forbade it, it's not like a perp will necessarily obey those stipulations, so it's not a forgone conclusion there would be no useful daate there.
  - rosser 11y ago
    As meticulous and careful as these two were about keeping what they were up to secret, encrypting the evidence they didn't destroy, and so-on, do you really think they're going to be stupid and sloppy enough to call Terrorist HQ on their fucking work phone? Red. Herring. EDIT: Aside, I just went down a diverting and entertaining little web-hole on the etymology of the expression "red herring". It is, indeed, a deliberate diversion: in the 19th century, fugitives would cover their tracks with smoked (red) herring, because it would put the bloodhounds off their scent.
    - mc32 11y ago
      More like dual purpose. It has legs, but they may be weak, but the possibility that they did trip up is not infinitesimal --it could be a small lead, or it could turn up nothing. Given its potential dual purpose, if I were the FBI, I'd go for it. They'd be remiss if they did not pursue this.
      - rosser 11y ago
        ...and that obligates Apple to help them — at the peril of their customers' trust — how, again?
        mc32 11y ago
        By way of a lawful court order? Customers would lose trust if Apple were negligent about their users' security but here there is no negligence. It's a court order, which Apple can contest and have and we'll see who prevails in the courts. This isn't a rogue agent knocking at the door and ransacking things.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

rosser 11y ago

There's nothing to investigate. Everyone except the conspiracy theorists have stipulated that these two committed the attack, and they're dead so prosecution is moot. Referring again to my point up-thread about the shooters' op-sec, there wouldn't be any useful intel on their (once again!) work phone, anyway. "Investigation" is a red-herring to disguise their actual motive.

mc32 11y ago
There are companies and agencies and other entities which allow employees to use their work-issued phones for personal use [some require re-imbursement]. And even if they explicitly forbade it, it's not like a perp will necessarily obey those stipulations, so it's not a forgone conclusion there would be no useful daate there.
- rosser 11y ago
  As meticulous and careful as these two were about keeping what they were up to secret, encrypting the evidence they didn't destroy, and so-on, do you really think they're going to be stupid and sloppy enough to call Terrorist HQ on their fucking work phone? Red. Herring. EDIT: Aside, I just went down a diverting and entertaining little web-hole on the etymology of the expression "red herring". It is, indeed, a deliberate diversion: in the 19th century, fugitives would cover their tracks with smoked (red) herring, because it would put the bloodhounds off their scent.
  - mc32 11y ago
    More like dual purpose. It has legs, but they may be weak, but the possibility that they did trip up is not infinitesimal --it could be a small lead, or it could turn up nothing. Given its potential dual purpose, if I were the FBI, I'd go for it. They'd be remiss if they did not pursue this.
    - rosser 11y ago
      ...and that obligates Apple to help them — at the peril of their customers' trust — how, again?
      - mc32 11y ago
        By way of a lawful court order? Customers would lose trust if Apple were negligent about their users' security but here there is no negligence. It's a court order, which Apple can contest and have and we'll see who prevails in the courts. This isn't a rogue agent knocking at the door and ransacking things.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]