3 ms·
>If there is a subpoena against that phone, I don't really have an issue with the government gaining full access to it. Say the year is 2000 and the US governm
by Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>If there is a subpoena against that phone, I don't really have an issue with the government gaining full access to it.
Say the year is 2000 and the US government has a subpoena to access the phone because they want to collect evidence to prosecute a homosexual couple for having consensual sex (which back in 2000 was illegal in some states). The reasoning behind the subpoena matters, and 'OMG TERRORIST' has been so abused that I take issue with it by default.
- incepted 11y agoThen take issues with illegal subpoenas. Siding with Apple on the current Apple/government discussion is trying to cure a symptom instead of a cause.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago>Then take issues with illegal subpoenas. There was nothing illegal in my example. Maybe now it would be after Lawrence v. Texas, but not before. Saying one should support the law because it is the law is supporting the tyranny of the law.
- incepted 11y agoI never said that, I recommended to address the cause (unjustified subpoenas) rather than the symptom (the government asking for access to phones owned by criminals or alleged criminals).