2 ms·
>The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice. This is a big fat lie.
by ryanlol 11y ago
>The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice.
This is a big fat lie.
The way US legal system works makes any case like this about setting a precedent, be it intentional or not. The fact that the FBI director goes and straight up lies about this just supports the theory that it may very well be intentional.
- mirkules 11y agoI don't believe this is tied to the San Bernardino case. The topic of weakening encryption has been brewing for the past 6-12 months, and the FBI is using the SB case as a convenient hammer to put a nail in the coffin of encryption. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/28/the-fbi-used-to-recommend-encryption-now-they-want-to-ban-it http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/28/the-fbi... http://www.dailydot.com/politics/second-crypto-war-hearing-washington/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/second-crypto-war-hearing-w... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-has-no-idea-how-to-solve-its-encryption-problem http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-has-no-idea-how-to-... These were all about a year ago.
- ryanlol 11y ago>I don't believe this is tied to the San Bernardino case. The topic of weakening encryption has been brewing for the past 6-12 months, and the FBI is using the SB case as a convenient hammer to put a nail in the coffin of encryption. This is about much more than just weakening encryption. I think Congressman Lieu put it well >This FBI court order, by compelling a private sector company to write new software, is essentially making that company an arm of law-enforcement. Private sector companies are not—and should not be—an arm of government or law enforcement.