4 ms·
> the encryption here is obstructing justice No, it isn't. The phone they're trying to break into was the shooter's work phone, provided by his employer. He ph
by komaromy 11y ago
> the encryption here is obstructing justice
No, it isn't. The phone they're trying to break into was the shooter's work phone, provided by his employer. He physically destroyed his personal phone before the acts in question. The idea that he kept relevant information on his work phone, which he left intact, is absurd.
- FreedomToCreate 11y agoThere is a probability that it may not contain anything, but this fact doesn't disprove the notion that encryption can be used to obstruct justice in future cases. (What the probability is though is hard for me to predict as I don't have enough information, but assuming he didn't have any slip ups on his work phone is a bad assumption. If there is a 1 percent chance that future attacks of similar scope could be prevented by knowledge gathered about this case, is it not our obligation to find out? Its a complex issue that the courts and media will play out over the next few months)
- joshka 11y agoI'm against the FBI's actions here, but your argument against it doesn't make sense. Did the shooter take the phone with him when meeting with accomplices? If so, perhaps there's GPS info on the phone. What are the gaps in standard behavior (i.e. phone turned off...). Are these times where the FBI should dig deeper to discover the actions of the shooter? The idea that bulk collection of metadata is objectionable is something we're seeing in civilized technical circles. Individual collection of the same is even worse.