3 ms·

> The issue is the precedent that is made That searching the effects of a dead terrorist is acceptable? I really don't find this objectionable in any way whats

> The issue is the precedent that is made That searching the effects of a dead terrorist is acceptable? I really don't find this objectionable in any way whatsoever. > Apple could no longer argue they had to create something to fulfill the warrant, since it was already created. Good, Apple's desires to not be subject to the laws of nations where they do business has historically hurt their customers. Even now people argue that Apple are doing this to protect their customers of which there's no evidence whatsoever.

zaroth 11y ago
Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data on a device in their possession that they have permission to search. That is all that matters. It could just as easily be a drug investigation or, as Comey said last week in front of congress, investigating a car accident.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  > Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? Please do not insult people on HN. This false dichotomy is offensive to me. > The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data on a device in their possession that they have permission to search. That is all that matters. Then why are you concerned about precedent? They have met all of the requirements to search this device. Apple is impeding them for no good reason purely to advance their corporate interests.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    You would prefer not to be queried as to the limits of your understanding, but we would prefer you stop commenting assertively on the basis of your ignorance.
- dang 11y ago
  > Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? Please be civil, regardless of how wrong you think somebody is.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151598 and marked it off-topic.

zaroth 11y ago

Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data on a device in their possession that they have permission to search. That is all that matters. It could just as easily be a drug investigation or, as Comey said last week in front of congress, investigating a car accident.

hahainternet 11y ago
> Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? Please do not insult people on HN. This false dichotomy is offensive to me. > The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data on a device in their possession that they have permission to search. That is all that matters. Then why are you concerned about precedent? They have met all of the requirements to search this device. Apple is impeding them for no good reason purely to advance their corporate interests.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  You would prefer not to be queried as to the limits of your understanding, but we would prefer you stop commenting assertively on the basis of your ignorance.
dang 11y ago
> Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? Please be civil, regardless of how wrong you think somebody is.

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151598 and marked it off-topic.