3 ms·

I'll open the champagne when Congress actually votes on some legislation to prevent the FBI's request from happening. The congressional committee does not repre

I'll open the champagne when Congress actually votes on some legislation to prevent the FBI's request from happening. The congressional committee does not represent all of congress, and I don't know how many congressmen would still rally behind the "No privacy ever because TERRORISM" cry if it came to a vote. This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue, and it's difficult to predict how a vote would go.

joering2 11y ago
But what has happens is weakening their position. Remember - they went to judge - judge said no - they suggest congress - no congress is giving them no as well - going back to the judge(s) will definitely get them annoyed.
rqebmm 11y ago
> This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue. I think that's great, because it means there's a chance it actually gets addressed.
sathackr 11y ago
This will probably be decided, like most constitutional issues, by a Judge that will be forced to interpret the 4th/5th amendment, in the ever changing light of 'reasonableness', as it applies to the case at hand. It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me. If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' -- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  This doesn't need to become a constitutional argument. Congress can pass a law forbidding the government from forcing a manufacturer to build a back door. Simple as that.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    Apple argues (correctly IMO) that Congress already did that in the language of CALEA.

joering2 11y ago

But what has happens is weakening their position. Remember - they went to judge - judge said no - they suggest congress - no congress is giving them no as well - going back to the judge(s) will definitely get them annoyed.

rqebmm 11y ago

> This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue. I think that's great, because it means there's a chance it actually gets addressed.

sathackr 11y ago

This will probably be decided, like most constitutional issues, by a Judge that will be forced to interpret the 4th/5th amendment, in the ever changing light of 'reasonableness', as it applies to the case at hand. It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me. If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' -- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
This doesn't need to become a constitutional argument. Congress can pass a law forbidding the government from forcing a manufacturer to build a back door. Simple as that.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Apple argues (correctly IMO) that Congress already did that in the language of CALEA.