4 ms·

This is the smartest, most well consider comment on this whole topic, and I'm sorry to say you're likely to be down voted into oblivion :)

nindalf 11y ago
Not really. Consider this - right now a key part of the discussion is whether compelling Apple to write this software is an undue burden. Most reasonable people would agree that it would take quite some effort. However, if Apple did it once for the terrorist's phone (which no one objects to) then every subsequent request would have minimal burden attached to it. Thus they would have to comply to any subsequent request to unlock, even if the phone didn't belong to a terrorist. What if it only belonged to a whistleblower or humans rights activist? Too bad, minimal burden. If it becomes common enough, Congress wouldn't face much opposition if they passed a law saying that the status quo (on demand unlocking) be maintained by smartphone manufacturers. I suggest you actually read up on the filings from both sides before talking so much.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  (Trying hard not to take the bait at the end) But, by fighting this case on the all writs, they're basically staking their whole position on: "the govt can't compel a private firm to work on their behalf". If that wins, then what's to stop the govt requesting master keys for iOS? Much less work, bypasses all writs. My point is: the FBI did this by the book (court order). You and most everyone else here makes the assumption that granting this means the FBI can do whatever the hell they like from there on in. That's not true. They would still need court orders.
  - momerath 11y ago
    De jure, you're right; de facto, we're fucked.
  - matwood 11y ago
    It is about the future of encryption. If the FBI wins and gets Apple to unlock the phone, will Apple be held in contempt later when they make a phone that they makes them unable to comply with a court order?
    - einarvollset 11y ago
      Clearly not. It does raise the issue of whether you think this would be a good thing for Apple to do. I have not made up my mind on that topic.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

nindalf 11y ago

Not really. Consider this - right now a key part of the discussion is whether compelling Apple to write this software is an undue burden. Most reasonable people would agree that it would take quite some effort. However, if Apple did it once for the terrorist's phone (which no one objects to) then every subsequent request would have minimal burden attached to it. Thus they would have to comply to any subsequent request to unlock, even if the phone didn't belong to a terrorist. What if it only belonged to a whistleblower or humans rights activist? Too bad, minimal burden. If it becomes common enough, Congress wouldn't face much opposition if they passed a law saying that the status quo (on demand unlocking) be maintained by smartphone manufacturers. I suggest you actually read up on the filings from both sides before talking so much.

einarvollset 11y ago
(Trying hard not to take the bait at the end) But, by fighting this case on the all writs, they're basically staking their whole position on: "the govt can't compel a private firm to work on their behalf". If that wins, then what's to stop the govt requesting master keys for iOS? Much less work, bypasses all writs. My point is: the FBI did this by the book (court order). You and most everyone else here makes the assumption that granting this means the FBI can do whatever the hell they like from there on in. That's not true. They would still need court orders.
- momerath 11y ago
  De jure, you're right; de facto, we're fucked.
- matwood 11y ago
  It is about the future of encryption. If the FBI wins and gets Apple to unlock the phone, will Apple be held in contempt later when they make a phone that they makes them unable to comply with a court order?
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    Clearly not. It does raise the issue of whether you think this would be a good thing for Apple to do. I have not made up my mind on that topic.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]