3 ms·

There's a lot of cynicism in this thread. Would you prefer that they try to force Apple's hand anyway, even though they might have found another way that makes

There's a lot of cynicism in this thread. Would you prefer that they try to force Apple's hand anyway, even though they might have found another way that makes the issue moot?

jacquesm 11y ago
> Would you prefer that they try to force Apple's hand anyway, even though they might have found another way that makes the issue moot? Yes, very much so. That way we can put this behind us rather than to wait for the inevitable re-run with conditions carefully arranged to be more favorable in order to set precedent.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Their legal reasoning heavily relies on Apple being the only party capable of assisting with unlocking the phone. They are talking about compelling someone, so if there's a possibility that it's not necessary, they have a duty to find out. Also, US courts don't rule on abstract ideas or hypothetical cases. No "case or controversy", no judicial standing. If the FBI can unlock the device without compelling Apple, there's no controversy since the FBI agrees Apple wouldn't be required to help in that case.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    They went to a great deal of effort to start this case, it would be preposterous if they hadn't exhausted other routes beforehand. They're quite obviously backing away from it on purpose.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, but that line of reasoning requires you to believe this was about the phone's contents to begin with and it would take a serious act of suspension of disbelief to go down that particular road with what's known about this whole sordid affair to date. It's simply the FBI using a crisis to attempt to expand their powers. See also: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/encryption-and-privacy-are-larger-issues-than-fighting-terrorism-clarke-says http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/encryption-and-priva...
  - woodman 11y ago
    > Their legal reasoning heavily relies on Apple being the only party capable of assisting with unlocking the phone. That has been known to be false since day one, as methods of bypassing the reset have long been known that don't require Apple's help. The problem for the FBI is that these methods can't be used on a large scale, or without the targets' knowledge.
__jal 11y ago
Let's try that the other way around. What statements can you point to that lead to the conclusion that the FBI is acting in good faith?
Zigurd 11y ago
The FBI looks as if they are lying about the situation. The lawyers who started this adventure deserve to be jeered. We don't need people like that in our government.
njharman 11y ago
This was never about getting access to that phone's data. It was about getting tools / precedents set so they can use them on every other phone the seize in the future. Just cause it's cynical does not mean it's not accurate.

There's a lot of cynicism in this thread. Would you prefer that they try to force Apple's hand anyway, even though they might have found another way that makes the issue moot?

jacquesm 11y ago

> Would you prefer that they try to force Apple's hand anyway, even though they might have found another way that makes the issue moot? Yes, very much so. That way we can put this behind us rather than to wait for the inevitable re-run with conditions carefully arranged to be more favorable in order to set precedent.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Their legal reasoning heavily relies on Apple being the only party capable of assisting with unlocking the phone. They are talking about compelling someone, so if there's a possibility that it's not necessary, they have a duty to find out. Also, US courts don't rule on abstract ideas or hypothetical cases. No "case or controversy", no judicial standing. If the FBI can unlock the device without compelling Apple, there's no controversy since the FBI agrees Apple wouldn't be required to help in that case.
- jonknee 11y ago
  They went to a great deal of effort to start this case, it would be preposterous if they hadn't exhausted other routes beforehand. They're quite obviously backing away from it on purpose.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Yes, but that line of reasoning requires you to believe this was about the phone's contents to begin with and it would take a serious act of suspension of disbelief to go down that particular road with what's known about this whole sordid affair to date. It's simply the FBI using a crisis to attempt to expand their powers. See also: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/encryption-and-privacy-are-larger-issues-than-fighting-terrorism-clarke-says http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/encryption-and-priva...
- woodman 11y ago
  > Their legal reasoning heavily relies on Apple being the only party capable of assisting with unlocking the phone. That has been known to be false since day one, as methods of bypassing the reset have long been known that don't require Apple's help. The problem for the FBI is that these methods can't be used on a large scale, or without the targets' knowledge.

__jal 11y ago

Let's try that the other way around. What statements can you point to that lead to the conclusion that the FBI is acting in good faith?

Zigurd 11y ago

The FBI looks as if they are lying about the situation. The lawyers who started this adventure deserve to be jeered. We don't need people like that in our government.

njharman 11y ago

This was never about getting access to that phone's data. It was about getting tools / precedents set so they can use them on every other phone the seize in the future. Just cause it's cynical does not mean it's not accurate.